The ideological errors of capitalism, VIII -- disingenuity

Moral: Wherein we continue the "ideological errors" with another post; ever wonder how economics, in terms of our beans (money), has gone so far awry?

---

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)

---

Did we not just look at illegality or mere stupidity as the motivator for errant-ness?

---

There is much to look at, as a whole bunch of theory has been proposed the past century or so. We need to look at that; the idea is to not demean the old masters. That their followers idiotically mis-use great ideas is not a bad reflection on the master. If the master is not here to intervene, then who will? Besides, all of these ideas have a context that ought to be kept in mind.

Take Markov, for instance. His ideas are central to a whole lot of modern (such as, that of the quants) worldviews. He also plays heavily into decision processes in unknown ways which we'll bring out into the light. For one, we can ask: do we need to know how we got to our current dilemma in order to get things corrected and on their way again?

Say what?

Well, the answer would be no, but then yes. For the types of thinking that would say no, we could point to Andrey's ideas and extensions thereof. How many instances do we see now where decisions are made as if we can just cast off what has happened to date?

In fact, the illegal versus stupid thing says that we can use the latter for the bosses, in many cases. As in, stupidity is hard to legislate away (this is not cynicism, by the way). And, in many cases, the notion of 'to err is human' is applied, such as noone goes to jail. But, harming oneself through stupidity is one thing; bringing hard times to the multitudes is another.

---

Aside: there have been subtle changes over the times since the 60s. We can talk two things. Take general aviation. I remember the arguments about dropping liability concerns which then opened up the field; have not many more planes been out and about on a daily basis? In fact, some wonder if that area just might be the one open to mis-deed at some point. Take computing. How many have had angst (more, measurable results from failures -- how many zeros after the $1 could one accumulate for all of the business costs related to software failure (no particular company in mind, I might add)?

---

Of course, Andrey's take only works for particular decision types where we have information sufficient to build, and maintain, the decision chain. Now, overlaying human characteristics is where one type of issue comes to fore. The quants (mentioned above) bewail that people are not like particles whose states (though they may have unbounded properties) are far easier to handle by system thinking.

Take the modern corporate environment, for example, suppression of individuality is key to success; for all those, except for a favored few. In fact, off-shoring, in many cases, was motivated by the willingness (actually, their suitability for being exploited) of poor workers (in oppressive societies) to be amenable to doing unconscionable amounts of work for little to nothing (yes, Steve, what say you?). This suppression goes to the quick; talk to the top guy, he would love to have mindless automatons who follow orders (actually, they need to adore the guy or gal at the top).

---

Economics goes wrong from loving abstraction too much, we have said. So, why is this dis-ingenuous? After all, how else does one get a Nobel?

Well, that love has led to a computational framework as if by necessity; then, that which is considered sufficient to "believe" the results of having this framework has been doctored such that we do not know what is what anymore. Yes, folks. But, we have to ask if it was any better before? Or, to put it another way, has it ever been what it ought to be? Well, no.

In fact, what is the 'it' being referred to here? What we need is a re-look that is constructive from an almost elemental sense. Some posts here have tried to do this, albeit somewhat cursorily (imperatives, knowledge, technology). The trouble is that we can't stop the world (as Buckley would have liked us to do, several times).

---

Then, we'll need to show how the basis ought to be people. That is somewhat implied with the emphasis on the consumer (I, II, III) in the basic equation, however we need more (see rank and file).

---

Expect more on this theme.

Remarks:

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

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability in discussing quants (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

02/04/2012 -- This trait adds to the potential fraud power.

Modified: 01/08/2019

Illegal or just stupid

Moral: Wherein we look at some modern quandaries.

---

Without pointing fingers, one has to ask whether it's the idiots who ascend in our modern society? Oh, let's point a couple. There was a headline that got my attention, today. It's a firm that recently went bankrupt. And, just a few days before, the head guy (extreme over-achiever (ah, don't those types just make you sick - barf, barf, ...?), Senator, Governor, etc. probably an Eagle Scout) was telling people that things were okay.

The talk today was about the size of the missing money. Well, it was more than a billion (1 with 9 zeros following). I didn't read the whole thing (too depressing) but saw someone saying that the actions within this company may not have been illegal but that the head guy definitely was not a good manager.

Say what?

---

Wait! There are those who text and drive and who, thereby, create increasing likelihoods of harming someone, perhaps even themselves. I know; these idiots almost run me over every day as I walk on a sidewalk or in a marked crossing. Business is run like this; that, folks, is what we get from the best and brighest?

---

We'll forego more than only a few words about this other guy who wants to continue to stiff the savers for another couple years. Gosh. I wonder if he puts on special garb in order to kiss up (worship) that big chimera who plays with him (Sirens).

---

Then,we're in an election year that is taking unprecedented steps because of bench decisions the past few years. Like someone said, we'll all hold our noses and vote when it's time.

---

So, back to the title. Someone took a big company to task telling management that they could not drive things solely with rules. You need a proper mental outlook for the workers to follow. It's not like you lay down the code and a dumb machine executes these.

A company needs a spirit and some ethical sense (I'll start to use moral as soon as I work out how the secularist think that this ought to go); management is supposed to bring this out; ah, those guys/gals are after their own rewards, is that not so?

---

The larger economy has the same issue. Yet, money has become the sole thing of value; all sorts of decisions the past couple of decades have resulted in our current mess almost by definition. Were we all just stupid?

---

What was the article from a year ago or so? Oh, yes, we'll dumb ourselves down to make our machines look good. Evidently, this applies, as well, to management and leadership. Yes, leaders seem to have the worse case of lead feet; why is that?

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- The bad spirit of the thing.

05/11/2012 -- Featuring Jamie.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability in discussing quants (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

02/03/2012 -- Stockman on Ben.

02/01/2012 -- Their risk officer (the first example, above) said tsk, tsk. He was shown the door. Ah, way to go, Governor!

Modified: 01/20/2013

Jobs, labor, disrespect

Moral: Wherein we look at Rick's words on the Bifurcated Society of which we are all (except for the fat cats sitting in their reverie while being divorced from the real world) now intimately aware.

---

From whence the jobs given that we've optimized out-sourcing (out-housing) to the max and that the newer positions seem to require a high level of numeracy (a bane, if we looked at it -- by the way, this is from one who is quite enough versed in mathematics -- yet, knows the importance of a quasi-empirical stance) which then reduces a whole set of people into uselessness?

At the same time, though, what is consider sub-human, touch labor, has been given to imports who will work for slave wages. And, infrastructure has been allowed to decay. Go to any city and try to not puke (it is sickening - and, we think that we're the epitome - we go around the world and try to impose our views -- as if we're that which mankind yearns for - that is, until they get over here to see the reality). Look at the status of all that work done by people (the ancestors of current Americans) in programs (CCC, for example) that were meant to keep people employed while improving our living situation. These people were not, nor were you, the progeny, degraded by this honest type of labor. Sheesh! America, without a proper infrastructure -- including the cyber type, does not live up to the potential.

---

My pity go to those who are so rich that they can't smell their solid output. Please, go live, without any assistance, sometime, in a hell-hole of a barrio, slum, or what have you (which, we might say, was created through the actions, and decisions, of your ancestors). To be reasonable, let me re-iterate that near-zero applies here (yes, your gain came at the expense of many others -- including the planet itself -- oil companies thinking that they own this natural resource -- pure crap).

By the way, we'll get back to looking at this using symmetry in an unorthodox manner.

---

Rick mentions his thought that virtual manufacturing could help. My caution would be to add constraints that prevent us from driving people like machines through computational models. In fact, this already happens.

Picture this! Sitting at a tube is someone who could not lift a 50 lb weight, yet that person is allowed, through scheduling and other means, to guesstimate how long a physical task will take (mind you, never having done that thing his/her self) and to plan some sequence that is outrageously inhumane and categorically stupid.

Aside: A corollary is someone sitting at a scope, applying gaming skills, and offing people (how to show? -- that is metaphysically atrocious, from several angles). Then, we give them medals?

---

I'm not a Marxist, but that guy had some things right (the twerps who run businesses, many times, are without any talent beside the ability to squeeze profit out of the workers and the customers without any thought for tomorrow -- and our great-grandkids' future) in several cases. He, by the way, used creative destruction. Somehow, the right-wingers usurped the thing (ah, interlopers everywhere one looks).

---

I haven't seen it, but we need some type of solution to be defined that makes sense in creating a balance. One would work with one's mind and body, every day. In fact, the latter would be done on something useful, not running to the gym and wasting one's energies. Then, the lower safety net would need some attention. However, we also need limits on the uppers (yes, like Warren, et al). Now, any type of coercive approach would be problematic. So, providing the ways to view this, with wisdom, would help some see the errors of their ways. Warren gave away a lot of his money. My question to him would be this: does he think that this act counters the karma (not strictly used, rather a commonly known term that suggests the reality) related to all of the near-zero side-effects that his decisions have accrued over the years? Same goes to Bill Gates. I've already brought this up to Jobs.

Well, I'll ask Mitt about that, too. Bain? Oh, I keep reading bane (especially, hedge funds).

---

We can look at Wichita, KS for an example of disrespect. Boeing is pulling out. Some say that the withdrawal started when McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing. Their head, Harry, didn't like KS for some reason. One thing in the later 1990s demonstrated this. He was actually booed by his workers at a meeting where he was trying to argue against the union's attempt to extend their services to a larger set of workers. Some remember the threats to pull out.

Turns out that six years ago, a few local managers allowed the beginning of this by helping with a buyout (private capital). So, a whole bunch of Boeing was sold off. The unions were toyed with. Thousands lost their jobs and pensions (that's a story for another time). At that time, many workers fled to the Boeing side in order to not have to deal with the new company.

Over these years, the tanker deal was worked out. Remember that Boeing was able to get the Air Force to withdraw its contract with Airbus and its American partner? In the rerun, Boeing won. Of course, KS people worked on the contract and expected to be part of the resource mix. Turns out, of late, that, no, there won't be any work at the Wichita plant.

---

To put that in context, remember that there were thousands, many of them good, workers who gave heart and soul to the Company. Everyday, we have people in situations where their love, in this sense, is unrequited (managers love a company, or is it the money?). For many, financial independence is far from their grasp. Why? It seems that the cards are stacked against this. First of all, going into a company is analogous to becoming an indentured servant. Then, whatever creative talent that you have is grabbed by the company as if it owns you as chattel, almost. That's understandable somewhat (isn't the argument, they make the job available, you don't have to take it -- disrespectful view, that it is), but then when people are squeezed dry, they're plopped out on the street.

With the recent downturn, we saw many who lost employment in their later years; building an adequate basis for the older years is something that needs to be done throughout a lifetime. In many instances, recovery after losses (the whole idiocy of 401K dropping their value is one thing that did not have to happen) is not possible due to several factors.

---

Boeing, of course, has a right to move. Yet, one wonders if there were any lessons learned by managers with regard to ethics (problems splashed across all of the papers, at one time). In 2005, the ethics consultant was touting this as the basis for ethical behavior. Guess what this is or was? I don't know if the consultant is even used nowadays. Some seem to think of ethics in terms of case-based considerations (situational, in nature) that are hard to pin down. Well, 'this' was the golden rule. Yes, imagine such a business environment (we could actually get to something similar with a Magna Charta, with labor getting more respect).

Remarks:

06/08/2014 -- Does time tell?

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject of firms.

06/08/2012 -- Stiglitz talks inequality with Conard.

06/07/2012 -- We cannot recapture the innocence lost by the 'flower' generation who now glower with power. But, we can heed Hitch about speaking truth to power. Too, we can think of the burdens being put on future generations that are of a new type; even those exploiting the situation do not understand the depth of these problematic economical notions. One concept to apply is 'irreversible' process.

05/30/2012 -- As covered by flightblogger.

05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.

01/17/2012 -- Yesterday's USA Today had a good editorial about private equity, motivated by the interest in Bain because of Mitt's prominence. We'll have to look more at this. They (the pes) make their money,  oodles when things go well; they make a little less otherwise (but, in this case, the cost is offloaded to all of the workers who lose jobs, pay, pension, and insurance. The atrocity? The pe techniques can actually end up eating away pensions of the little guy!) Hawker, in Wichita, is a recent example that is still unfolding. As well, the issue mentioned Apple's problem with sweatshops. What was Steve thinking? 

Modified: 06/08/2014

Coherence?

Moral: Wherein we start the year, as we ended the last one, by looking at posts that are being read.

---

Why? Is it laziness? Well, not really. As one progresses through time at a keyboard, stuff accumulates. Now, on the web, it seems to just continue to flow (even in nature, one doesn't find continuous (see below) eliminations - err brain dumps) without any thought (this is a very demonstrable, rather than just arguable, remark). Where are the editors?

So, since coherence is one goal with this post [blog] (and its relatives), we'll take some time to review past positions [posts and their content] in order to make corrections and to form a more firm foundation.

---

Aside: the past few weeks have been spent following threads that results [resulted] from Christopher Hitchens' departure. As you would expect, that trek [reading venture] wandered across many loci in time (and virtual space). One thing that will be forthcoming, soon, is discussion about why business cannot be more like science. Now, wait! There is a serious overlap between these two. In fact, business exploits science more than vice versa. Too, any scientist who goes after greed will not be a good scientist for long (yes, lesson there for Jamie (yes you, guy, the last man standing) and his ilk (the bane of the earth)). See Last Man April 1, 2011 (unfortunately, these people are not April fool's jokes (wait! that's it - they are puns on us -- actually, scourges and a daily source of pain) whose mischief is limited to one day a year.).

---

• Ben, da man -- Nov 2011 -- Yes, Ben may irritate in his efforts to appease the bankers (and their ilk). But, they have the money. So, it's understandable. This year, we'll be a little more circumspect with regard to the impossible task (set, of course, by the idiot politicians who salivate at the thought of money) that he has taken on. 

• Gravy train I -- Jan 2010 -- Saw the reviews of McDonald's book which motivated interest. It is nice to see an insider's view. Yet, we're going to have to go back to an even lower basis in order to correct these problems. How long will that take? Those who can (small set) have always screwed the others (the very large set),  when allowed. We need to bring in a Magna Charta for these jerks. By the way, Harvard, you are going to have to accept some responsibility at making things more sane. 

• Continuous and discrete -- Aug 2009 -- Ah, yes, the numerant[s] have taken their little bit of understanding of the thing, with the aid of the artificial beast (its been said many ways here -- to be made more cohesive, this year), to extremes that are far beyond their control (again, to be updated this year). 

• Ben and Timmy -- Aug 2011 -- Yes, if only that biological part of [the] equation dealing with the 'act' (yes, the male disinterest in anything beyond conquest) were not the thing brought into business. See above comment about science. Because [as] 'truth' (but, not necessarily 'being') comes to fore (usually), there is less of the contentious mating calls. (Aside: Jamie, are you up to changing the game?) What about the care and feeding (and, a whole lot more! like seeing leveraging as the games of a male teen's brain (yes, you guys, smell the roses) -- this just past go-around extremely exacerbated by computational mischief - ah, the gaming generation's debut)? By the way, we're going to look closely at the decision of Boeing to leave its 85-year relationship with a mid-western city as an example. Ah, that is going to be fun!! Talk about sucking a place dry (tax breaks, jilted lovers (as in workers who put their heart and soul into the place) -- Jim M's brain could not even start to grasp at the reality. 

Remarks:

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time. 

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/15/2012 -- It is or It is not. Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/14/2012 -- One thing to do this year will be to move pointers to a more permanent site. That is, new feeds, like Yahoo's, degrade. Just updated Last Man. Fortunately, the feeds copy part of the title and identify the source. But, sometimes the original article leaves cyber space. Even search sites have links that are of no use. Some make a copy, but that requires space, etc.  

Modified: 05/10/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

Moral: Wherein we stop to the most-read posts, as opposed to looking at past December posts, while everyone relaxes in preparation for the coming year.

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• -- Computation, finance and engineering -- From 2009. This post hints at our major problem, but it does not offer near enough emphasis on solutions. That'll change this year. In fact, in 2012, we'll respect Ben Bernanke for undertaking an impossible job; we'll admire Timothy Geithner for being in the hot seat while being cool; and more. Yet, the blogger knows about the issues underlying computation; he wonders how far amiss we have let the younger folks range just because the some only wanted to fill their pockets (see Quants series). If we are to let markets determine truth, then we need transparency (yes, Hedge Funds, you're culprits, too), and a whole bunch of other things.  

• -- Harvard, value and quality I -- From 2010. Ah, this was almost two years ago (give me a break). Now, I hear that some at Princeton are supporting the 99% (God bless them). So, can we ever expect Harvard to revert from its switch toward the secular (mis-guided, which we can show) and allow just a little morality into the equation (they have already started?)? By the way, this year, this blog (and the related) will lay out the foundation'al framework that will support such a view. 

• -- New royalty -- From 2010 . Has it not been the case that American capitalists (and others) have continued to exploit the energies, and the dreams, of workers around the world? Sheesh! They even did it with Communist partners (you guys and gals have any semblance of true humanity in your blood?). At this point, I'll just point to St. Margaret who exemplified how royals ought to be (yes, indeed). 

• -- The ideological errors of capitalism II -- Adam Smith redux -- From 2010. Phew!, where did that title come from? Well, Adam has been the focus for a whole lot of bad thinking. That is not his problem. But, who is there to argue in his defense as he rolls around in his grave? Adam was of his time; we're much later and need to read him with the proper filter. His 'invisible hand' was imaginary (some seem to think of it as actual, it would seem). Self-regulation? That only applies with internal governors (systems). How many seem to have allowed them to reach for states of no restraint? Too bad that 'invisible hand' can't slap these types silly (or until they awaken to their proper senses).  

Aside: the blogger was in the military (ground troops) decades ago as a seventeen year old. Hence, metaphors, and such, are flavored by experience, though some may have been influenced Hollywood-style (media have responsibility - beyond what might have been appreciated in this regard so far).

Remarks:

12/29/2012 -- Summary - 2012.

01/13/2012 --  First post of 2012. 

Modified: 12/29/2012

Rank and file III

Moral: Wherein we take a further look at rank and file, a little more thoroughly.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III

---

Rank? File? Let's take the first one, for this post.

---

And, we'll have to go back to the time of the Tudors. Yes, that continues the theme of the backbone of the economy.

I recently ran across Tim Lambert's site while searching a subject. Both the approach and the content had a lot of appeal. In a short paragraph, there is description of Tudor society with four broad classes. We'll take a look at those below.

---

As an aside, the blogger has railed about several tendencies that don't seem to die out. One of these is to have a pecking order with obvious differentiating features. Hence, we get mansions, mc-mansions, all the way down to huts. Why all of this teeming?

Well, there may be metaphysical explanations, but let's hold those big-T (Truth) issues, for a bit. We all know that the 'teeming' is not productive if it leads to unsustainable situations (but, even our politicians have been bought -- what institution of higher-learning has not prostituted itself to moolah?). Our real problem, in essence, is getting some agreement on what it is we're all after and how to do it in a manner that is conducive to the health of the human race and of the planet and of its occupants.

The general concept might the 'lordly prince trap' yet there are many other ways to characterize this thing and its features. One counsel may be staying above the fray. Is this even possible?

---

So, let's look at Tim's description of 'rank' as it was then. And, in respect to those who are the 99% (the 1% get all of the love that they need), we'll go backwards.

• laborers -- ah, we all know about this level. For one, it's to where one falls if one fails. Too, many have climbed their way out of this level. In some cases, childhood is just this. Tim mentions illiteracy for this class. In New England, universal education was an early goal. Any rise via learning has to be accompanied by opportunity. In a lot of cases, there were none (think Japan's lost generation). On the other hand, everyone ought to be able to do something with their hands that is productive -- besides, labor may actually be the most loving thing that someone could do (to be explained - but, it is more than bear birth). In short, any and all of those who do 'real' work are here (except for a few professionals -- surgeons - did you have to ask?).
• yoemen -- Tim says that this little group worked with the laborers. So, think foremen (not straw boss, okay) and supervisors. On the other hand, you could think of someone who cares about results (how many, seemingly, push-button situations lead to crap? -- don't answer, please -- too disheartening). These could read and write. By the way, did we not know over here, in the 1950s/60s, a dock worker philosopher? My thought is that we ought to look for 'yoemen' contributors who had a grand-scale impact.
• gentlemen -- money, in other words. Fat cats, too. Those who cannot even wipe their own behinds. Do we not know these people? In many cases, pretenders to nobility. Oh, wait, sorry; yes, landowners, having enough money to not worry about the tomorrows, and such. What we, at one time, thought might be the upper middle class. You might say that the first two were the 99%. This group here is on the boundary between the 1% and the rest. Naturally, there are good connotations here; as in, couth behavior makes for good neighbors. Too, refinement ought to be a goal; on the other hand, one can muck manure and still appreciate opera.
• nobility -- now this group for which I'm expending a bunch of effort to define, perhaps defend, what they do and represent is a puzzle. In an advanced sense, it's a role. But, somehow, the role gets internalized (this, folks, is the real personification). Of course, the Brits know this better than ourselves. From whence the first king? God? Oh no, as we have the history of the machinations (Tudors, included). Methinks that it's a combination of several things which would include ability (of course, intelligence, but is it measurable -- say, oh, I'm 99.999th percentile on the college boards?), opportunity (all sorts of things), motivation (the wise man would pass this up, just like Charles the Hammer told the Pope no thanks in regard to being Holy Roman Emporer -- my kind of guy), and a whole lot more. By the way, CEOs think that they are kings (they are, in the sense of the multinational entity over which they reign -- we need to rein them in -- where is our Magna Charta for business jerks?).

I like these four. Naturally, there are many other ways. Like, let's look at the military. You know the saying, officer and gentleman. So, right there, you have the split. Right above yoeman (as in, any wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant can rule it over the highest of the sergeants) is a boundary. Now, people can, and do, cross that line through training (90 day wonders) and education (say, the military academies).

But, as I've said before, and I'll try to collect some stories: there are people in those lower classes who are much more capable than some (perhaps, many) of the uppers. Oh, that's a given? How many fortunes, and dynasties, have been lost by idiotic decisions by descendants?

Look at our beloved Kate (Duchess of Cambridge -- she has many cousins over here). Her lineage has people from a family who had a baronage (that was lost by some nitwit) working in the coal mines. Too, you read about the many who lost in markets (yes, as we've seen of late). Many, even to the likes of Newton (the cap-ital-sino is not representative, at all, of an advanced society, folks).

---

There will be some more talk about rank. Then, we'll get to the file.

Remarks

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.

12/05/2011 -- We have a new meme. Rather than have/have nots (which is a moral split), we now have 1%-99% (a metrical space); that is, something within which we can maneuver and make decisions (any more meaningful?).

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' have wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

Modified: 12/15/2012

Ben, da man

Moral: Wherein we put looking at the human conditions on the table and get back to Big Ben.

---

Ben who? Ben Bumblebutt. Obama had a chance to give us someone new. Oh well. That opportunity passed.

Thanks to Bloomberg, we see that Ben had a conduit from which the big banks could extract as they wanted, without much accounting, and enjoy as a privilege, since they are so 'special' (too big to fail, being a culprit is stylish, I suppose).

So, rather than 'nationalizing' these types, as he ought to have, he played funny games with us, the taxpayers and the savers, and our money. Savers? Those whom Ben has sacked for over three years now.

Yes, he likes to rub elbows with the likes to Jamie and others. Too, he likes the Tetons. Well, he has provided to the jerks the biggest nipple possible (ah, we had to see them get suckled, plus we had to clean up their messy diapers - no wonder the OWS).

---

All the while, the banks froze up. Main street suffered. What we heard about then were the precious bankers missing their big bonuses (which, many times, were based upon gaming techniques that are not necessary for a sustainable, international economy).

And, savers got 0.2 % or less for their monies. Think of the myriad retirees who had to trim their belts; and, this for no reason other than the foolishness of those who seem to be so Lordly (give me a break).

---

Let's pause for a brief look at numbers. Say that some retirees have $500,000 (amount used for its nice rounding features -- too, it's a basis for discussion, see Remarks: 11/29/2011, below) with which to fund about 30 years, or so, of whatever is needed to sustain their lives.

As well, let's look at three interest rates 5% (about what Ben had to start with), 1% (Ben, this ought to be your basis -- big guy, talk to someone outside of the Washington and the academic crowd, please, get your head out of the '30s -- by the way, you need to temper Jamie's influence on you -- too, Ben lose your love of that market chimera whose sirens can allure, big guy), and 0.2% (using a larger number than Ben wants paid).

So, using 5%. That $500K start would accumulate an additional $78K over three years. Not a lot, but sufficient to help with the bills. Guess what was the reality 0.2%? A whopping $3K. That is, the savers paid Big Ben's pals $75K (now, people, multiply that over all of the savers -- we have given a lot to the likes of Jamie). At 1%, the accumulation would have been a mere $15K. Yet, Big Ben could have used his moral arguments (albeit, hypocritically since he was rewarding morally hazardous behavior. Ben, do you know the word or concept of morality?) to persuade the saver that they were helping the economy.

But, Ben's jawboning runs empty (or worthless) when he continues to only confab with the rich and powerful (hah, they have no power over the human spirit).

---

This post depicts renewed zeal to bring to fore a better method. Who has defined such a thing? Everyone, it seems, has wandered off after the chimera. How do we get back to the basics of banking?

---

By the way, the WMDs are still there even though Warren has looked away. In fact, he's jumped into the pool, it seems, with the rest. Shenanigans, indeed.

Remarks:

08/27/2013 -- Ben has slapped the savers silly for years now. At the same time (or during the while), he has played goo-goo with the nursing addicts who line up to his large teat (conduit).

12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time. 

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

02/08/2012 -- Ben has fed the stock market recovery.

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this.

12/09/2011 -- See Taken to Task series.

12/08/2011 -- Shocker? Not really. Also, Big Ben has our interest near 0%. Then, he gives this to Europe. Their low point? 1%. Does Ben want ours to be negative?

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

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.

11/30/2011 -- I wonder what kind of thrill Big Ben gets when the markets move like today. The DOW is up over 400 points just because Ben offered to give them newly printed dollars (mind you, the savers here are being further sacked). As this article describes, it looks legit (is somewhat), yet the whole thing is a shell game of moving numbers around. The ploy here is to keep people's expectations up, even though the reality is that we're kicking the can down the road for future generations to worry about. Where is 'value' brought forth? Not with financial gaming.

11/29/2011 -- One wag is saying that 5% on a portfolio will be what the upper echelon sees for some time. The old adage was 8-10 percent. And, hedge funds want 20+, even up to 40%. Returns, like 40%, are only done with very illegal (illicit in any reasonable society) means (this we could (and will be able to) show at some point).

Now, as to the $500,000. It has several uses which are listed below. Actually, it can help us discuss requirements for planning for future payouts. Bankers were supposed to help with this; but, they, and the insurance bunch, wanted more to line their pockets (forgetting fiscal responsibility).

• Some will have multiples of this; others may have fractional amounts.
• For any, you can think that this is what you'll need for $1K to $2K, per month (depending upon what rate was used). In other words, your future demand will require current assets.
• As opposed to the strategy of small assets, expecting big returns. Usually, this is attempted through leverage. We've seen the downside of that.
• Those who push to pay low lump sums will try to push upward the expected return. Why? The higher the return, the less the payer has to put out.
• Or, as we're seeing with many pension funds (mostly public), less is in the coffers now than will be needed to cover the requirement. The Post Office is caught in the reverse situation where Congress is asking them to have too much on hand, now, which lowers funds available for operations.
• These things are easy to figure mathematically. What is hard is setting up the model. Now, if you add in malfeasance (or just plain bumblebutt-hood) on the part of those who handle the technicalities of money and distribution, all bets are off. That is very unnecessary, folks.
• How did it come to be? Computationally enabled gaming, yes, the ca-pital-sino. Plus, a mindset that has put this type of idiocy as the foundation for our world view (give me a break, again). Why have they been allowed this success? Flim-flam mathematical ontologies that essentially snow any rational discussion (limited management views using sophisticated schemes that are way beyond their comprehension except from a mere operational (meaning, me-me-me) stance).
• ...

Modified: 08/27/2013