Golden sacks

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, which might be exemplified by a firm of note, must be resolved so that we can redirect Adam Smith's baby from the shell game'd playground, the unconscionable exploitation via the Ca-pital-sino, and a ponzi'ed framework to something more amenable to the health and welfare of the people, by getting beyond 'cat and mouse' thinking.

---

GS, in other words, who might think that it represents the epitome and who ought to know that the 'real backbone' is far removed from its heighten'd views.

We'll get more into all this, through time. Look at the cartoon on this Tech Ticker page. The Wall Street firms just don't get it.

One theme will be to look a peerage, and royalty, and observe how the 'new royals' (at least, in their own estimation, as money can have its privileges) obtained their status through milking the 'market' situations under the guise of following Adam (poor guy, he's rolling around in his grave).

How do we train our brains to get above that muck generated over the past couple of decades?

One solution, as mentioned before, might be a type of 'national service' experience (for the youngsters) that could work wonders, especially for those who are overly privileged. Mind you, it's not necessary that this be militarily oriented. No, the purpose would be to introduce those from various cultures (yes, American is full of a very many) into a framework of service that has an uplifting theme, hopefully one beyond mere nationalism.

Another aspect would be to isolate various gaming efforts by regulating such to a sandbox. Then, quants would need fencing into the sandbox. You see, numeracy (and computational support thereof) lies behind a bunch of problems (again, we'll continue to get into that).

Something for all of us to note, please: many of these instruments of finance, that purport to be advanced and necessary, are neither. They exploit modern technology and knowledge, sure. But, it's in a blind-folded way. For those that may be necessary, a sandbox would allow a test environment. For the unnecessary, a sandbox would allow ad infinitum play (without the bonuses).

The question? Who owns what and why? Wall Street owns finance? Hah!!

Remarks:

07/22/2015 -- Some of these are, now, poster boys.

08/24/2013 -- Why do I think of golden sacks? Well, they represent the worse of the rogues, though I know that there are some good people working there who are doing the right thing. However, I have personal knowledge of two deals in which they were prime players in the role of experts in the matter. In both cases, workers lost their economic lives, some lost their pensions, both firms struggled. One actually went bankrupt due to the debt left by those golden players as they took off with bulging pockets. The incidents were within the past decade just prior to the downturn. Of course, golden boys/girls couldn't see that things would crash. But, any reasonable stance (based upon integrity, okay?) wold have foreseen that certain types of risks were not adequately handled. But, no, the context of the gaming rushes after reward (greedy accumulation) without proper regard to things related to the reality of near-zero. ... Much more can, and will, be said, in due time. In the meantime, the golden sack'ers (search) are archetypal in the world of economic misdeeds.

06/16/2011 -- Golden sack'd scandals.

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

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

04/27/2010 -- Goldman's young guy as hero? See remarks earlier about fat cats and quants (look, defining these financial instruments and then modeling the payback are quantitatively flavored, through computation and mathematics). Fat cats do not know what the quants are doing and thereby let the young 'uns run amok. Why? 'Conceptual bliss' and 'abstraction' as Tourre suggested. Mainly using mathematics, and its modern selves, to create a whole lot of nothing, to make money doing so, and to then not accept responsibility for the fall out.

04/25/2010 -- Cartoonists ought to be having fun: Regulate the Banks? You'll Spoil the Fun.

04/24/2010 -- If it quacks like a duck, then ... Or, is it, in this case, if it waddles like a fat cat, ...? Those who run finance ought to not love money; that which these bankers are to provide is a utility, pure and simple.

Modified: 07/22/2015

Backbone of the economy I

Moral: Wherein we consider that, despite what is the economy, the backbone is the essential friend of the economy, not those who game for the ill-begotten gain.

---

So, banks are making money, paying big bonuses, and screwing their depositors. What else is new?

Ah, how the fat cats love their spread!

And, Wall Street? Rotten to the core (Tech Ticker)!

And, Ben continues to sack the savers while letting those fat cats loll in their monies. Gosh, big guy, when will you awaken? We do NOT need the chimera in its current form!

Well, we'll have to do a series on the real backbone of an economy. IT IS NOT FINANCE (which is not even the heart, in its current form). Of course, many will think that the reference is to labor. Not!

Effectiveness at real solutions is the key. All of this will be addressed.

Example: an oft-overlooked Old Planter who exemplified what became the 'spirit' of the US.

The theme will continue, as the backbone has been broken down by the fat cats, who loll and do not need any bones, through, essentially, use of un-Constitutional practices, such as out-housing and exploitation.

This exploitation include the chimera which is really a giant sucking device. Some gain there; for each of those, a multitude loses. Very much, near-zero, folks.

Remarks:

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better? You know what? Workers always bear more of the load than they ought. Somehow, we've let those who can adopt the old Lord syndrome. This is not necessary to having a sustainable economy.

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders.

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

Modified: 11/04/2011

With friends like this ...

Moral: Wherein we consider that the Ca-pital-sino which arose from an unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and which fosters shell games and inflationary schemes, has not done many (most?) people many favors.

---

As the saying goes: who needs enemies with such friends?

Let's try to concoct an answer (750 words or less) to this query: Do the wealthy have an obligation to help the poor?

• We think that we can show that this is so in about any context. Yet, we might consider that that there are definitely some limits to what help can, or ought to, be provided.
  
  First, though, we need to look at the concepts of ‘wealthy’ and ‘poor’ and ‘help’ in order to have this discussion. If we take the usual sense of the concepts, where ‘wealthy’ and ‘poor’ are measured in monetary terms, then these two can be considered at the opposite end of an economic spectrum, such as bank account balance. Along that same economic line, the measurement could be other types, such as those related to employment.
  
  For instance, one with a very rewarding career can be considered to be more ‘wealthy’ than someone suffering a long-term period of under-employment. There are many other variations to this theme. We can even switch to other realms, such as health care, where the richer in health, and knowledge, help those who are poorer in health.
  
  You see, health care is a system in which one main goal is the lessening of poorness in health. Or, is it mainly an employment, and enrichment, scheme?
  
  So, let’s bring ‘system’ into the discussion. The concept of ‘system’ is fairly intuitive to everyone; the economy is a system. In any system, which will have members, the overall goodness of the system will be determined by the weakest of the members. If we look for a metaphor, think of a chain and its links.
  
  Using the chain metaphor, we can see the ‘wealthy’ as being the stronger of the links; of course, that means that being in a ‘poor’ state is being a weaker link. Links that are too strong will cause the weaker links (and the chain) to break, eventually.
  
  Would not that breaking then diminish what the stronger links had, or thought that they had? Let’s be economic for a moment. If we look at the state of the economy, do we not see that, for a decade or so, there was a massive accumulation that happened at one end of a spectrum while the rest lost value. That is, the chain of the economy morphed to a few very strong links with a very large set of weak links.
  
  In monetary terms, we got to where a very small fraction (LT 0.5%) held the majority (GT 90%) of the total economic value. That raises this question: is the current predicament partly the result of the wealthy not helping the poor?
  
  Consider that those who are the ‘wealthy’ make the economic decisions about jobs and pay, for instance. The ‘poor’ would be the working folks who, one might say, would include the middle class, too.
  
  Then, ‘help’ could be efforts and attitudes that are oriented to keeping people in the system employed. The commonly used adage from Henry Ford may apply: working people spend their wages and buy products, hence they need sufficient wages. We could easily argue that what we have seen was an opposite of ‘help’ in that the working people were entrapped into a situation of increasingly negative worth through debt accumulation.
  
  Somehow, the economic system warped into a mirror world where ‘helping’ someone, such as allowing too easy credit, was actually making things worse for them. In this case, would not the poor have been better off by not being ‘helped’ by the wealthier who are really only growing richer?
  
  In part, warping was due to the introduction of a ‘global’ system in which the more local (American economy) system was a part. Too, we had the best-and-brightest, as another type of the wealthy set (aptitude), who engineered changes (via finance) into the economic system. These so-called improvements were, in actuality, beefing up the stronger links to the detriment of the weaker links.
  
  The inevitable happened when things broke down. That the wealthy did not help the poor in proper ways is obvious. Perhaps, those who are looking for corrective actions might benefit from using the question of the topic as the conceptual framework.
  
  That is, how do we get ourselves into the proper mindset to view that what is considered the weaker links are more necessary to continued economic growth than are the stronger? One might even propose that excessive accumulation indicates a type of weakness.

See the Ideological Errors of Capitalism, for further discussion.

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

11/01/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

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

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

04/08/2010 -- From the gigantic chimera to ill-begotten gains.

Modified: 12/15/2012

The ideological errors of capitalism IV - Made offs

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino, are not sufficient. We need others (as it is of detriment of the people).

---

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)

---

Which are? Let's take just one. That the Madoffs (made-offs), and the Ponzis, are the real representatives of capitalism. They promise riches, exhort us to labor for gains and glories, and pilfer the till.

Of yes, there are others. We get those captains of industry, too, with enormous pockets who seem to be at the edge of legality. Or, if they stay from that edge, they're near some ethical (moral) edge. But, who cares about that?

The underlying nature of the current scheme, especially as exhibited by the equity markets, is taking profit at the top from the loads of money brought in by new suckers. And, this is called 'profit' as if such gains could be considered reward for real effort.

It was interesting to watch the recent inflation of the market. Yes, thanks to Ben, and those he muscled, there was oodles of money allowed via low interest, special loans (oh yes, Ben, like the confessional, never known publicly), purchase of toxic waste from idiots, and more. This money went to the inflation of the market, not to building anything of substance.

At the same time, real prices have been deflating. Businesses couldn't get loans. The jobless remain such. There are a slew of things that aren't right, folks.

Now, the whole mechanism (from which comes the mania) is supported by a vast informational framework consisting of analysts, reporters, and naive administrators, like Timothy (little Timmy) and runs for 6 1/2 hours, in the use, on five days a week. Thankfully, we do get a respite from the mania for two days a week, and the occasional holiday. Yet, one could very well imagine that the gaming never ends for some.

No wonder things get frothy (thanks, Minsky, for showing us what Ben ought to look at).

Business Week recently reviewed a book detailed how Markopolos tried to get people to think correctly about Madoff's scheme. The book describes the hubris of expecting something for nothing. In fact, that some notion of in-crowd status (which was one of Madoff's lures) predominated shows just how deeply these pilfering mechanisms are within the capitalistic scheme.

So, 'fat cat' attainment is our primary goal, people?

Plenty have commented to the review. Some of the comments mention that there are plenty of such schemes, namely Ponzi, that we accept as normal.

One example, as we all know, is that Social Security has been taking money from workers for years in the guise of providing retirement funding to these same workers. These monies were then expropriated by the US in exchange for IOUs which are now coming due.

So, who is going to fund the IOUs needed by Social Security to handle the influx of the boomers?

The basic economic issue is that future payments are always expected to be based upon some current set of assumptions and an economic framework to build something that will pay. Then, we expect there to be sufficiently stability for the payout to come to fruition.

But, we've let a whole bit of notions, like leverage, to warp the model. At one time, loans were based upon collateral. If the loan could not be paid, at least, the lender could get something from the collateral. Yet, there is a premise there, to boot, about the collateral being of value sufficient to cover the loan. Leverage can allow speculative malfeasance of sorts.

Operational modes, related to proper valuation, due diligence, and the like, were learned by hard lessons. Yet, these always seem so easily forgotten in the heat of the equity frenzy.

One reason that the equity mania seems to take hold is that the ponzi-like nature is hidden. Rather than this (the market) being a mechanism to build for the future, it becomes a get-rich scheme. That is, we get to the Ponzi-like, almost by necessity.

Many see the problem, but any attempt at rectification gets bogged down in rhetoric which is probably a natural outcome, politically.

Too, there are other types of malefactors (bond big-rigging) out there.

So, what are the guys like Big Ben and Timmy supposed to do? We'll get to that.

Remarks:

01/08/2025 -- It's interesting how the world has morphed due to computational flim flam (thanks, mathematics for letting us down). GenAI as a package for exploiting via shenanigans: Is OpenAI's new model O3 approaching AGI? (link to Quora, Dr. Jo). 

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

02/28/2011 -- Bernie has lessons for us.

04/27/2010 -- Need to add the political set of truths, such as cat and mouse.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

03/21/2010 -- Read about Timmy: Atlantic ("Would it have been better to have the stock market where it was in March, the economy still falling, and unemployment much higher?” -- huh?), New Yorker, ...

03/20/2010 -- Big Ben says that bailing out the big banks was (or is it is?) 'unconscionable' yet was this not what he did?

Modified: 01/08/2025

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

Harvard, value and quality I

Moral: Wherein we look at a current situation and argue that the best let us down.

---

How exactly did these people let us down? What are we to do about it?

Well, we can look at the issues. To do so means that we are going to have to go back to the beginning, 1636, and come forward. But, let's set the stage first. Subsequent posts will carry the discussion forward.

--- Foreword:

In an earlier post, while talking about how Adam Smith's ideas (we need a relook) seem to lead to gravy trains and salivation (definition of a politico being, he/she who salivates when a buck is passed beneath the nose), we mentioned Naisbitt's book in which he uses early USA history to characterize some of China's future. Say what?

So, that conceptual view out of Harvard motivated a long-needed look at what went down here (on this side) with the onset of emigres from across the pond coming over. And, where else is there more opinion offered about the foundations of the USA than that related to New England?

Well, folks, it turns out that we have a 'real' example to offer, namely an oft-overlooked Old Planter. But, we'll be getting to that later.

You see, Harvard is right across the river(s) from where the earlier actions took place, and, when one considers the (d)evolution of Harvard (say, as captured here by wiki editors -- see Remarks, 08/13/2011), the institution is archetypal, and much more, in very many ways; some of these are very much apropos to the discussions that will be needed (future posts).

As well, Harvard has stressed elitism (see wiki), at times, which may be natural given its start as God's favorite. Now, is not hubris one characteristic of the elite? And, does not any engineer (yes, as in MIT) worth his or her salt know that nature rules us not the other way around?

We are at a time when the wheels (economically, politically, ...) seem to be spinning. Where is the grip going to come from? Ah, the lessons of New England have the answer to that, as we hope to show (perhaps, we can even use some of that learned from Salem's tribulations to which, by the way, Harvardites contributed early).

Now, to show that we have to deal with finance too, let's continue with Harvard. During the times that elitism took control, the school was rich by any standard. For one thing, 'rich' referred to things dealing with lucre rather than, say, 'rich in spirit' as one would expect given all those Church of England brilliant lights who were involved with the institution's start. Yes, we have to ask, was Harvard a 'city on the hill' that was of unparalleled benefit to humankind?

Well, those things were 150 years ago (see Remarks, 08/13/2011). What about now? Just a couple of years ago, Harvard bragged about their bounty's (what's it called? endowment?) increases from playing financial games and the consequential immense proportions. In fact, they paid some dude outrageous sums for his efforts (ignoring the possible besmirching of the reputation). Then, it wasn't long, and we saw Harvard (and many other schools) crying poor (toxic shockandawe). Who, of a mature mind, would not ask, did not 'you idiots' get what you deserved?

Then, about the same time, the students (bless their hearts) were arguing with the big pockets about the fact that lowly Harvard workers could not sustain themselves decently with their wages.

We could go on but will not. However, consider this: the old guy mentioned above may be more of the 'backbone' of this country than any glib scholar and spewer of words (God, the verbosity in those messages to/fro London - the Church must have selected for this trait in their upper class) that grabs glory and pockets of bucks. It is this backbone, as infrastructure, that we have caused to be 'out-housed' and hollowed out, for the sole benefit of lining the pockets of the few, mostly the elite.

--- Word:

And so, we find that we will have to deal these concepts, namely value, quality, and near-zero.

A couple of days ago, in relation to Toyota's dilemma, a professor (UChi) said that Toyota may have gone too far after value while allowing quality less focus. You see, some think that these have some type of reciprocal relationship.

Ah? Was not the professor talking some notion of 'value' that most likely goes back to the Harvard Business School? How did this happen? That it did is one of the arguments for bringing 'near-zero' into play in discussing how to resolve these issues. You see, 'quality' is of value to all parties concerned, especially when one looks at the commonweal.

Oh, what is the commonweal? Well, those at Harvard ought not have to ask that question. That some may do so ought to give us pause (as ought a whole bunch of things). And, whose 'commonweal' are we to consider?

Well, in the case of Toyota, it would be global. However, it would include all sorts of parties, even pedestrians who may unluckily get in front of an auto that has a stuck accelerator.

Aside: That remark refers to those people who while using their feet increasingly meet up with autos that are running on our streets with no 'mind' in charge, rather we have a zombie sitting where a human ought to be.

Does it not look as if we need to have another go around about value, especially when we consider the various roles and responsibilities involved? That is one intention here, yet the problems of determining value, no matter the type, will remain, especially given that the genie is out of the bottle (in many ways).

Again, pointing to Harvard, the operational stance that we need, with its scientific and technological basis, will require some type of practical support out of the academic framework.

What will this be? Do we know? Good questions, for another day.

There are some major themes to bring up: innumeracy does not equate idiocy (very important), ungrounded genius is more stupid than well-founded normality, ... (it could be a long list, however let's, again, cut it short).

--- Afterword:

As we look at operational issues related to the themes here, one assessment of quality applies to people, their talents, and the potentials. Oh, we know, there are many open issues involved here, yet we will need human talent to control the genie.

Why bring up the old guy who was successful in bringing in, and raising, a family despite the inherent troubles and all of the dangers (natural, social, political)? We expect that we'll be addressing some things like the absence of the lordly prince syndrome among other things. That is, there is a certain effectiveness which accompanies success.

And, running off after abstracted chimeras as we have seen the past decade, or so, is not effective for the commonweal. Perhaps, someone in Harvard has already figured this out. Do I see shades of Cotton Mather here (kidding, of course)?

You see, the first 150 years of Harvard were in support of spreading the Christian faith (within a certain type of framework) across the land and elsewhere (again, see wiki's description). During the 1700s, the class size was such that thousands graduated with an flavored academic experience.

After secularization showed up, perhaps, graduates were more productive, meaning being able to play roles beyond those that are scarce in number. In fact, a point of pride for the institution is the number of graduates who have been recognized (43 Nobel laureates).

Again, one might ask why Harvard? Well, a few reasons were given above. Consider this, though. Is it not out of Harvard Business School that we got the emphasis on securitization, short-term profit focus, globalization/colonization, and more (we can build a real long list - perhaps should)? Oh, business schools, in general, one might say. Well, where is the leadership toward the better (please, not more rational, unless you mean non-insane) side of things that one might expect of Harvard?

So many questions, but we'll persist. Hasta la vista.

Remarks:

06/14/2014 -- Cognitive elitism. Will be getting back to this.

08/15/2013 -- Nice viewpoint. Farce, indeed (chimera). Buyers and sellers are Investors (sometimes). Many elites see their gifts as carte blanche to screw over those less gifted (in essence, a main cause of the continual strife that humans face -- Harvard, at one time, may have had an ethical edge - can it get it back?). Who is the fairest of the elite, so to speak? For sustainability to come about, those of the highest quality need to be of the service mentality (yes, perhaps we could find someone at Harvard Divinity to explain this to the gifted in their neighborhood). Service? Try military without being of the O-series, for instance. But, a national service would allow many types of contributions. Foreigners? Yes, they would have to do it to boot.

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

05/14/2013 -- Still the second most-read article (post). Ought to bring this up to date. As we see with Gauss' view of things, there is a spread around what might be termed the mean. Depending upon the domain, we'll be able to put people into categories according to this way of looking at things (remember, it's not intrinsically based, okay?). If we're looking at accumulations (depth of asset base or a myriad of other ways),    we have to have those on either side of the mean. No one, of the embodied type, wants to know the left most (however, the Creator does). The rightmost? Most aspire to this. Not all (and, Harvard types could talk to this old guy about that -- we'll go back to the beginning and before). Most will only dream of being on that side of things. Those there, mostly, think it's due them (ah, yes). ... Let's stop that and turn the table a little. One characteristic of those enjoying admittance is scoring highly on tests which is indicative of various abilities that we seem to think of as important. Yes, some correlation does come about. Are there failures of those types (yes, indeed, the problem is that many times they bring down a whole bunch of lesser folk into their turmoil - ah, the way of the world?). Too, the testing stresses, many time, numeric abilities. You know, such insights (many times, not wise at all) has led us (mankind, okay?) down perdition-laden paths where we overlay that viewpoint (yes, thanks to Carl Friedrich and many more) on our being (Harvard-ites ought to know of this; I would bet that many do not) to the extent of suffocation and worse. ... So, we're May, 2013. Ben has a 15K DOW as an accomplishment (congratulations are in order). But, he has not much about unwinding (except for thinking), though we've asked for this for years now. Guess what? We're back to the heavy leveraging idiocy.

01/23/2013 -- Things are looking up: Read free or die.

10/16/2011 -- Harvard is 375 this year. That, one might say, will precipitate a closer look, soon.

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

08/13/2011 -- See the Feb 2010 version of the page in order to see the referenced section which disappeared on 12 May 2010. The missing section (Elitism) had been added on 24 Jan 2010. It consisted of earlier material, but the newer, historic organization made the text stand out. The missing text does relate that huge 'endowment' stature was almost expected.

08/13/2011 -- See Cambridge non-commoners.

04/20/2011 -- Simple living (see Remarks 04/15/2011 - game theory), as opposed to greediness.

04/04/2011 -- Boston U's opinion.

01/19/2011 -- For the most, things are dire, not by necessity.

11/11/2010 -- Harvard II, Ca-ital-sino, Adam again

07/02/2010 -- Anyone at Harvard with the sense of justice like Perelman's?

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

02/19/2010 -- As said earlier, there will be coming posts related to this theme. In the meantime, start to look at the New England experience and what it means now. Of course, we already know the themes, such as computation's genie and control of this force, mathematization's diminution of mankind, the necessity for Harvard to step up to its role, and much more.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain.

02/06/2010 -- Let's see, we can start to count the ways. Take term limits, for instance, which definitely are an issue. In some cases, we have 'lordly princes' who get into office and sit there, for their own glorification (and the regal perks). Then, they're more influenced by lobbyists throwing around money (causing salivation) than by their own constituents.

Now, you have to give these people some credit. They do flummox the public into a continued vote. So, to go into that phenomenon is a whole other story.

Of course, these dynamics (independence/freedom versus cronyism - you see, there is probably a better way to characterize this, as it's a framework that adjusts by whatever basis it sits on) go way back, as said above (all the way to Plimouth and Cape Ann). It's natural that Harvard ought to be the center for a more full understanding of these issues (which would mean that money would be of less 'value' to you guys/gals than is truth). Where is such a study?

On a similar note, academic institutions breed something similar. How? What is there for support of the autodidact, in the sense of not being mentored? Of course, in this case, as we see in general, we have to maintain (after first attaining) a balance between the individual and the public good. How would an autodidact be rated? Institutions have their credentials and certifications. Why bring it up?

The whole notion of innumeracy not being idiocy needs to be looked at. Of course, Harvard, via Howard Gardner, may have already started to address these issues (and their conflicts).

Too, no one but John Galt is mentor-less. The issue is more, who does one select as mentor? For most people, parents are generally the first. There are other involuntary, for the autodidact, mentors throughout one's life. The problem is, as we see from early New England, can a social setting allow autodidacts? Actually, we have to ask if allowing autodidacts is, by necessity, disruptive?

The thing of the web is that expression can be offered, within legal limits, that is not under some mark of approval (imprimatur).

Modified: 06/14/2014