Undecidableness

Moral: Wherein we look at the mess of the Fed.

On Quora, there was some debate about whether one could use an in-the-large characterization for undecidability, namely the halting problem of Turing. In essence, sure it can be used; even though the problem has to do with whether we can know if a program will find an answer (okay, every man's view?), it does apply to the larger picture.

What gets me is that theoretic views (logic, computer science, etc.) know about this problem. But, you get cowboys (business people, financial wannabes, and such), like Ben, making decisions and changes on the fly to something that is very much driven by computers or which has a very large component that is computationally bound. These best-and-brightest types are just digging a bigger and bigger hole for all of us.

We talked, here, about unwinding a long time ago. He and she are several years late.

So, the halting problem as far as the Fed goes is this: Will Janet halt the flaying of the savers? There is a lot to talk about, but some views of late are encouraging.

---

First, this WSJ op-ed is right on: A Fine Fed Mess.

Then, Fiscal Times had a little article. Essentially, the headline said: The Troubling Truth Revealed by the Stock Market’s Nosedive. We find this chart provided by Alberto Gallo.

Ah, see the halting problem?

If Ben had done the deed at the time of the taper tantrum, we could have been better off. But, alas, no, he did not. Now, he sees some need to go negative on interest. Let's hope that Janet is not listening to such a siren call (perhaps, she's immune). 

Remarks:  Modified: 09/13/2015

08/25/2015 --

Node-it-all

Moral: Wherein we consider two seemingly disparate (but, not) views of current matters.

As an aside, Morgan Stanley is quoted as saying that it's tough to beat the S&P for several reasons. Their research says that only 20% of the actively managed little bundles of money were successful in 2014. ... You know, one might say that it's also a small percentage (overall) who can take out "gains" during boom times. When we have downturns, losses are general.

So, that may call for some dampening notions.

-- Now, for the first issue, someone used "casino" in reference to the millennials. The article called them, the Ben Franklin Generation. Too, though, they will be the youngest set when things do return to normalcy (euphemism for a reversal). So, we need to keep them in mind, as a separate group, as we discuss matters. Their emphasis on technology is short-sighted, however, when things do fall apart, we will be able to, then, get some attention upon the important issues. Which are? Well, they're scattered, by reference, throughout these posts. In total, the view is coherent, albeit integrative work may be necessary to bridge what might seem disjoint to the casual view.  

-- So, let's get to the real issue. Here and in the other blogs, we have used undecidability a lot (especially, in truth engineering). Basically, think of it as this issue: unless we have experienced a situation before, we have very little clue about things that are involved. Or, much of computing is repeat (actually, it's one of the big frames in science's process) - and, I am not talking, in particular, about issues related to deterministic views (an important concept). 

Rather, there is this proclivity toward "vertigo" that is overlooked. Why? Cleverness, essentially (a really simple analog is error-correcting code). ... Now, computation has been more of a boon than a bane, until now, for many reasons which we will go into. But, the bane aspect will become more prevalent, and I am talking more than "data-driven" hell  (Janet needs to exude the "wizard's" aura). ... So, much to discuss. But, in modeling via computer, cleverness entails compactification of sorts. Call it closure, if you would. 

The motivation is to allow decisions to be made (albeit, default reasoning can go a long way without contributing more problems) via various intricate means when normalcy will not allow itself to be found. ... In many cases, some type of thing (one might call it a node-it-all) finds itself as the basis - whether asserted or inserted, it does not matter. This "thing" has all sorts of looks; in some cases, it's hidden via a mathematical system definition. Using "node" is meant to imply an emphasis on logic and decisioning. 

And, to equate (associate), in your mind, "node" with "knowed" (yes, true, simple past tense) is not off the mark (we have a whole lot to say about that - let's, for now, defer this discussion of blindness vs delusionality. Okay?             

Finally, there has been much allusion to Facebook (FB) playing all sorts of roles in the discussion. Now, we can offer some hints. FB cannot be a node-it-all; nor, can using FB allow one to attain this state - actually, we don't have to go far beyond the "feed'ing frenzy" examples. Nor, I might add, can anything created (ah, yes, infer here as you wish, we'll get to this). That we seem to have all of this success is due to a lack of proper insight (and hubris); some say that "karma" might apply, as a concept. I say, just wait, the unexpected will bite you on the arse (do we not want that for fairness many times, albeit that we see some who seem to "play with fire" without getting burnt - how many hapless might, though, suffer from the actions of those who play?).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/28/2015

06/16/2015 -- We will start to expand upon the theme as it relates to truth engineering (concepts essential to a balanced proliferation of AI - that is, safe for all of the people, especially the hapless). ... So, what is "eating the world" now? Marissa agrees with Marc that it's software (see Marc's slides at Slideshares - there is a transcript). Some say data. ... We'll weigh in from the viewpoint outside of the mobile mania. ... Eventually.

12/28/2015 - I started using Quora in July 2015. Quora answer using know-it-all (Do-female-users-get-harassed-for-the-question-answer-they-posted-on-Quora/answer/Annika-Schauer) which state implies some type of closure (compactification). When such is displayed in science, and other realms of study, it can be very much problematic.

Saturday WSJ

Moral: Wherein we stop to smell the roses, as does the WSJ each week.

We have to love the philosophical tone of the Saturday Wall Street Journal. That is, after the five days of paying attention to the races and watching the numbers, we can step back and ask questions. Of course, some of the questions are only to be pondered; others of the questions just might lead to insights and actions.

Now, given the focus of the WSJ's readership, that action may or may not be driven by higher ideals. Yet, it's nice to think that the whole thing could be looked at systematically and with an aura of justice, even if to a minute extent. And, then, we would have some type of improvement in an environment of non-contention.

---

This week, per usual, there are several re-looks, both of the past week and further, that make a lot of sense. Seeing these, one has to wonder why all of the clamor. As in, bring in that Saturday (or Sunday) hat to work and be a nice world citizen every work day.

Here are a couple of examples.

• Spreadsheet slips - Bialik, a regular, notes the discussions about a spreadsheet error. From the verbiage, it looks to be a simple thing. Could the thing have been caught? Well, someone would have had to take time and energy to do it. From my experience, we are getting away from that (to our detriment). Checking seems to against the modern way (after all, Lean - we'll go on about that ad infinitum - says to do it right the first time). The whole notion of the "7oops7" blog deals with us getting ahead of ourselves (one of the comments stressed that some of the data was estimated -- ah, I'll show you higher-order systems feeding data from one sub-system to another as if these were obtained from sensor rather than being derived from some type of model estimate -- and similar examples). In fact, a recent post dealt with two banes: optimization and lazy evaluation. We can step up from a simple spreadsheet problem to one encased (encapsulated) in a modern development paradigm. These are hairy, folks, and can lead to contemplation of singularity (ala Kurzweil - no problem there due to undecidability). Then, we can get beyond the software and modeling and look at the basis for discussion. Economics has been known as dismal for a long while. Lots of mathematical apparatus has been overlaid on flaky foundations. Yet, we run off, during the five days of business, willy-nilly. We talk about these numbers as if they really mean something. They could, folks. But, it would require lots of effort (next bullet).  
• Dark side - Schmidt of Google visits North Korea. He's from the open side, to an extent. There are some who would push it further out. Schmidt notes the mechanical (rote) use of the system during a demonstration by the troops. What we have in the west are cadres of peers all resident in a morph'd space to which they have to focus their zombie'd eyes. North Korea believes in top down. The guy is charge's worldview rests upon himself (and, perhaps, his ancestors). We see that in the west in babyhood. Most rise above that (except for ego-centric CEO-types - too many to name). Schmidt notes that the natural urge is to get access to internet-based material, in one's own way (perhaps, for the peer-pressured younger cohort - but, not in general), and that the consequence is expression of thought (ah so, all those intellectual tweets). His thoughts about the cost to control the "natural" flow is right on. Very costly. But, Schmidt needs to realize that what he sees applies here to finance, too. As in: since the financial industry seems to run on greed, to put in the proper controls - as in, lift the view to the sophomoric level, at least -- we need to have daily quiescence and review. The cost for this would be much more than the North Korea guy would have to face. Now, to what end would be the oversight system? The type of transparency that we would need in order to have a stable financial system whose risks are handled properly. All of this is to be discussed further. Yes, banks run by monks who are not driven by profit for themselves would be nice.  

As a final note, notice that we expect our military to be self-less. You don't agree? Go join up and see it up close and personal. Still don't agree? Were you of the O-class (then, try enlisted)? Now, those who make the sacrifice daily, hourly (by the minute), are expected to support a system where fat cats, egoists, and opportunists scalp the system for their own gain. Why do you think that there is the disparity that people complain about? This unbalanced situation is age old, but it has increased the past few decades (partly due to the computer issues that we'll continue to address). Ah, I'll continue to describe this situation. 

Give me a few of those smart military types, and we'll put in the utilitarian banking system that the U.S. needs in order to lead the free world to the future. What would be lost? Silliness where culpability is never assigned, losses are socialized, and much more.

----

Briefly: the cost to maintain a supervisory system for finance would be as much as the Great Leader would need to keep North Korean's in control. Obviously, to pay for such, pockets, such as Warren's, would be a lot smaller. 

Remarks:

04/21/2013 --

Modified: 04/21/2013

Lemons problem

Moral: Wherein we nod to an Ivy school (not Harvard), in the form of Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, Markus Brunnermeier, Rong Ge, for offering insights about financial games that are remarkably accurate, in our opinion, and really bear on the issues (12/11/12 -- see: FAQ, at Princeton).

---

The title? Yes, if the buyers know that sellers only have 'lemons' (not, in any way, disparaging the wonderful fruit), then buyers will not buy (without heavy discounts) and the game ends. To whom will sellers sell?

Did we not see that with the recent affair where the bankers (and other financial types) essentially froze their gaming as they knew that they were dealing mainly with crooks (like themselves).

Liquidity left; the economy dumped. What happened?

Big Ben, and his ilk, put savers, and taxpayers, on the line to provide a huge pile of wealth so that these idiots would get back to their gaming. And, folks, we have not yet unwound from that. The chimera's rise is due, essentially, to our monies being offered to those who crapped on the economy (diaper changing, folks).

---

The 'lemon' concept is used in a very timely paper that covers some of the issues brought by computational support for finance. We have harped about that (many times).

(ACM Communications): Computational Complexity and Information Asymmetry in Financial Products. Abstract: Securitization of cash flows using financial derivatives transformed the financial industry over the last three decades. Derivatives have attracted criticism, but others say problems with derivatives would disappear with use of more accurate financial models, more vigilance by buyers and better governmental oversight.

---

The authors talk about financial derivatives, their use, and the troubles. The example derivatives are based upon mortgages, which is a timely subject. The use, supposedly, is because we can: modern environment, global scope, computers, mathematics, oodles of money, lots of suckers, and so on. The troubles?

Well, they are several, and we'll get technical about these later. For now, let's just itemize them with some comment.

• The lemons problem - as mentioned above, this problem is why auto dealers offer a warranty. And, we might add, states enacted 'lemon' laws.
• Complexity - ah, dear to our hearts, as undecidability lurks, everywhere. I like the example that they use for intractability -- which then leads to the decision problem, as how can you decide when you cannot compute? Oh, intuition? Yes, folks, as an aside, one job, in the future, will be trained intuitionistic overseers (ah, have we not tried that from the beginning? - no, the computer turned things around - think quasi-empiricism and Chaitin, et al). But, in particular, they show how it is much easier to check an answer than it is to actually find an answer.
• CDOs - as a form of derivative (remember, Buffet said that these things were WMDs) for which there may be some value to we, the people - and, not via our bailing out the idiots. They talk tranches (trash, as we explained earlier).

---

Their conclusions? Well, for one, how do you determine that you're not getting crap, after the fat cat 'cherry picked' out the best? That is, the 'wedge' (difference between what the banker who wants to sell you junk thinks something is worth and what you can discern with your limited information) can be complicated to discover (actually, we deal with this type of thing as a general rule (such as, measuring progress in any of our endeavors), yet do so well when the cards are not stacked against us as we find with the current financial game).

In short, ex ante, even with the best of efforts, is not 20-20. We know that. One solution? Simple living folks driving our money system - it can be done (the military personnel who put their lives at stake are an example - not the best and brightest).

Then, transparency (no, dark pools, idiots -- by the way, this needs attention, too).

Even, ex post can be a problem. Yes. Who the hell has gone to jail out of the rogue table?

The paper is well worth the read. We'll go back through this whole thing, with some technical focus (adding to M&M and ergodic states).

Remarks:

06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.

12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.

12/13/2012 -- In the 12/11/2012 Remarks, the use of barbarian was in the context of either migratory (or invasive) movement of people from one locale to another with the result of the populace in the receiving bit of land undergoing an adjustment that could range from minor nuisance to major upheaval and death. That, then, motivates a look at why there might be migration, such as being forced. Turns out that the Wikipedia editors have done a good job of collecting the instances that we know of: Diasporas.

12/11/2012 --  Rick asks of the new barbarians from a historical perspective. ACM Communications, this month, interviews Sanjeev. The issue is locked, however this FAQ covers the topic very well.

01/01/2012 -- Recently ran across the work of Kazimierz Dabrowski. We need to pay more attention to his theory on development. Yes, CEOs (and other takers) as immature (seriously, so).

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

08/30/2011 -- Essentially, we have financial piracy.

07/12/2011 -- See Salem Commoners for a continuation of the theme. Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).

05/31/2011 -- Lil Timmy. What a guy!

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

05/28/2011 -- We'll put avatars to more use than just being glorified (hyper-dimensional) icons.

05/27/2011 -- It's good to see others raise questions: why are the too big still doing crazy things? Why were there not prosecutions? ... It's disconcerting to hear that the feds (as in our elected officials, and their appointees) allowed (are allowing) the bank's sleight-of-hand in order to not 'rock the boat' or to keep the ease for the fat cat (miscreant aristocat).

05/25/2011 -- What they're talking: How do we control financial sleight-of-hand, which may even be unconscious, driven by humanness? Is the 'lemon' the norm in finance (and its gaming)? We have to learn how to 'engineer' truth, thanks to the growing prowess of computation in the hands of the idiots.

05/25/2011 -- The referenced article is under controlled access. However, here is an editorial review (appears in the magazine as a one-pager right before the article) that is available.

05/24/2011 -- How many times did we hear bankers say that they weren't going to lend? Despite all sorts of jawboning. Well, we could have nationalized (what does that mean?) the game more than we have so far with the hands-off approach (oh, they're adults, can self-govern - hah!!)? Their not lending is like the kid who takes his ball and won't play the game (so obvious, yet do we see any embarrassment, at all, of recognition on their part of their immaturity?).

Modified: 06/11/2013

2nd December

Moral: Wherein we mimic the look at a couple of 4ths: 'Oops, etc. and truth.

---

We've been at it enough to have two last posts for a year. It might be interesting to look at these with some commentary, starting with the one for 2009.

• 2009 (11 posts) -- Year-end recap -- Yes, those who do not suffer innumeracy ran amock, as if this was their right due to their higher-order insights. Yet, many with innumeracy have better ethical, and practical, sense. How is this, that mathematics (that old queen) has been so mis-abused? Well, it is our task, in part, to talk this issue. The trouble? Those who are so smart have no conception of undecidability (oh, they have learned work-arounds) or of entanglement (ah, this I do not understand as they cry over humankind's non-particle-ness - but, then, Godel gives them inconsistency as an out).
• 2010 (4 posts) -- What is truth? -- Somehow, the monied players have misused notions from biology (to wit, evolutionary theory) as their chief argument for being a**es. Then, Adam has been abused, to boot. Now, do we hear that they do not want any ethical overlays or concerns? Ah, that would un-fun the games, would it not? Yet, we have the right to want to know if someone is pushing us toward perdition-laden paths. Actually, the daily clamor of business covers a whole bunch of mischief. How did this come to be?

--

Dismal? Oh, let us count the ways.

Remarks:

12/29/2012 -- Summary - 2012.

02/26/2011 -- Added links to each month's archive.

02/08/2011 -- A topic of a year ago: there was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

01/27/2011 -- Added post counts by month by year. Also, the chimera shines. How did I miss Grandsons of Samuelson?

01/24/2011 -- Here are a couple of related items.

• Turn the clock, and score, back by destroying the evidence.
• Chaos engineering is the ultimate Quant dream, in terms of conquering complexity (SOS and application -- we'll look at this closely).

01/02/2011 -- One basic problem is that systems are in place, and in development, whose consequences are not scrutinized beyond their ability to fill certain pockets. Oh, let the boys play. Is that the attitude? While, all around, our butts, and those of our progeny for generations, are sliding further into the mud. Way to go, smart guys and gals.

Modified: 12/29/2012

Ergodic hypothesis

Moral: Wherein we start the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks and, thereby, honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

Ah, did we ever say that we have the answers?

Last time, we were looking at a constructive basis for capitalism; that goal is still there. However, a couple of concepts ought to be introduced into the argument. These are the ergodic hypothesis and fixed point issues.

• Ergodic hypothesis -- We mentioned this as a comment earlier, while talking about the problems brought on by misuse of mathematics by the 'quants' view. As the article said, Samuelson noted that bringing in this principle was needed to make economics more scientific. That is, we can solve the game of risk, it is thought.
• Fixed point -- Deep with the thinking that would apply the ergodic principle is some notion about convergence that may be stronger than warranted. In the large, we do not see much that is really divergent. The sun rises. The car runs down the road that is usually passable, without overly large potholes, and so forth. But, in the small, convergence relies on equivalence.

Now, given that we mentioned equivalence, please note that this is not an easy problem. And, I'm not talking about what 'is' is. You see, any equivalence decision will have been set up within a predefined framework supported by axioms, and other assumptions, in an operational sense. Yet, in order to attain an equivalent choice, all sorts of, supposedly, unimportant properties are thrown out or trivialized into a type of norm.

What do I mean when I say that 'equivalence' is hard. Firstly, the problem is NP of some sort. We looked at that earlier. Secondly, there are undecidable issues involved related to the context.

----

The basic problem that needs attention is that concepts, like Arrow-Debreu equilibrium, furthers the delusions brought on by mathematization via computation. But, perhaps, that was inevitable; the latter progresses so the former would try to make use of the new facilities.

In short, though, not only do we not have 20-20 foresight (and hindsight) due to undecidability (and more), some things cannot be computed which begs the question of the Church hypothesis which will have to be addressed, to boot.

Remarks:

02/02/2012 -- This post's subject motivated the Ideology series.

04/02/2011 -- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

10/13/2010 -- We'll get back to our itemization, soon. But, cannot resist mentioning that the foreclosure mess is indicative of the types of problems that 'capitalism' will face, especially as it facilitates movement of money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats. As well, analysis of Paulson, and how he benefited Goldman Sachs - who were rolling in the dough while others lost their livelihoods -- with his actions, and inactions, pertains to the next Remark.

10/07/2010 -- You know what is funny? Those who tend to ca-pital-sino laugh about State planning, to wit the failure of the USSR, etc. You see, these people claim, models, like the Input-output model, are touted as the means for that type of planning. Who can think of handling all that is necessary? But, then these same people see 'the market' as the means (look at the Arrow-Debreu view) based upon what (as in, what the hell is that? the money-sucking methods of Wall Street?)? The invisible hand?

Wait! What's the answer? Well we're getting there, albeit without any compunction about when.

Modified: 02/02/2012

The ideological errors of capitalism, VI -- classism

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely, ill cultured-ness, abounding of absconders, prevalence of shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. We need to look at its classist's basis. Image: see Carnot on Motive Power (capitalism's view of labor?).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

And, how do we address such a complicated subject? Well, let's start with a few remarks that are disjoint, yet potentially coherent, looks at themes which can then be discussed more later.

---

It was almost inevitable given the framework in which the ideas developed. At the time, there was little relationships between the upper and lower classes. In fact, the middle class was always squeezed.

Oh wait, the lowers had no rights (until the Magna Carta) and were basically exploited. That continues to this day.

Too, those who might have been lucky to ascend from out of the lower realms mostly quickly forgot, by design, their origins. Looking at this might be interesting but distracting.

---

The modern conceptual frameworks, that were not available at the time of Adam Smith, can refresh the capitalistic outlook. For one, rather than class, there would be roles as the focus. That is, take labor. The current situation allows serious exploitation of those in this role, as we've seen with the colonization that outsourcing is.

Jobs? Ah, many are without. How can there be offerings of roles that would allow people to take care of themselves and their families? Consumerism, in the sense of 'c' being the largest part of the macro equation, demands this.

---

'capital' itself needs to have another look. Now, it seems to be more analogous to crown jewels than not (to be discussed). Ah, how many kings can this poor world, and its miserable masses (nope, not Marxist), support?

---

Private ownership? We need to look at this in a more enlightened fashion. Given the current vogue, one could very well imagine someone 'thinking' that they own the planet. Oh wait! Was not a lot of the conflict on the poor suffering earth just to show who was boss?

As well, given the advent of mutli-national firms, especially those who have a heavy footprint on the cyber part of our cyber-physical existence, we see ownership that does encompass something that is world-wide.

Ownership, in terms of roles, denotes responsibilities. Unfortunately, what we have seen has been efforts, albeit successful to some extent, to shirk responsibility.

Mind you, did we not just see, up close, privatization of gain and socialization of loss running rampant? Those dynamics still exist, and in more than just the issues related to the toxic assets that we have laying around like mines in a field.

---

What is private? Ought what is a 'pubic good' (a long list, arbitrage, etc.) be put out to the private realm (whatever it is?)?

Many roles, that are not of necessity (we can drive an equitable economy with those who live a simple life and who do not succumb to piggishness), currently milk the system filling the pockets of a small set. It has to be small, as only a few can exploit the situation.

And, any glorification of the role as being the essence of capitalism really ought to wake up the the ca-pital-sino and its emergence. Yes, this was accelerated with improved computational prowess.

---

Management. Ah, the lords and their royal-ness. Consider that computational frameworks could provide 90% of what is required by that role. However, that said, there would still need to be sufficient human involvement to cover undecidable issues (below).

---

One almost hears rings of empiricism (realism) as a major attribute of the capitalistic heart. That is, science and capitalism go together. Somewhat.

Actually, we could probably scientifically show that 'greed' is the larger essence.

Why did evolution produce these types except to support the first wave of capitalism? Is it not time to re-address this issue?

---

Too, innovation has been associated with capitalism. Yes. But, have we not seen bad effects of this along with the good? Science, and its reality, would help temper this, folks.

We could start by putting the markets on a more sound basis.

---

The way that finance, and markets, exist now, there is no science. Rather, we see real-time experimentation and recovery. Oops following oops.

That undecidability is not a prevalent notion needs to be addressed. In short, this notion could be said to just denote that no one has perfect foresight. The truth? Who has perfect hindsight?

How did you answer? Well, do not forget underdetermination, please. What we see in economic affairs is that capitalism handles these issues a little better than do other ways.

Yet, there are many downfalls that we need to fix for sustainability.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.

05/11/2012 -- Rick getting grief from quoting Marx.

01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Charta, the celebration thereof.

09/27/2011 -- Recover the image.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types

?12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind). Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/22/2010 -- We need more Orwells and Tolstoys and Perelmans.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

09/24/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

09/19/2010 -- England is in the dumper due to its assumption of the aristocratic notion that people who do are not of any use. Hah! God, how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss what with these people who wander after abstraction (error) or who somehow think that they are the best class (and worthy? - ah, please give us a break)?

Modified: 01/08/2019

The ideological errors of capitalism, V -- culture

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely absconders, shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. Culture, and the lack of a Magna Carta, need attention.

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

Yes, culture has run amok. Capitalism grew up in an environment that stressed gaming since players (serfs) feed their earnings to the lords (fat cats). Then, when the computational came more to fore, machinations that are counter to a sustainable future got more reward than did reasonable considerations about issues, such as undecidability, or did honest labor.

What? We need to look at 'must and may' in this context.

Yes, it's time to bite the bullet and discuss how overlaying our realities with models, abetted by our beasts, is problematic from the get go.

We like to think in musts, as in things being true or false. Gamers bring in 'may' from one particular world view. Thinkers note that the world is more gray than black and white.

One 'must' is what drives arbitrage's necessity. This ought to be a public good, not privatized (as we see with this example).

That we have to manage the 'may' aspects, and agree on the 'musts' set, is paramount. But, under what framework is this to be done?

Where did this 'must' and 'may' come from?

----

ACM published an article in its Communications that struck a chord (Intro, Article). The topic seemed to offer ways and means for discussing some of the issues related to undecidability. The concept was brought up earlier in the context of discussing the Vienna position relative to the mathematization of some markets.

Now, mind you, while reading on, consider how the issues related to programming might be considered in the small as opposed to what we as humans face daily. However, we are overlaying computation on reality and making decisions thereby. In a sense, we're limiting the larger world to what the computational model can handle. Also, if there are problems in the small world of programming of the computer, cannot these suggest that those larger world problems might, in some cases, learn from what we know of computation and, too, ought we learn how to know about the 'undecidable' analogs? It's that latter part that is some troublesome, mostly since people more easily adopt comfortably closed world views than not (case closed).

The article talks about the three main issues. Firstly, there is language. Of course, on the computer side, we still talk semantics. But, closure is easier to impose. What problems do we see from our big set of natural languages? Needless to say, right from the get-go, there is a big thing looming. Secondly, we see a bow to the notion that a duck test is about all that we can do in many cases (especially, politics - joke). But, the larger issue is that dynamic states are what we deal with more than any type of limiting static analysis. Does that not complicate things? Thirdly, we need to make decisions using our language, properties assigned to entities within the frame of reference, and some type of reasoning.

Now, for all of these, the problems in the small on the computer are much more amenable to solutions (to wit, the internet, et al - though, to be fair, you don't have to go far to see failures). In the large, things are much more complex. One benefit of computational modeling is that we can learn how to identify problems and put them into some mode for being solved. Computation, in that sense, is only a continuation of the western mind's orderly (oh, wait, not so orderly) progression along the axis of improvement (ah, arguable, too).

But, the article shows that, even in the small, things are not as easily handled as many think, especially the young (yes, you, Microsoft, for one, -- gosh, I argued with some of those young whippersnappers way back in the early 90s, ..., oh well). You can think of the 'must' and 'may' sets as depicting those things that must follow (either true or false) and then that big thing of unknowns and their may'ness (neither true nor false). Of course, the idea is to have a strong set of musts and an ordered set of mays, these latter, it is desired, being more prevalent to those almost 'must' but not quite.

The point, here, is that we'll continue to use the concepts in trying to lay out why capitalism stinks, in its current form, for everyone but those who are on the taking side (0.2% taking more than 99.9% of the income or some such inequitable, and non-sustainable, number). Too, some fields, such as those related to systems engineering and operations management, are looking at how to do things better (and Lean is a chimera, in some cases, which I intend to show). But, those fields tend toward increasing the overlay. I say, to those folks, hey wait, in the small is loaded with problems. It's to be willy-nilly imposed on us?

Ah, yes, the miracle of superposition.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

07/28/2011 -- Cambridge non-commoners.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides.

10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

09/16/2010 -- So, ill-cultured-ness came from the classist's basis.

Modified: 01/08/2019

Indubitably

Moral: Wherein we consider that, in the long run, the little people pay. Has it ever been any different, since those same people seem to have an infinite capacity for victimization? Well, conversely, those who do the victimizing appear to demonstrate that lack of conscience is unfathomable.

---

In terms of a recent series of events, we now see, after a media frenzy and a congressional pummeling, that the focus comes back to the user, in this case, the driver. Of course, the technical issues are not entirely laid to rest, yet. Plenty ask why Toyota thinks that they have 'indubitable' systems.

But, let us return to the macro matters, for which the micro problems are very much an example.

Aside: some are thinking about, and planning for, havoc that will come from solar storms.

You see, with the problems of the smaller domains, like the auto (see discussion about the cyber-physical systems), we can do it right. Mind you, that doesn't reduce error rates to zero, as some would have us believe. But, it would push it to a minimal level with caveats to be careful.

The same type of thinking can help the economy, but we cannot get our hands around the problems. Why? We have been led astray by the best-and-brightest, in many ways. Whereas, the Vienna School is correct to tout undecidability.

You see, the intellectual frameworks on this western side of the pond like to push control, as if quasi-empiricism means nothing and as if we have mathematics and the computational under our thumbs; is it not part of our manifest destiny? But, things are complicated, despite protestations otherwise; what are the protestations? Well, brayings of jackasses who would turn a perfectly expressed operational problem into a game of school boys (pissing contest, in other words - we know the type). They surely like to push blame and to effect punishment without regard to the fact that some things are beyond volition and our control. Okay, we do need accountability - people do play the role of bad guy.

These issues form a conundrum, essentially.

That is, we have the miscreants who use success as a shield (think Made-off, if you need a recent example) and threaten any who want the truth. So many examples could be used.

But, there too, many (ought I say most) want to contribute their part and to not ride on the coattails of others (to wit, not exhibit the lordly prince syndrome as a big factor).

We also have that the little people bail out those who do the jerk (third derivative, folks).

One thing that we need to learn is that even if everyone were perfectly rational and well-behaved (please, apply the most ideal notion that you can think of - but, don't spit out 'utopian' pejoratively - okay? - this is serious business), there would be problems. These problems are the ones that need our attention. Trouble is, the 'noise' from the miscreants keeps us from the proper viewpoint.

And, things get complicated, too, just by the nature of things. We left any idyllic world long ago, if it ever existed. So, we find reasonable people thinking of the issues and desiring to extend some recommendations (as if little Timmy would listen).

Here is an example that we'll be using for several posts.

Remarks:

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind).

05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

03/20/2010 -- The basic problem of capitalism is that the Made-offs are its chief representative.

03/19/2010 -- The little people never experience this: The floors were covered with plush Persian carpets; the walls were done in rich walnut and cherry woods, and hung on many of them were oil paintings; we were served only with sterling silver, and the fixtures were gold. From a recent book about Madoff.

Modified: 02/08/2011

Consumer, auto

Moral: Wherein we consider the current Toyota incidents as a chance to ask: who looks out for the consumer who is, essentially, the sink of the economy?

---

First, we ought to be grateful that it is Toyota who is in the hot seat. They (of course, after we acknowledge Deming) led the quality drive (pun) for a very long time and can regain their reputation.

The auto experience is an example of how big business (auto) and big government (and, in each case the best-and-brightest) tell us what we want. However, there is much more to the growing complexity of the auto than we're allowed to think about.

It is obvious that even the best cannot resolve some issues that underly software and its quirks. The net effect is that people, as drivers, will be central to containing the problems. Of course, we must act intelligently as drivers (for example, texting while driving is not smart).

What we're beginning to learn is that the car is becoming increasingly computerized or is becoming like a computer. Also, auto engineering has grown to cover quite a few intellectual domains.

Yet, we're driving as if we've just got past the horse-less carriage? What is the timeline of the current control systems (wheel, two pedals - some with three)? Are they outdated?

Is it any wonder that people have problems with the intuitive match, since generation by generation, we are becoming increasingly game oriented (which is not a bad thing). Why haven't we adjusted control systems?

Well, that the racing people (Danica, et al) have optimized their handling of the current configuration does lead toward some drivers thinking that being the wheel constitutes that they are in a race. Not so, people. It is transportation, for the most part. There are other enjoyments such as driving in inspiring landscapes, and such. That some drivers divert their attention to other things, and create risks, can be shown as indicative of the problem of the controls not engaging the person.

--- Aside

One question: why is there no user group related to car users? Every modern computational framework has one of these. What does the driver have? Don't say Car Talk, or manufacture brochures, and such. The issue is the state of being a driver and what it means. It is not maintenance, design (though, we need to look at serious modifications at some point), or trade-offs on performance. Those are covered by various interest groups.

Notice that most computer systems now allow some type of personalization? That was a struggle to attain. It did not just happen. The same sort of thing has shown up in the car, to a certain extent. You can set your environment, adjust seats, move the steering wheel, and such.

Ever think about what would be an improved driving experience? Let's look at the current configuration. The stop/go is related to the feet. This seems correct, carrying forward our long use of movement by walking. Then, we have the hands to change gears, signal, steer.

What if we steered by our feet? Don't laugh. Do not we balance with our lower appendage? We could signal, too; it wasn't long ago that the bright switch was on the floor. One had to stomp around to find the thing.

Having the switch on the steering wheel was nice, but there was not a standard way to do it. Of course, only the frequent traveler, who had to use different cars, had a problem. There are similar issues with differences that can be problematic.

However, what part of the game control knobs could be used with cars? There is a lot that could be discussed there.

---

And so, it's in the belly of the beast that we need to wake up to, as consumers. How are things communicating? What are the different chips? How are they used? Even this, what algorithms are being used for control?

You know what, people, some of the testing by the industry has been real-time, using drivers as the subjects. Allowing proprietary shields to some of these specifics ought not be the cause of lack of oversight.

Just asking questions here, folks. The fact of the matter is that we see one problem having a succession of possible causes thrown out (mat, pedal, switch, ...), with each cause and fix supposed to quiet the situation, yet the problem continued.

How many issues of this type lurk? You know, there is the concept of systemic which would be industry-wide.

We can say this: with software being a central factor, there are a whole lot of things that will be required to maintain stability of systems.

Anyone looking at those issues? Here, we have the concept of undecidability (dealing with decisions, especially those computational) to discuss.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/16/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Toyota's web site that is related to recalls.

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/22/2010 -- Business Week uses 'drive-by-wire' in an article about computational driving.

02/10/2010 -- There seems to be a rash of recalls, of late. The problem of value versus quality has been warped by an improper handling of near-zero.

Modified: 01/22/2013

On the behalf of

Moral: Wherein we consider that one may need to act on the behalf of another is an age-old situation in human affairs. Parents perform this role for their children. As we can see in many cases, a grown child may accept fiduciary duties for an aging parent.

---

All civilized people point to the 'golden rule' as a primary in this regard. This is true, as well, in economics in so far as ethics may apply. Trouble is that some want to use a metaphor more from what we think of nature and its dwarinistic ways.

So, there is the issue of caveat emptor. In financial affairs, one might think that some counselor is looking out for one's interest, however, in many cases, this is not the case. The financial guy is more into selling something that will line his or her pocket, not in really considering the client's interest.

Then, we have the Madoff type (thanks, WSJ). As said earlier, we need to update the label for this type of thing as Ponzi was so long ago (we now have Made-off).

On 10/2/2009, the USA Today reports that there are many schemes being uncovered all the time. That somewhat points to having something like Fisher's view about smelling a rat to be taught on a regular basis. That is, the nose is a talent to hone.

Other notions that apply here are accountability and being aware. On the former, whatever role one has ought to have some type of review from time to time. Just being prepared to give an accounting can be a good discipline in any endeavor. Trouble is, under what circumstance can such a report be warranted? Some business methods have gravitated toward yearly reviews for employee evaluation. Also, in terms of work, the efforts to determine earned value have some appeal. Yet, these are not easy problems; even doing assessment of fair value is not without problems.

In term of the latter (being aware), we have to consider how the counseling role evolves. The fact of the matter is that there are more things that we do not know than that we know, the hubris of the know-it-all aside. That is, no one is expert at everything. Using the medical experience as an example, all one has to do is try to talk to some doctor about anything that is outside of his or her specialty interest or training.

So, given the existence of things like innumeracy, one can see why the financial adviser community as grown to be so large. Let's forget, for the moment, the whole thing of whether financial engineering (despite MIT's involvement) is even a valid field and consider the need with a few questions that we'll consider in more details.

Does the need for the financial expert really exist? How do we know that the flim-flam of casino capitalism isn't the main culprit? If that is the case, ought not the brains (yeah, best-and-brightest) be looking at more robust ways and means?

Can all this be put in framework that allows the normal person to make reasonable decisions about financial affairs? Is it by necessity that the underlying instability is exploited by those who have been allowed to game the system?

Note: Just because we have the difficulties involved with determining value is no reason for those who can (like anyone close enough to the market's workings to extract regular pocket fillings -- hey, work under a vow of poverty people, that is, anyone dealing with other people's money) to exploit the situational issues arising from complexity and undecidability.

Remarks:

05/11/2012 -- Rick getting grief from quoting Marx.

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug of the rogue table), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

05/25/2010 -- Who will (or can) lead out of the morass?

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/09/2009 -- The Street loves Ben who loves 'em back: The Street utterly loves the Fed's largess, earning massive profits from trading unstable currencies, the carry trade (borrow short-term dollars near zero, buy longer-term assets abroad), and the high-margin process of transferring America's capital abroad.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/06/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of. It is clear that Alan and Ben act on our behalf, though one has to wonder what 'our' means as it sure is not the little guy. Finance, people, can be (probably ought to be) run as a non-profit affair. AND, the CEO (or whatever the titles at the top) would not make $1M and more! That is absurd. We have people who put their lives on the line for this country and its ideals for pittance. As said before, we really need a national service (Remarks 09/03/09) experience for the young'uns, especially for those of the privileged classes.

Modified: 05/11/2012

Miscellany

Moral: Where we recognize that these things are not easy, otherwise it would be a piece of cake.

---

And, we don't even need to bring in undecidability. It's complicated enough by itself.

• -- Phony economy -- Tech Ticker talks to Peter Schiff. He says it right. Gosh, Ben, wake up. Unwind, please; take your equity hit (see Remarks 7/30/2009).
  
• -- Tracking the pulse -- USA Today provides a nice interactive chart to see the numbers. This type of display exemplifies technology's role. Markets ought to be involved with determining alternatives and then choosing. That requires computation. The down side is how people like Madoff (and a whole lot of other best-and-brightest) can game the system (jump out to 1:30).
  
• -- Health care -- USA Today compares US with other countries.
• -- Other econblogs -- We'll collect some of these: The Baseline Scenario, Global Economic Trend Analysis (link not meant to endorse Schiff), ...,
• -- Debt -- In love with it (and rebuttal), ...,
• -- Finance -- Too many people, too much pay, ...

Note: As mentioned before, several blogs have been offering views which run the gamut. Those at The Baseline Scenario seem particularly apropos to the time. The image at right (See Slide 15) shows better the more detail what was discussed in Remuneration, finance style back in May of this year. The finance industry, much larger than it ought to be, claimed a large portion of wage. Now, some of this might be rent seeking, yet of what practical use of moving money from one pocket to another?

Remarks:

09/26/2009 -- More readings.

Modified: 12/24/2009

Making money

Moral: Wherein we consider that money has a lot of meaning which we'll be looking at. Of course, there is the economic sense.

---

One way to make money is to print it or wish it out of the air (extractions can be of several types). However, let's change the subject slightly to talk about making a living (money as bread).

He who orders the printing doesn't make too much, in terms of pay, as one would expect with a government job. Nor do those who actually run the printing pressess as they are of those who toil. Others have flows that are outrageous, such as the head of a major health agency whose income is on the order of 1000s of bucks per minute.

While many today, it was said on the tube, live from paycheck to paycheck. Well, that's not new. As we know, many others are without a paycheck. Some try to make money from financial manipulations.

Is profiting from the financial casino, which some see as making money, really so? What, profit comes about from mere winning in a shell game?

Or, is this thing that has been allowed to develop and to take most of the economic energy just some allowed manipulation of near-zero situations because we don't understand yet how to model the full impacts? Is it that accounting always lags in its political maneuverings? Ah, perhaps, we'll have some type of mathematically based approach someday - albeit, even with undecidability and quasi-empiricism, it would be a step up.

An Atlantic article mentioned the IPO rage that persisted for some time, with some making oodles. Others not. That is profit? Those who had the ka-ching in those deals were the consultants, such as those of the golden sacks.

Then, we have things like someone from another health organization saying, on the tube, that a return of 25% is desired. Mind you, that is after all expenses! Sheesh, where did that notion come from? Even the nun-based seem to have been influenced by the lure of bucks. As we know, many patients don't (or didn't) get the care that they need so that the health provider could profit more. Like the one organization (same as above) where the head went out to the pasture with almost a billion (yes, billion) of bucks.

Huh? And, we can't afford general health care?

Note: We can go back and see the history behind the current state, with the increasing trend toward the vacuous financial state. Sort of going backward, we are now where a very small percentage holds a very large part of the wealth. For the past couple of decades, the middle class essentially has become paupers. Oh, I know, they have goods up the wazoo out there for them to buy and to contend themselves with. Ah yes, all of it quality stuff. On the upper end, we have the ever-increasing houses (way beyond McMansions) and boats (football field in length) and planes (personal flying apartments). And more. Of course, there is the Madoff type (who may be more prevalent than we think) working hard for illegit gains. Also, we had the computer come along of late causing lots of things to change, including the financial game's basis. At some point, let's say early 70s, there was probably some rational link between capitalism as an ideology and the reality as practiced. That has all been lost. The best-and-brightest, who are to be our saviors, have for the most part been lured into greed and egoistic assuages (read that, CEOs). Methinks that Adam Smith is turning over in his grave from all this disarray that has been promulgated under his name. Things, folks, are way off base. Of course, the game continues daily, or, at least, five days a week. Thankfully, there are the two days of the weekend. How long would it take, and under what circumstances, for the realizations of things being awry to take hold and for the steps to get it on a better platform to start? That, folks, is one goal of this blog, to bring this discussion to fore.

Remarks:

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug of the rogue table), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/01/2009 -- The consumer as focus.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/05/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of.

Modified: 09/21/2011