Von Mises and friends

Moral: Wherein having mentioned, several times, the Vienna School (also, known as the Austrian School) which is continental, how could we avoid specific reference to Ludwig (and John and Friedrich)?

---

As in Ludwig Von Mises and his prolific writings. Reading 'The Elite Under Capitalism' would be a good start (we looked at his money work earlier).

I like how he calls the elite to task; yet, one has to look at several things. For instance, what would be 'elite' (as in, best-and-brightest? -- they offer the masses a preferred moral code?). What are these ideals to which the elite would lead us (greed? massive accumulations -- $1B house (as in Mumbai) looming over a vast expanse of slums -- or, gigantic yacht of immense proportions that is for anything but show?)?

Wait! do I smell big T-issues looming? Perhaps not, as we can be reasonable for a little while, can we not?

---

When we brought in the Vienna School, there was one main factor. They do know what lies behind the mathematical facade. Why facade? What we see now is a large system, built upon the quaking basis of computation (we'll get to Church-Turing, in a bit).

Then, upon this shaky framework, we want to built an automated economy (virtual money, to boot, printable ad infinitum) that is wide-spread in many, and disparate, directions using colonialistic mindsets without regard to the neighbors in ones' own locale?

---

As an aside, Ron Paul is featured in The Atlantic as saying that he was epiphany'd by the writings of Hayek who was a disciple of von Mises. That epiphany was a while ago. Now, the tea party, and other perturbers, have taken ahold of the guy's ideas thanks to Glenn Beck's reference to Friedrich (see 'The Road to Serfdom', for one).

No one wants a top-down power structure to be there for all aspects of life. The military life is top-down, yet those who rise come through the ranks. And, no one at the top tries to run things in a micro-managed sense, as if driving robots. That was tried in the past a few time enough for us to know its failings.

Yet, how do you keep free agency from devolving into anarchy? That is, what is there that would keep things under civil limits? The big question for libertarians.

A parallel in project/program management has been mentioned in this blog, and in related blogs, namely middle-out. Business is top-down, as we see the King CEO. Too, though, what CEO actually does any real work?

Not!! Good companies try to elicit good work from happy employees. How many succeed?

Yes, these are not easy issues, folks, but we'll continue in our own vein and time to discuss the underlying factors with the idea to eventually fruit results.

---

As you see, what is the middle-out for the economy? Not Adam's 'hand' and not Stalin's 'fist' and not Big Ben's chimera and ...

Do you think that the Tea Party really has resolved the issues in their pullback in abhorrence from anything Keynesian? Of course, John Maynard came from the Neville line; nice of him to think so fondly of the little people. At least, he wasn't greed'd out as we see with the modern capitalists (in name only).

---

So, we'll look at Ludwig's thinking as we go along. And, we'll look at him with a kind eye, probably kinder than he would has cast'd at the viewpoint being developed here.

• von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand (emphasis mine): You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.
• You want to know the irony? Listen up, CEOs, et al. This is how your working class, especially those of highly advanced education, think of you and your infantilish idiocies.

Gosh, was that fun or what?

Remarks:

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging from the decimation of proper economic thinking through appeal to the higher-order thinking of the elites.

Modified: 03/23/2012

The real basis for capitalism, II -- knowledge

Moral: Wherein we continue the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which we all hope is fair, thereby, hoping to honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

This topic will take some time as 'knowledge' includes science and engineering, as we would all expect. Too, there is that which has been seriously misconstrued, namely agents and what they (can, think that they, ...) know. We started to look at some issues related to analytics and will get back to that due to its importance and growing presence (ah, that overlord of the mindful).

However, there is another: philosophy. Ah! In the modern age? Well, consider David Hume who was mentioned before as an example, but we'll get back to him.

---

The New Yorker's review of a book about Adam's work (the review mentions Hume) is worth a read. Notice that Adam knew that 'free markets' lead to the type of state that we see now: a few very large critters owning a very big percentage of the goods (or, in other words, fat cats of small cardinality (LT 0.1%) have their fat hands on the majority of the goods (GT 99.9%) whilst the remainder of us split a very small piece). Adam actually suggested that government has the role of keeping the playing field level.

Free men may gravitate toward markets, yet 'free' markets are not such, for long.

That is, folks, the ca-pital-sino that chases after trains that leave the station is not what we need. Nor is it something that Adam would want us to endure. No, what we see is a gravy train for some.

---

Consider an old Chinese thought that is the inspiration (basis?) for lazy fare that is so appealing to some. How is such a wonderful, and subtle, idea turned into that twisted idea of those libertarians who want to mangle the works for everyone but themselves?

---

One thing of note, that will be discussed in depth, is agent as a member of a system. Now, Adam was right to focus on the roles of the agent. Take his example of the coat and all that went into its creation and use. Namely, he stressed that the 'invisible hand' comes about from the actions of the many, mostly with them following the urges of their own self interest. This is a bottom-up view.

But, as we know from science and engineering (middle out), we need top-down. From whence this? Well, the system provides that. And, just how is this defined? Adam would probably say that it's the government's role (however government is defined).

We already talked about how some capitalists think of Adam as the Prophet of their religion of greed. This, folks, is a degradation of that great mind. Let's set things straight, shall we? The fat cats invisible hand is really in a raking mode, from the hapless who are the many to the pockets of the few.

Who has looked at the 'system' aspect? It'll need metaphysics (yes!) as well as neurophysiology, and we'll get there (in our own time).

Remarks:

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

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

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

?11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

11/02/2010 --Ludwig, being a product of his time and locality, seems to have thought that the 'elite' would lead the way. Oh, guy, did you really think that? Do we not see that the best-and-brightest are more couple with perdition than not?

10/29/2010 -- Bookstaber on Reich's book. Wonderful commentary, to boot.

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).

10/27/2010 -- Well, we're not the least corrupt, thanks to the screwed up capitalistic framework that has been imposed over the past half century.

10/26/2010 -- One way to know, the media.

Modified: 09/21/2011

Suckers and sackers

Moral: Wherein we suspend, briefly, the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks. Our goal of honoring Adam Smith and other thinkers will be delayed a little.

---

After all, we have things like the ergodic hypothesis, and a lot more, to discuss.

---

In its current mode, capitalism is for the sackers. And, Big Ben, your sacking of the savers plays right into the pockets of the takers. The consequence is that we have a whole slew of new kings (and royalty) who are more problematic than good.

Then, we have the hapless. Suckers, in other words. Those who are led into indentured servitude for themselves and their families for generations.

---

Wait, is not that what we're doing for the US economy as a whole?

Sackers need an endless supply of suckers to play their game. Why else Wall Street (yes, Ben, and you do know that you play the fiddle for these people?)?

Now, some who were suckered once are really smart and will not allow this again. In the past, cards have generally been stacked for those who are early and get the system made to their liking.

---

Wait, again, isn't the wild web just full of this? Yes, Zuckerberg (Look, guy, you may not want such but give me a bunch of smart people who can take a simple living oath, and we'll set the economy straight, for ourselves, our children, and their offspring) and a whole lot more.

Be that as it may, let's go to the foreclosure issue. Daily Finance lists what could happen from the current mess. It is worth a read.

However, embedded is a link to talk about a middle class revolt. Now, to hear some who argue for capitalism, they want 'free' markets, almost to the point of anarchy. But, no, not quite that far. Just far enough to push things into their favor and their pockets.

To hear the middle class talk of revolt is troublesome as they (not the fat cats) are the basis for the economy, especially the capitalistic variety. Somehow, we have lost the way.

---

Capitalism, people, is the best means for us to have a just economy. But, and I repeat, but, 'capitalism' is still to be defined. That is our task.

The pain with the realizations of late results from the fact that some of us thought that the US would be the best environment for this type of economy to happen. Well, people, interlopers have usurped 'of, by, and for' thereby confusing the issues.

---

A lot of good people have thought about these things and have tried to help matters. But, that we have let the genie out of the bottle with technology needs more attention. Those who are best and brightest, by their nature, want to screw the rest (unless they are simple livers - yes, I can define this). Then, they get the legal eagles on their side, including the courts.

---

Unfortunately, we may find that last year Obama ought to have nationalized the banks, stopped the high bonuses that were paid, halted the markets, did a full audit, ... (a lot more), ..., and then built up to start afresh. Is it too late?

Remarks:

10/15/2017 -- Post hasn't been touched for four years. Lots of water, many ways. The muddy cloud fell to pieces allowing manipulations through ads (run by money hungry souls - and the power seeking), yet the numb nuts keep at it. Why? Stupid mis-interpretation of Adam plus some idea that commercialization (mercantilization) are it. Lots to discuss.

10/03/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

02/12/2013 -- We ought to have nationalized these guys' playground.

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

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

09/13/2012 -- Ben, and his cronies, continue to sack the savers. 

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

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.

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

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).

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

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

10/15/2010 -- How do we get back the 'of', 'by', and 'for the people' in all ways, including the economic system? Perhaps, if we could get Zuckerberg (Facebook), et al, to agree to 'simple living' and we could place trust (engineered, of course, as necessary), then computational assistance could help us all rise out of the morass (especially, that associated with politicos - those who salivate when a buck is passed beneath their noses - somehow, evolution has selected for these types?). To date, the promise of the cyber-physical, especially that represented by the web, has mostly pulled us further into a worse situation.

Modified: 10/15/2017

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 real basis for capitalism, I -- imperatives

Moral: Wherein we turn away from belaboring the error of ways and start to honor Adam Smith by having another look at the appeal, of capitalism's message, even to those who, currently, are exploited by the ideas.

---

For one, we all know that top-down does not work. We saw it in the family. How often was your mom or pop able to get your little behind to behave? Always? Oh wait, many were angels from the get-go!

We saw with certain 20th century experiments, that state planning does not work. For the most part. And, many took great pleasure in that. But, hey, capitalists, show me something of yours that has endured, other than exploitation of labor (see Image).

You see, the ravages of improper handling of undecidables, plus the fact that decisions are not made EVER with 20-20 foresight (despite the ASSumption by economists of rational (hah!) agents with perfect knowledge; that is beyond words - we cannot fathom such idiotic thinking) makes things fuzzy (at best).

Also, some have taken a firm hold on private property, and individual motivation, to support their laissez faire ideology, but that is not as strong as these think.

Adam and David might have been concerned about motivations (Keynes, I ought to use John to be consistent, used a metaphor of animal spirits). Yet, this, too, can be misconstrued. Perhaps, an update, using modern existential verities, might be a good way to start.

Hence, imperatives. However, we're not starting categorically though, at some point, this may be of interest. Way to go, Immanuel!

---

No, we can start with imperatives in a biological sense, yet with a human orientation. Every live entity subsumes its own piece of space, has its own metabolism, and such. Though, we may come to see parasites as something of interest to the discussion.

So, individuation is one concept that applies within all sorts of contexts. Independent agents, in other words. Yet, how many workers, especially those under the cloud of indentured slavery that is the modern corporate experience, consider themselves independent? Hey, if you take exception to that, look at any non-disclosure agreement forced upon the workforce and tell me that it is otherwise.

----

Yet, there is also the team requirement, in more than the military or athletic context. That is, no one is John Galt or Atlas, for that matter. In other words, the degree of individuation, economically (as in other domains), would be a spectrum. You have those who are bound into some type of group (by the way, how many of those high-class families could provide someone who could endure the enlisted man's burdens?)

Then, there are those who are free. Mind you, we think of this as the monied state in the capitalistic world. Yet, those who live simply are free, to boot.

That is, what is required to meet imperatives? You know, eat, sleep, ... Where in the list does one find this: have a huge mansion, with countless servants, in an area of utmost wealth, and such?

Aside: just as some cried over missed bonus money (even when their actions led others to states of extreme deprivation), all through history, we have had the takers and the doers. We'll be talking more about those on the take and those who actually do useful things.

----

If you had not seen it coming, we contend that capitalism is the way for us to have a more just society. But, not for the reasons put forth by those under the influence of the libertarian world view.

Let's get back to individuation and motivation (from biological imperatives and their social superpositions). You see, the former is one source for the arguments about private property. Oh, yes, accumulation to the max. But, just like the deleterious effects of too much fat on our bodies, there is a bad side of too much accumulation economically (oh? you might ask, why so? - ah, we'll get to that, too). Actually, near-zero is the concept for us to discuss here.

Now, given that property acquisition comes up, is it the key motivator? Well, that may be for some. What about doing a good job (the lowly worker who puts his heart and soul into performing well for a heartless company run by a soulless slob) which can be psychologically pleasant (actually, it's related to neurotransmitters - yet, a simple accomplishment can be as effective, in this manner, as the accumulation of billions of bucks - remember, near-zero)? There are other motivators, including those related to big-T issues.

---

Actually, it looks like accumulation is part of a measuring scheme which itself will bring in some type of palpable benefits. Is accumulation there by necessity? If you look at the majority, in the capitalistic sense, the accruals have some future goal. For many, just simple desires for a healthy and happy retirement.

To wit, though, we have to look at how many of those simple goals were trampled under given our present capitalistic makeup.

----

The following list of future topics is not a complete.

• labor, it's a role, folks, not a class, and consumers must have some resources
• we'll take a re-look at markets, as necessary, unfortunately we have only seen ca-pital-sino, so far -- not what is needed
• private versus public needs some more attention - public goods may be handled by private hands (with caveats and by those who live simply) but ought not be privatized (someone will own the earth? hah! they don't own their own shadow!)

Remarks:

12/13/2011 -- Pavlov and dogs. May seem appropriate, yet dogs eat mostly to live (that is, we're talking about Pavlov frustrating a biological imperative). We, on the other hand, do not need the ca-pital-sino (invisible hand? -- fantasy).

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

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

10/26/2010 -- 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.

10/13/2010 -- A couple of recent items were talked about here several times. For one, foreclosures are under scrutiny, again. Now, that some legal processes were less than sound and true is coming out. Perhaps, 'real capitalism' does not need any legal intervention. (See Remarks) Secondly, Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, helping GS with his decisions. Ah, love it!!

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

Modified: 12/13/2011

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