Salem Commoners

Moral: Wherein we start a look at the 'chimera' (and its lemons) in terms of an approach that is sustainable.

---

Perhaps, Big Ben and Jamie can learn something. Little Timmy, too?

We'll use the context of the recently passed Fourth of July.

---

I have been reviewing European and American history, using a genealogical framework, for the past couple of years. Somehow, putting flesh on the thing can create a whole new look.

And, it seems obvious to me that we have gone astray from the ideals of the early entrants (and those across the millennial span who may have wished that things were better) . Why?

Many reasons. We'll get to that. But, the thing to look at is how to recapture some of that 'spirit' (and, politicos, you are not 'it') that was behind 1776.

Adam Smith would have loved this, it is my opinion. So, would have Samuelson.

---

What we are starting here will be a constructive viewpoint which has the intent of showing how to tame the chimera, to establish a more fair approach, and to do so without breaking the bank.

The series will be dedicated to George Edward Kimball, III (1943-2011) whom I first met 46 years ago in the central part of the U.S.A., who was continuation of a line from the early entrants to the 21st century, and who was for the 'little' people as many have said in their remembrances of him.

---

In my research, I had earlier run across a book with 'Salem Commoners' in the title and finally decided to read the thing. George's ancestor settled in Watertown, MA (later, moving to Ipswich, MA), but that is a mere stone's throw away (at least, to those of us from the wider-expanses of the western US).

Aside: in the past two years, I've been trolling the Internet's ever-growing database (thank you, Internet Archive, for instance) and collecting material related to several genealogical trees, including material related to the milieu and the times (to understand motivations, etc.). Of course, some material I read (or scanned). A lot of it is there waiting for attention.

So I opened the book (use 'Read online' for a wonderful GUI presentation). The title can give pause; is it exalting in not having any royal or aristocratic blood and more? Mind you, no one is in power, ever, without some exploitation of situations (yes, unfortunately, John Dalberg was right -- even though he knew not of situational ethics). Too, there is noone from any time who does not have something in their past that people cannot harp about (should they choose to do so).

Yet, we know that many people want to know of their royal gateways, if they have any. We didn't continue the traditions here, yet we can find these things interesting (aren't Kate and William just great, for instance? -- by the way, she has royal blood -- it took an American to do the proper research) since it is the past for a whole lot of Americans.

---

The above-mentioned book is a record of meetings that started in 1713. To put it in context, this would be about 90 years past the first group coming into the Salem area. What we see is a group of people who decided that they needed to organize efforts at maintaining the commonweal (we've mentioned that before). The attendee list consists of many stellar families.

Aside: a mere 50 years later, similar meetings had the role of 'shadow' government.

Now, one might ask in the context of the meeting, as opposed to what? Royal rule. Remember, George III stumbled here because he failed to see that 150-plus years of self-governance (despite royal overseers) led the American people to desire freedom sufficiently to risk their lives, health and wealth. You see, England had just gotten over decades of civil war. So, George III decided that he wanted to reign in those over here who had blossomed under the lack of constraint.

By the way, what were the British troops fighting for, in comparison? Oppression?

Aside: Because of the sweep of time here, we really need to look at the Crusades' influence on some modern dilemmas. Too, bottom-up (self-governance) versus top-down (aristocratic -- many, many types -- intelligence being the most insidious) is an age-old theme.

Ah, the allure of ergodics.

---

So, this is the first of a series. 'Constructive' will be looked at next time. You see, the chimera is the result of mis-used mathematics and computation, pure and simple. 'How to show this?' is the problem. Of course, we'll try to be other than PTIME in the development.

---

What is the historic-genealogical connection? Well, it'll unfold. But, Naisbitt was right in drawing parallels with our times of 400 years ago. We'll do the same drawing from a collection of individuals (including Richard Kimball) whose progeny continue to play out the 'American dream' (as it ought to be).

• 01/19/2010 -- ... Anyway, how do we get a new look at Adam Smith? We'll use US history. In particular, we're going to go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony and look at a few economic realities. We'll focus on several people, such as families of settlers, blowhards (like John White), and others, at first. Then, we'll expand it to other developments that were congruent in time. Note please, these things pre-date our friend Adam. ... Why do this? To honor Adam, for one. Also, Naisbitt, the futurist, is at it, again. His comparison of China with the U.S. two hundred years ago motivated me to look at his example's basis. Well, then we have to go back further than that (old planters). And, we expect to see that his paralleling example is not as well-founded as he may think. This look will be Economic History and Philosophy rolled into one.

Remarks

07/24/2012 -- Chompsky on the Magna Carta and our rights to Commons.

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

09/15/2011 -- Henry and George.

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

07/12/2011 -- Posts here evolve, but they eventually settle down. GEK III is quoted as saying that life would be better without editors. However, they do slough through a lot. Unfortunately, bloggers (assuming that the person cares) have to do that work themselves (as we all know, multitudes do not).

07/12/2011 -- Big Ben wants to ease for the fat cats, as if they will create jobs. Guy, you know that you've trashed the heart of the economy, the savers, for several years now? Answer this: do you run your household economy by debt (I already know the answer, no; somehow you are enthralled by equity's sirens)? That is, are you indentured up to your eyeballs (wait, what political pull are you trying to buildup for the future?)?

Modified: 07/24/2012

America and its roles

Moral: Wherein we start anew, with a fresh slate, and cover the bases (congrats, SF) after admitting that there is no jealousy.

Harvard is mentioned several times in this blog (22 posts). Too, though, there have been references to related themes (Harvard, supposed spawning point for world leaders) of American history (14 times - as well, use of "America" is not chauvinism - we're talking way before 1770s) and of civilized notions (20 times - albeit, Brit, as in Magna Charta). You see, the manias related to the chimera (in all of its variations) are very much counter to proper thinking.

So, since we can leave things in the capable hands of Janet and crew, we will be able to get back to considering the issues, as necessary.

--

Now, before we go further, let me make something clear. Look around now at the turmoil. For the most part, we see that youngsters are the ones who are providing the energetics. What has been interesting of late is how many places on the planet are seeing this phenomenon. Say, use the past 10 years to make the count. Astounding.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this time and again. And, the first occurrence, here, can be placed in the 60s. Having started, there were all types (which are well known) that followed over the years. Actually, we could put Berkeley first. But, coincident would be the activities related to Civil Rights.

We are talking more than civil disobedience, in a sense. We have to talk about conventions and such. Yes, it relates to business (in oh so many ways). For one, the bifurcation, so well documented as being so extreme, comes about from the human dynamics that we will explore (essentially, feudal lords ruling over their abstract'd entities seemingly without any constraints - not even from their stockholders).

And, the lord/serf theme is recurrent, to boot (40 times). The modern work environment is so much worse than what our remote ancestors faced (how do we get those supposed smart folk to wise up to the fact? -- let's take them down to the trenches so that they can see/smell the reality).

---

Right now, we will talk about the beginnings of Harvard. There are plenty of stories that tie into the event. Then, there is the long history. For now, we will only be looking at that early point.

It is said that the students rule there. Now, let's see. If that were true, then, it would have been the first occurrence of such a thing. Anywhere. Is that our legacy? Are we now paying the price in terms of the interminable power grabs of the best and brightest? Does thinking about this help us see why the stalemate continues at the top (supposed top - it was to be a government of the people, etc. -- remember?).

And, recall, too, that we started off talking about the youngsters being behind the revolutions. That was not true for the Spirit of 1776. No, it was not.

Old and young (just look at the wide range of ages in the large collection of patriots in the Massachusetts) cast in their lot. Female and male. All the race/cultural types were represented. Except, for the jolly old English (called royalists).

Disclosure: As we go through the analysis/discussion, there is a personal note in the sense of familial relationship with the players of the early days. Foremost, though, is the first instructor: Nathaniel Eaton. But, there are ties, too, with the whole lot of the players: motivators, payers, students, ... Hence, we can make that the central focus (where did we go wrong?).

--

We are doing this exercise for several reasons. Firstly, things are awry. One reason is mathematics being misused (a little knowledge is dangerous - albeit, we have supreme modes of abstracted nonsense nowadays). What has helped make this worse is computation with its inevitable culmination in big data. Secondly, we just had the 200th in a gaga mode. But, look around. Do you really see an American spirit anywhere? How did this happen? Of note, next year is the 800th of King John's first coerced signing (sealing) of the Magna Charta. This whole thing is seminal and will be more so (until the energy peters out - let's hope that it does not).

Thirdly, how did we get so bound into the chimera (personally, I like to keep my distance)? It entraps (the whole game and the potential payoffs - silly for mature thinkers, really). Too, though, go back to the first reason. We are overlaying ourselves (allowing ourselves to be entrapped) in a very strong web - let's wake up and smell the roses now - it's the right of the people). The proper view is not tightly considerate of what Janet (before her Ben and so forth) is doing. And, bemoaning the abstract'd views ought not be misconstrued. We need mathematics. ... But, consider that the metaphor of plumbing and plumbers is more strong for money/finance than the current set of brainy types will allow (add to those, the greedy, etc.). Fourthly, we have been at this for awhile and got off the track. But, not really, Janet and the Fed have put us in an unknown situation. We have been experimented on real time. By cowboys and cowgirls. Why did this happen? Because they could. Yet, Janet is talking data as if that is some silver bullet. The real deal is that the oracle could be more in tune with what is needed if the views were lifted. Harvard is not a lifter (is that the implication?)? We shall see. As we get back on track and start anew.

Finally (not), things will crash. We want to be able to explain the cheshire multiple in terms that are understandable. For now, everyone, please, know that markets (the chimera-typical thing currently in vogue) are set up to guarantee losers. What is annoying is that the loser set is more than 50%. Yes, our task? Describe this and make it clear. After that reality sinks in, then we can start to talk about better ways and means (also, enjoying old Marx's comments about fictitious capital).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

12/30/2014 -- Working on using pages to organize the material - as in, the message depends upon the medium.

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

Status, again

Moral: Wherein we point to the fact of not being lazy. 

This theme is central to about all the the world of business does. However, we have even more going on than the last go-around (2008).  

For now, here are pointers to current work is being done:

• Quora - started here in July of 2015. The decline in posting at blogs is associated with this move which has been very interesting in its effects. Quora covers the bases. There have been several answers given that pertain to this subject. 
• Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. - what is gets more attention is our blog which has been in action during a decade of work in which we are always learning. This focus is on the 400 years of American history including the century plus that preceded the Revolution. 
• GitHub - where the technical mind can get refreshed. Might have a code focus but is used, too, for managing complex data systems.  
• Others - 

 Remarks: Modified: 10/27/2020

10/27/2020 --

Whose interest?

Moral: Wherein we consider these times after the taper tantrums (we haven't heard more coo-coo talking from the FED) and wait for Janet's put: will savers be more miserable?

---

Peggy isn't wrong on this (WSJ - January 16, 2014).

Our Selfish 'Public Servants'  (From the White House to the schoolhouse to the George Washington Bridge)

Sometimes the most obvious thing is the most unnoticed. I find myself thinking this week about the destructive force of selfishness in our political life. This common failing is the source of such woe! Politicians call themselves public servants, so they should be expected to be less selfish than the average Joe ; their views and actions should be assumed to be more keenly directed toward the broad public good. But no one expects that of politicians anymore, and they know it and use the knowledge to justify being even worse than they'd normally be. "If I have the name, I might as well have the game."
They are the locus of selfishness in the modern world.
Chris Christie's problem isn't that he's a bully, it's that he's selfish. Barack Obama isn't stupid and therefore the maker of mayhem, he's selfish.
There isn't a staffer on the Hill who won't tell you 90% of members are driven by their own needs, wants and interests, not America's. The former defense secretary, Bob Gates, has written a whole book about it, and the passages in which he speaks most plainly read like a cry from the heart. The chaplain of the Senate, Barry Black, made news a few months ago because he'd taken to praying that the character of our representatives be improved. "Save us from the madness," he prayed one morning last October. "We acknowledge our transgressions, our shortcomings, our smugness, our selfishness." The single most memorable thing I ever heard from a Wall Streeter was from one of its great men, who blandly explained to me one day why certain wealthy individuals were taking an action that was both greedy and personally inconvenient to them. "Everyone wants more," he said, not in a castigating way but as one explains certain essentials to a child.
People in public life have become more grasping, and less embarrassed by it. But the odd thing, the destabilizing thing as you think about it, is that we're in a crisis. We've been in it since at least 2008 and the crash, and the wars. We are in unprecedented trouble. Citizens know this. It's why they buy guns. They see unfixable America around them, they think it's all going to fall apart. In Washington (and New York) they huff and puff their disapproval: Those Americans with their guns, they're causing a lot of trouble. But Americans think they're in trouble because their leaders are too selfish to face challenges that will do us in.
What's most striking is that in a crisis, you don't expect business as usual. You expect something better from leaders, you expect them to try to meet the moment.

***

Mr. Christie is a great talent, a political figure of real and natural gifts. What has jeopardized his position is not that he's gruff, in-your-face, insistent—a bully. It's that he's been selfish. In 2012 he was given a star role, keynote speaker at the GOP national convention. His speech was strong, funny and ran about 2,340 words. But it took around 2,000 of them before he got to a guy named Romney. Everything else was "The greatest lesson that mom ever taught me . . . When I came into office . . . I have an answer." The GOP nominee needed a boost from blue-state man, but there wasn't much in it for blue-state man. He'd only get Republican cooties on him. So he played it like a vanity production and made a speech about himself.
That wasn't a major sin—it's only politics, not policy. But it fit in with his effusive embrace of Mr. Obama in the days before the 2012 election. Any governor would show strategic warmth for a president in charge of ladling out federal money after disaster. But Jersey was about to re-elect president Obama by nearly 18 points, and Mr. Christie wanted to win over Democrats when he ran the next year.
He was already going to win big. But he had to win bigger, had to have more.
Again, not much of a sin. But when Bridgegate came, it seemed to fit the pattern—he'll ding you when he doesn't have to, even if it makes local citizens cry, to gain an advantage, to get more. Whoever made the call, selfishness is at the heart of the scandal.

***

There's an increasing sense in our political life that in both parties politicians call themselves public servants but act like bosses who think the voters work for them. Physicians who routinely help the needy and the uninsured do not call themselves servants. They get to be called the 1%. Politicians who jerk around doctors, nurses and health systems call themselves servants, when of course they look more like little kings and queens instructing the grudging peasants in how to arrange their affairs.
Which gets us, inevitably, to the King of I, who unselfconsciously claims ownership of . . . everything. "My military," "my White House," "my cabinet," "my secretary." The president does first person singular more than Mr. Christie does. But his actions are so much more consequential, because they're national and because they play out in the area of policy.
The president's health-insurance reform had to be breathtaking, mind-bending, historic. It had to be a Democratic Party initiative only. It required a few major lies to gain passage, but what the heck.
It was political selfishness that blew up the American health-care system. And it's the public, in this and other messes, that's left holding the bag. But as government gets bigger the bag gets bigger, and people will get tired of carrying it. They're already tired.
I close with the selfishness story of the week, the stunning New York Post expose on Public School 106 in Far Rockaway, a neighborhood in the borough of Queens. The grade school is a poster child for the indifference of those who are supposed to be helping the country. There are no gym or art classes, the Post's Susan Edelman reported. The library is a junk room; the nurse's office lacks essentials; there are no math or reading books for the Common Core curriculum. Kids are left to watch movies. Kindergartners are shunted off to dilapidated trailers. The principal, Marcella Sills, often doesn't show up for work, or swans in near the end of the day. School staff were afraid to speak up because they feared retribution from Ms. Sills or the teachers union.
When the Post broke the story, the city's Department of Education sent an inspector. The principal actually showed up early that day. The school took delivery of some books. Everyone was in high spin mode.
The union will look to the union's interests, Ms. Sills will no doubt see to hers, the new city administration will try to limit embarrassment, handle the fallout and change the subject. But you couldn't read the stories without thinking: Who's looking out for the kids? And what's happening to us?
Someday history will write of our era, and to history the biggest scandal will be the thing we all accepted in our leaders, chronic and endemic selfishness. History will be hard on us for that.

---

Lords, and serfs, cover more than public servancy.

Remarks:  Modified: 09/17/2014

09/17/2014 -- Yes, she did. The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

Money 1

Moral: Wherein we consider money.

---

We'll eventually get to a Money 101, however let's start to collect some background information using prior post from the related blogs.

• from 7oops7
• from Truth Engineering

From these, a few are listed that need more discussion.

• Where is the money? -- this is in the context of the losses of the past few months. To where did the money go. Well, many explanations confound the issue. You see, these views do not separate money from its use. So, we have a fiat situation with money where wizards set value. Yet, 'intrinsic' value comes into play in more ways than finance allows.
  
• I M F -- as we all know, there are those who work in the realm of money. Too, we know that those with more have greater power than those without. What is it exactly that allows money to accrue power (and I mean more than the salivating of the politicos as bucks are passed beneath their noses)?
  
• Stable money vs Gab standard -- not an easy issue as we can see from looking at the history of these arguments. Yet, engineering of money would allow more science than we get with just the dismal variety. What would be the motivation? Well, just as the financials froze when they woke up to the fact that they were only playing against others like them (the whole playing field of advantages changed) -- they not only froze, they quit playing -- ah, feel sorry for them? -- well, we must have, as we allowed a bail out of the fat cats (question - who in Main street is enjoying any benefit of all those bucks thrown to the fat cats?).
  
• Fresh look & What the hell happened -- many choices led to the recent downturn and its dire consequences for the most. These all can be looked at more closely. Those who were to show, at least, some modicum of fiscal responsibility only cared for the size of their own pockets.
  
• Truth about money -- there are people who do not salivate when confronted with piles of money or gold. Are they smart? Yes, in many ways smarter than the best and brightest (what a sickening concept! created by fat cats to describe those who activities filled the fat cats' pockets maximally - of course, the fat cats would allow some bonus -- albeit, of outrageous magnitude to those with any sense of decency).
  
• What is money? -- by the way. Be sure to look at von Mises work. One side of the confounded answers (see first bullet) deals with this question. Money has a long history. Its most recent manifestation, as an abstraction, can never be audited truly (despite SOX, et al) because it is an open topology. You do have to give a slight nod to those who saw the silly game's advantages for siphoning off boatloads of bucks; yet, money and ethics ought to get acquainted.
• Money and Being -- as quaint as this may appear, it is seriously offered.

This list covers some of the basics. Next up, we'll look at securities and related.

Remarks:

05/24/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

03/17/2011 -- 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.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

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

08/24/2009 -- Money 2. Gosh, now we see credit as an asset?

08/21/2009 -- Banks handle our money. Many have failed. Most have done so by bad loans rather than by screwy financial instruments, says the NYT. Ah, but they're the best (in their own minds). Do they need to be scrutinized further?

08/17/2009 -- Books on the credit crunch. This crunch involved "macroeconomic imbalances, greedy and incompetent bankers, and fraudulent American homebuyers."

08/17/2009 -- We'll get into value, too, in the sense of money having two roles (perhaps, more). One is a medium of exchange. The other is a measurement of wealth. Joseph Lazzaro estimates that the US's total value of wealth is $50,000,000,000,000 in the context of do we have enough money to fix up the economy. Of course, $2,000,000,000,000 is from China.

Modified: 08/24/2011

To computational hell and back

Moral: Wherein we pause our look at foundations and consider a collateral subject: the mess that we are in.

What mess? The DOW hit a record recently. Isn't that special?

Well, as Ben knows, such milestones don't really put any bread or butter on the table of a whole lot of folks. Rather, the game enriches the few (comparatively --- to those who would quibble, ever look at the 60-percent level -- more or less -- and below?).

---

And, to hell? Yes, let's hope that we can get back.

---

Business offloaded customer support, with a process that started a long while ago. Any idiot (such as myself)  knows when there is more to communication than a common language. I got to the point where I don't talk to the person unless I perceive some understanding of the American way (we'll go into this later, at detail).

Now, some of the better businesses have been bringing things back. For American consumers, that would be a good thing. As, that means jobs.

Along with the off-shoring, business have been spawning off computational processes (and apps) without any feedback from the users, except ex post facto. I'm talking specifications here, folks, But, the elite might say that such thinking is out-moded. As in, let the money drive things (we'll get into this, too -- Note: 05/30/2013 - people say that we're being driven by machines (which are out of control); one way that this happens is that the big software people (you know who you are) push out changes to which we have to adapt - the notion is that it's a market-type choice - nothing could be further from the truth).

Doing systems correctly would create American jobs. We can discuss this. And, doing them as is really needed will be costly. The trouble is that the market (which is what? little players (meaning, character - they have bucks galore) who must have their training wheels in place - put there by Ben, of course) and its apparent success seems to work against the reality. Until, there is a crash. But, then, the same old crap starts again (Note: 05/30/2013 -- not only are people supposed to bend to the whims of systems, and their purveyors, we're to pick up the crap when they fail -- and building giant sucking machines upon quaky foundations leads us (always) to just that: regular clean-up of the diapers).

I'm talking from a framework that is outside the crappy part, folks. The financial industry does not want to look at matters from that perspective - it's too much fun rolling in the dough as is happening now with Ben's input (and largess).

---

That lead-in touched on one type of hell. Others are there and abound. One example is the credit handling via the Big-3 (Equifax, et al). Just recently, I ran across a case where someone is seen as dead by these Big-3 (idiots?). The reason is that one creditor reported the guy as such. What had happened is that the guy's wife died. In the process of notifying creditors of such, one of them took the person who was deceased to be the guy, not his wife. From that little thing ensued turmoil that has lasted months.

I talked to one of the Big-3 today. They can see that they're getting reports monthly from this guy's creditors about his activity. The account at the one who has him dead had been inactive for a long while; so, there was no activity to report there anyway.

In terms of process for the user, this Big-3 member ought to be able to let the guy dispute the error on-line. But, they won't do that without him proving who he is (soc sec card, et al). You know why this is stupid? The guy is a Viet Vet, was born here, lived here, paid taxes here, raised his kids here, and so forth. Too, he's  getting a Soc Sec check every month. The bank that gets that deposit knows this. Do they help the guy? No, they say that the Big-3 drive things.

Okay, Big-3, and bosses thereof. If you are going to be so central, should you not do it in a user-friendly manner that is fair, secure, and robust? (Now, all of you wags that are rolling on the floor, behave yourselves - they, the Big-3, cannot be total idiots - after all, they did get themselves a shared monopoly) Where the heck is the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (Note: 05/30/2013 - they never responded to me on FB -- usual government modus operandi?)?

---

You see, the whole thing harks back to the time when people believed what the computer said. That went on for awhile. Computers don't error, was the thought. Then, there was the realization of garbage in/garbage out. That is, junk begets junk. Don't laugh, folks. That forward step took awhile.

Now, it seems, that we're back to the belief stage. As in, the computer is the reality. It's a map/territory problem. Why this fall back? Complication, essentially. This will be a central theme to expand upon here. As things mix up, it causes so many to put their heads into the sand (do what the "man" says).

Aside: If it is not obvious, note that I've been in this industry for awhile in roles that were multiply varied, multi-disciplined, and, for the most part, of highly technical focus - with some back slapping as is the want of the likes of Jamie, and his ilk. We're in deep doo-doo, now. The kids (Zuck and the like - keep putting out things that flash - what is their basis? -- oh, I don't need to know, you say?) are perturbing things in ways that will have future implications. Singularity potentials are piling up (see Remarks 05/21/2013).

Mind you. There has been real progress (we'll go into that, too). After all, a lot of good comes from the networking methods, the cloud, and such.

---

For many, all of the flash and toys are entrancing (hence, zombies and more). Yet, you would expect, for these, some maturing event, at some point, unless they're completely washed out (possible as we have seen with drugs that alter the body's workings too far). Others have already seen, and experienced, the hell.

But, we could say that it's more like purgatory (look it up) at this point. The hell will result if matters continue to de-evolve as they are.

What do I mean? You know why the web was labeled wild west early on? What was the wild west? You know, too, that it's the largest-held romantic view of the US's history. Who doesn't seem to want to be a cowboy? Not all of us; we ask for acknowledgement the rights of the Natives who were here before. The thing was that misfits, a lot of times, from the east came out here and shot up the place. Law and order was not the norm. It took awhile for this to be established.

Forgetting the conflict with the Natives, when did law and order get set here in the West? Pinpointing around 1900 would be pushing it. We could probably point to the period after WWI and before WWII. Now, at what point is the "wild west" of the web? I don't see us further than right after the Civil War. In fact, have we not even had the Civil War (if you must, think of the free vs not conflict as an analog)?

From whence would come some type of structure and security?

---

With the Big-3, we have them pulling together stuff on us. For those of us who can, we can monitor their activity. Many cannot. Too, though, they do idiotic things like this deceased error. Actually, they ought to offer the guy a membership (30 days would do - or more until errors were properly handled) with which he could challenge their errors.

Remarks:

07/26/2015 -- This has had some recent reads. Lots going on, including poster boys coming out of the woodwork. We intend to get back to this topic: consumer as central to things economic (metaphysically sound).

10/20/2013 -- As of a couple of weeks ago, Equifax seemed to have caused another problem. Idiots. This type of thing, folks, foretells dire consequences for the ordinary populace. That is, entrapped by stupidly developed and released systems will be a common state.

07/08/2013 -- The bank responded to the CFPB query and changed their database. In June. The Big-3? For this little error, they say 90 days. Let's look at what needs to be done with computationally driven systems and processes.

06/04/2013 -- Last week, when the Big-3 problem was first looked at, I sent a note to the bank, Elizabeth Warren, and the CFPB (which is a new organization). I heard from the bank's PR people fairly quickly which is to be expected. Just today, a week later, heard from the CFPB. They sent information about their complaint process. Elizabeth? Nary a peep, yet.

06/03/2013 -- There is a log of activity the past week, on FB.  https://www.facebook.com/jmswtlk/posts/10151477999845847  It's funny about Equifax. I've been trying to raise them via FB, but they haven't made a peep. You see, they could override the death entry and allow the guy to get on-line with their system. We tried this the other day. On result? The Equifax computer system sent a notice about a credit card being renewed after we tried to sign in the guy as a new member. That is, the database sees the activity; the humans only look at the fact of the death. Why? Well, they do have their jobs on the line if they make an error. Too, the process might be too rigid; that is, where some common sense (experience?) might understand an error and suppress it, then it ought to be allowed. Of course, with suitable documentation to allow re-trace (and further correction, even a back-out). Methinks that those who do logic, and mathematics, many times have an unrealistic belief in their prowess (if only they knew --- by the way, singularities, again, are the key item in this and related cases). And, their poor users bear the cost and the pain. ... We'll get back to this (if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?).

06/03/2013 -- On Friday, it was determined that Capital One/ HSBC has sat on paperwork for four months. That is, the error was done by HSBC in Oct, 2012 (erroneous reporting to the Big-3); the error was noticed in Jan, 2013; the error was brought to the attention of Capital One (by mail) in Jan, 2013. It was the end of May before the error was noticed by HSBC, via to a phone call.

05/31/2013 -- The focus might have to be on the Big-3. In cases like this, they ought to allow an override that is quick, as is necessary for the computational age. For some reason, they like to lumber along. Did some bureaucrat lead them to believe this? Now, quick changes can create a hellish situation. Yet, many times, an override by a human will resolve a hellish situation. Both a paradox and a dilemma. The irritating thing is that a little bit of garbage in a database in having real world effect. An override (are you listening Equitfac, etc.) would allow change of that piece of crap, with an explanation, and rationale. Okay? In my case, I'm a member of Equifax (have been since 2005). They know who the heck I am. If I say that someone is next to me and is undead, then my word ought to be taken (verified later, okay?) so as to free up the bottleneck. Sheesh.

05/31/2013 -- When one considers the cost of the necessary framework, that would allow security and sustainability, people have kicked the thing around (WSJ talked about how to control the idiot of North Korea; what about reining in the financial manipulators?). However, the minds are so entrenched in this illusion about which Marx laughed (fictitious capital, for one), it's hard to express a rational stance on the matter. You see, people are experimented with big time. It's really analogous to that concept so familiar from warring, namely cannon fodder. We have our great leaders mouthing platitudes about how they want to help the little guy; most of their efforts seem to move more toward entrapment; take droning (in other than a defensive mode) if you need something to grasp here).

View from 2008 

05/30/2013 -- A case in point about off shoring, saw yesterday that some mortgage foreclosure work was being sent to India (Tata was one contractor). It was said that this work was too tedious for Americans. Now, these foreign brains weren't going to make judgments (Tata's words, paraphrased). No. The thing was to get all the paperwork together, verified, and provided to a banker in the US who would do the dirty deed. That whole rationale was bothersome. For one, those there in India only need to look outside their office (even if it's isolated in a privileged environment) to see their 3rd world fellow citizens. Of course, doing American work lifted out a few. But, the majority? Besides, these types of roles could very well be performed by people here. ... Not anti-outhousing, rather putting this here as we'll have to address the whole phenomenon while looking at foundation'al issues.

05/29/2013 -- Singularity? Yes, this will be an important subject. You know what? I don't think that Jamie (and his ilk -- who, by the way, was vindicated according to the WSJ) would understand the concept. The fat whale (whatever) was a small incident compared to that which we need to put our attention.

Modified: 07/26/2015

Wealth

Moral: Wherein we stop to look at a basic theme and leave Big Ben and Little Timmy alone, for awhile.

---

The theme is? Wealth.

Those of the libertarian bent like to say that Obama's position on the far left does not appreciate how 'wealth' is created. This points to the main issue. What is wealth? To whom does it go? Etc.

The 'right' sees all wealth as personally owned (with multitude of thugs to protect the few rich). The 'left' talks as if wealth were a commonweal yet, in truth, let it be controlled by thugs (to wit, USSR, et al). Whose thugs are worse? The right or the left?

---

In either case, wealth is created through work (of all sorts). Throughout history, there have been those who create (builders (city, nation, et al), artists, agrarians, et al), those who steal (marauders et al), and those who destroy (how do you name these?).

In almost every case, those who do the 'work' have not enjoyed the benefits of their efforts. The sole exceptions are little islands that have occurred in the unfolding of the American dream. These will be looked at, in time.

---

The urge to wealth is universal. How to control excesses that might accrue to the urge has always been problematic. What determines excess is even more of an issue.

---

One fact is: wealth does not come from nothing (related to this is much more than TANSTAAFL). Neither is it solely due to the efforts of some John Galt type.

The truth: 'wealth' is due to some type of transformation. For whatever we do to get to the 'wealth' state, plenty is consumed.

---

Off-shoring, in many cases, is the attempt to keep the 'true' cost from being realized. In fact, the whole regimen of the top-down is the same thing. Sacrifice is always done from bottom-up.

---

Even if John Galt did dream of the creation of the wealth, he will have used innumerable energies from his large cadre of exploited workers in order to make it a reality.

To those masses goes what?

---

Now, the transformation, mentioned above, is using material (essentially, substance) and energy (a lot of which is human in origin) given to us by nature (in the case of the former) or by the culture (in terms of how a valuable resource is seen, for the latter).

We are not adding anything. In fact, if we looked closely, we'll see the near-zero-ness of the whole framework here.

---

Somehow in terms of wealth, notions that are predominately associated with the immature (pointing to life changes that we all experience) continue into adulthood (yeah you, arrogant CEOs) as if this is okay. Topsy-turvy, indeed. There have been plenty of experience obtained about this, endless thoughts and words on the subject, yet 'the thing' remains hard to handle.

---

That, of course, begs the question of what is 'mature' in these contexts. Is the blogger of such mind that he knows how to discuss this? Absolutely, as they say.

---

We need to continue this theme and will. For now, consider what an analyst said about Roubini's remark about Marx (remember, he has been mentioned a few times). Yes, we've bantered around the term 'capitalism' (with an update of ca-pital-sino). I agree that we probably need some new terminology.

But, the whole discussion needs to respect that labor/laborers are human (and consumers), that we need sustainable/equitable economics, and that exploited resources are not owned by those who do the exploitation (yes, oil companies (and much more, especially those related to the taking of 'natural' resources) need a little humility - don't we all?).

What to expect here, next? A start of a coherent, foundational approach, from real first principles (to be updated), is the goal. The timeline? Unknown. Besides, it's the journey, not the end result, that is of importance (in other words, re-traceable by any with some rational effort).

Remarks

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 


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

12/13/2011 -- 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.

10/10/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about.

10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).

Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.

Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).

It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).

09/29/2011 -- The question remains. Even with 'financial engineering' what is the science behind finance? Gaming, only? Who has the basic ontology (other than wealth for the few)?

09/21/2011 -- Another piece of the constructive pie.

09/21/2011 -- Way to go, Fortune! The MVP CEO. These people (and they are imitated) pilfer pockets prolifically; is that not enough?

09/20/2011 -- Any look at wealth would have to consider its opposite, peasantry. Methinks that the whole best-and-brightest concept is no more than an attempt to let those with the talent (the few --- too, though, those without conscience) grab the lion's share of the goods. It's an age-old dynamic that needs to be reviewed using a sustainability eye. Again, we also need to re-look at the spirit of the Magna Carta and at the necessity of a modern re-mix. And, a lesson: 'simple living' does not imply any inclination to 'peasant' leanings (for the jerks who may think that this is so).

09/19/2011 -- It has occurred to me that some reading this might throw labels of sophistry, idealism (love Berkeley), and such (perhaps, even naivete). Not! Since time is not of the essence, we, probably, ought to stop and review the background (and truth) issues again and in more depth.

09/18/201 -- We will use this example from sports. Would you believe that the NCAA (albeit, inadvertently) offers itself as a proxy for all the issues (and related parties) that we need to discuss:

• rhetoric's influence - taking the student-athlete notion; application to wealth? what we have is largely seen through rhetorical eyes; the negative effects of 'potemkin' events are more real to those at the bottom than those at the top (or, no safety net for the most); the chimera is more 'real' to those at the top (gravy train - plus socialization of losses), the bottom-up view sees (up close and personal) the failings of the underpinnings.
• markets - so essential, so misunderstood, and so misused; yes, the pay of coaches versus professors (yet, does not the institution head now pull in major bucks?).
• sportsmanship -- is it about this? if so, things would look different; perhaps, players will one day get their say; too, the success of player efforts in this matter will have direct association with the larger economy's exploitation of those who labor.
• ...

09/15/2011 -- Partly motivated by Bookstaber; a dedication.

Modified: 07/06/2012

Public service

Moral: Wherein we start to look at Dick's book, he the friend of Big Ben's predecessor.

---

Who is Dick? Cheney, of course. Why is he of importance? Some think that he is at the core of all types of faults that triggered in the past few years, including those of an economic flavor.

---

Of course, Dick was not an economist; he was in the position of influence on a lot of decisions.

---

The book did give the blogger a different view of Dick. From the press' print of the past decade or so, the 'dark side' seemed to be the most prominent thing. That made Dick the focal for those who have angst about all sorts of thing, both political and economical. Of course, he seems to like to reinforce that sort of thing, as some claim when reviewing the book.

For one, he is not of the 'prep' crowd that subsumes most of the seats in the best-and-brightest collection (some of whom showed themselves to be idiots). Yet, he's a member (but, not by birth). He talks about getting booted out of Yale; then, he went out and lived with the lowly working type until he started his educational efforts again. What 'preppie' type could do that? The blogger, on the other hand, studied the alternative reality that surrounds us all.

Too, he is about the same age as the blogger, yet the his path and the blogger's path were quite divergent within the same milieu. Of course, his focus was politics and power; the blogger's focus was economics with a mathematical bent that tends to attempt resolution of 'truth' and its necessary maintenance. Yes, the blogger's work has been in computational models; why else the blogger's stance on how bad these have turned (and will continue to turn) out to be?

---

Aside: the top-down and bottom-up resolve their issues through the middle-out (conceptualization to be updated), in a sense. That is, if power lets truth come to the fore. Does the top-down need to be the political mess that it is now with the disparate partisan views? We'll have to look at that when considering issues of economics. At the lower levels that support the bottom-up, what does 'politics' mean anyway? From that view, the imperatives are more important. It is nice that Dick's book will allow a re-look at this type of thing.

---

Dick mentions the time when he heard President Kennedy talk about public service. I, of course, have had both military and civil service experiences in the support of this country. Too, I've worked, as did Dick, in the business world (including an international scope). He, of course, was of the CEO MVP type; the blogger was more of the technical type who work to make things better all around, including advances in systems, and product, engineering.

---

Aside: engineering has given us marvels. What has politics wrought? Too, the current jobs problem brings to fore another unfolding. Many went from engineering to finance (the blogger has even heard of a MD going from practice of medicine to financial gaming). Then, their 'train' wrecked (despite the fairy dusting). Such could have been (was) foreseen. Now, if the cadre of youth goes into politics? Perish the thought.

---

As the blogger has said before, finance is in trouble since it is not considered to be a realm of public service. Nope. It's a trough for the fat cats (pigs, actually) to gorge themselves. It ought to be run by those who take a vow of simple living, plus who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose (yeah, Dick knows all about this trait).

Think the core of the military (no, not the star officers); even thinking of monks would not be too far off the mark. This is not strange, people. It is the only way to keep the arses from screwing up things.

---

As the blogger has said before, all Americans need to do public service. Yes, even the preppies. And, we need to have it like the barracks experience of old. All classes, and types, together in an environment where they live and work together.

That would help remove the egos who now run things. Too, it would allow people to attempt to resolve their preconceptions, and such, about those of the unknown classes.

---

The blogger's reading of Dick's book allowed the blogger, somewhat, to see beyond his 'dark' facade. He is more shallow than the blogger had feared. Dick, if you want to understand the American phenomenon (as it has unfolded in the past 50 (and 400) years) from a deeper sense, come talk to the blogger. Yes. Of course, you'll have to perturb your political worldview, somewhat.

---

The turmoil, and those who want such, that Dick sees all about is not a wrong perception. But, it is no more than the natural state of pecking order. Did he really think that he raised the perception (in the several senses) of the U.S. through his thoughts and actions?

---

To be continued.

Remarks

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 


05/11/2012 -- This week almost got by me. Let's hear it for the government worker.

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

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?

12/16/2011 -- Those in power need their carvers. See Remarks 12/16/2011, Hitchens (the recently departed) undergoing a waterboarding experience.

11/30/2011 -- Need to respect the bottom up. Will the computer finally let that come about?

10/17/2011 -- The king maker ought to awaken to its errors.

10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).

Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.

Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).

It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).

09/27/2011 -- Some like to polarize thought and opinion; to boot, that means that other humans are demonized. So, for some reason, Dick took it upon himself to play such a role on that right part of the spectrum. Oh, it's a spectrum? Now, something that we'll have to look at closely as we unfold the real basis are conflicts of a nature that are 1200 years old (look at Charles the hammer, for instance -- look, that's 700 A.D. -- we're having the same conflict -- sheesh). Some have awakened to the idiocy; others are still under the influence of those in power who like to perpetuate the misinformation. Now, is Dick one of those? When Dick and the blogger were younger, the badie types were 'communist' and out to get us. Since Reagan, some seem to think that the conflict there is over. Don't count on it (if we look at the characteristics involved, we'll see many analogs). These social issues pertain to economics? Of course. To whom can one go to see some coherent philosophy, and history, of the economical as it relates to the human experience (which is?)?

Modified: 07/06/2012

Early Fathers

Moral: Wherein, post the fireworks, picnics, parades, and such, we consider that the real Founders set the stage for those who are usually thought to be the luminaries deserving of our attention and that those real Founders were not of the 'new king' type.

---

The U.S.A just had the annual celebration, on the 4th of July, of the Declaration of Independence. That is, the occasion of the signing is the focus. We hear about the Founding Fathers and see the portrait of the inking moment. We also are reminded about John Hancock.

Yet, the framework for this event started over a century earlier. We will be touching upon this as it applies to the contexts of the blog. For starters, let us just look at three of the folks who might be characterized as Founding Forefathers. The order is chronological.

• Firstly, we do have the backbone, as an example, whose contributions, through his progeny, were multiple and necessary.
• Secondly, we have the Church of England luminary who argued for church-state separation. He founded Hampton, NH with several leading families after removing himself from the clergy-run state to the south.
• Thirdly, we have Rev John Wise who was characterized by President Coolidge as one of the inspirations behind the Declaration. Through his wife, Abigail Gardner, Rev John was a great-uncle of President John Adams.

This list is by no means complete and will extended. One intent will be to include Founding Foremothers, to boot, which will be the subject of the next list.

--- Post note, added July 4th, 2014 -----

Founders, yes, but forefathers, too. Again, we are looking at three (ggps - great-grand-parents) who, in chronological order of arrival, are considered further. None of these were heavy into the Puritan ethnic mores of the heavy-handed type. The contributions of two of these were 100 years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Gardner (d. 1674) - The subject of this blog, we can point to a recent Gardner Beacon issue for further information about his life. We know little of his origins, however his character is known by his children and offspring. 

Stephen Bachiler (d. 1656) - Oxford graduate. Disliked the religious state that was Massachusetts. Being 70, he was not easily subdued, hence we have New Hampshire.  

Rev. John Wise (d. 1725 - of Harvard) - Took on the King's representative, Gov. Andros, in regard to excessive taxation. Too, Andros had the notion that the colonists gave up their rights as English citizens when then left to come to the New World.  

Now, we also need to consider how the Magna Charta concerns itself with requirements that are still unresolved in terms of the life of the average American and of humanity, in general.

Remarks:

01/31/2019 -- Lots has changed in these nine years. We will be summarizing them. One context: 400 or so, for one. We're building an example portal at TGSoc.org. Coverage is broad: 10th year, Content vs configuration, Culture/history/technology, and more.

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

02/11/2012 -- Example of the senselessness of the ca-pital-sino give to us by the best-and-brightest.

09/19/2011 -- Not Foremothers yet, but we're getting there.

06/29/2011 -- See Gardner's Beacon for continuation on the theme.

08/21/2010 -- Some who came here were of royal descent (this characterization used to honour the heritage and yet to acknowledge that the traditions did not continue here). It would be interesting to see what overlap there is between those who take/accumulate and a royal heritage (that is, it's in the genes). However, there may be many who held to the ideals associated with the undertakings here and who live simply (meaning, they have no role in the current messes which are directly attributable to several malefactor's ones).

Modified: 01/31/2019

Middle class

Moral: Wherein we consider what Ben, and company, has done to a diminishing set.

---

Which is? The middle class. It's broke, a headline said at Yahoo Finance. Oh, really. The articles quotes a lot of other material, such as Joseph Stiglitz' thoughts on the myth of the American Dream. Too, a nice look at how to fix the economy is referenced.


---

Let's look at one example of Ben's help in putting the middle class to sleep. His minuscule rate has trashed the savers' little buckets. In fact, those with the smaller amount of funds are paying through the nose to support fat cats.

At the same time, anyone in an older mortgage, who has not refinanced (which can be for any of several reasons -- including a patriotic notion of being an asset, not a liability, to the country's economy) is paying exorbitant amounts into the pockets of the very bankers who caused the downturn and who, in many cases, are probably culprits.

---

As Ben chases the chimera, the instigators of the problems are running amok again. Losing game, folks?

Remarks:

09/13/2012 -- 21 points at Business Insider.

09/07/2012 -- Ben seems to be making inroads to leaving his mark on our history.

09/04/2012 -- Putting this article here, until I can respond to the 21 points. Essentially, the rich: no morals!, talk about entitlement!, ... We'll have to get back to whether 'richness' is the right measure for success. As in, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich? from five years ago.

Modified: 09/13/2012

First man (bank)

Moral: Wherein we re-look at Jamie (he deserves his own label) and his honesty.

---

Things have been quiet since Ben did his talking. But, you know that there is turmoil of several sorts going on. For one, a regional bank admitted that it sold mortgage-backed bonds for a big loss (millions). Better bite the bullet and let someone else have the 'toxic' asset, I suppose. And, the markets have been up and down, mostly due to Ben's largess and gaming. That whole scene (Chimera that it is) needs some toning down.

---

Earlier, Jamie bragged about being the last man standing. That raised some ire. Then, Jamie (see Jamie Posts) did an 'aw shucks' (see Remarks 01/16/2012) interview which seemed to brighten his image a little. At the time, was he looking for Timmy's job so he had to present other than his hot-shot, make-money-anyway-possible demeanor?

Then, today he steps up with some news. The tone was that they were going to look into this little problem of losing some money - heads will roll, he seems to imply. Jamie, why not use this as an opportunity to make Chase exemplary? Become the first bank to do so? Ah, bankers, class acts that they are.

Jamie and his peers at the rogue table

---

Let's look back at Jamie's bank and its history from another perspective. This is brief, but we need to deconstruct these modern (flim-flam) notions that are based upon an overly-confident attitude that we, through mathematics, science, and engineering (ah yes, STEM will save the world!), have made ourselves the master of the universe. Oh wait, it's only the finance types in their silly world, laying havoc for the rest, who think that?

Firstly, Jamie's bank (part of it) was named for a cousin-in-law (Salmon P. Chase). Wonder what the old guy would think of these modern shenanigans. Jamie talk his principles. What exactly are these (be first to the trough?, etc.)? Does he think that he could demonstrate these via Chase such that we can all marvel and exclaim Chase to be the paragon of banking virtue (yes, people, we need to run our money with monks, people of simple living, and the like -- betting, such as this news indicates, is adolescent -- wait, infantile is more appropriate -- did we not just clean up their dirty diapers?)?

Then, let's pick another old guy, cousin-in-law (George Peabody) who got the other part started. His piece of a common effort was taken over by J.P. Morgan after George retired. Of course, the Peabody connection went away (name, and all), but what else would we expect?

Again, what would George, who was beloved at death, think of the machinations that are allowed these days? And, this type of thing by what is, essentially, a utility (yeah, Jamie is the head of a service that is to provide for the commonweal)? Of course, even those utility types are acting up nowadays, too.

Both of these guys descend from early entrants to these shores. Are the dreams of their (our) ancestors (example) being fulfilled with the gaming of the chimera? Oh, some say, if we didn't, others would. Bogus argument, folks. American, the dream? Remember?

---

Again, why not make Chase the example of how banking ought to be done? These new instruments need to be under control and less opaque. Chase ought to help define the proper use (implying that there is an improper -- which is the current mode).

Jamie's little explanation hints at the casino aspect. Yes, hedges (on whose behalf?) gone awry. Where, pray tell, is the science of finance? Engineering? Looks more to be ad-hoc, playground activity albeit with the livelihoods, and savings, of those who most need a solid utility function (banking as infrastructure - not a source for exorbitant incomes leading to mansions, et al.).

Remarks:


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.

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

05/22/2012 -- We can let Jamie off the hook a little and for awhile.

05/14/2012 -- From several reports, it seems that Jamie is a talker, as in pulls the wool over "populist's" eyes. Too, he probably back-slaps, as well. That is one characteristic trait needed for those who would be 'kings' as we see with the CEOs. And, there was justification for the idiocy. Ah, they wanted to get returns greater than the cost of capital. Idiots. Ben is giving them almost free money. So, that's no excuse. As well, any take larger than a reasonable amount (already discussed and to be discussed further) is onerous to the 'populace' over whose eyes the wool has been pulled. 'near zero' is what it has been called here.

05/11/2012 -- Supposedly, the futures show some impact from the revelation. Yet, the big bucks (hedge funds, et al -- yes, Mitt needs to awaken to the issues) want opaque (they seem to love lemons - except for when these come back to bite, like this) dealings, and  more. Cover for shenanigans if truth were known (yes, fictitious - thank you, Karl -- too, Warren steps warily around these stupidities).

Modified: 01/02/2016

Cosmology - consumer

Moral: Wherein we continue our trek toward a fully-discussed cosmology of business.

Last time, there were some preparatory remarks which considered, momentarily, the basic principles that ought to be brought to fore. How could such wavering come about? Why can't we just start from some easily agreeable foundation (been to DC lately? - oh, yes, establishing spy-ville has been the main accomplishment, it seems?)?

Well, let me point to the puddles, and mud pies, being stirred by the intellectuals. Too, who isn't chasing their tail after the mathematical overlays descended upon us (ah, think NSA's little shadow world in which all but them are suspect - if you don't know about this you've been asleep in the back of the classroom) and added to great confusion?

Aside: An insidious cloud has cloaked our ability to see truth. I'll be going on about this at length. Think blinders, folks (yes, even minds rated at genius are trapped within this web).

So, today, I might have stumbled upon a position from which to start and from which we can omni-directionally venture (hint: non-linear and temporally non-convergent). First, the inspiration comes via reading Horace Kallen (actually, browsing). Several of his titles intrigued me, but, being devoted to duty, I took up his work on the consumer (The Decline and Rise of the Consumer).

Aside: Please note several things. The guy is writing from a philosophical position. Too, he's way before the "stupid" computer (smart, my arse). And, he was before the robot which is meant, in the minds of many, to create worse hell on earth than we have so far (no Luddite am I, look it up). Horace does not have the long American heritage which some of the ruling class claim (a whole slew of the leaders do descend from the royal houses of Europe - not many saints there). So, his late entrant viewpoint can be compared with the heritage'd (mind you, we'll do that - my ancestry is post-Civil war, to boot).

---

Horace Kallen,
The Decline and Rise
of the Consumer

Now, let us consider some words from the Epilogue, supposedly a look back from the year 2044:

• Throughout history, the many had sweated and slaved, with the labor of their hands and heads bringing to birth the shapes and services of life whose accumulation and remembrance compose civilization. They had sweated and slaved, but they had been prevented from consuming and enjoying. They had sowed but others had reaped; they had nurtured and tended, others had eaten. They had been the producers only, others had been the consumers. They had been the means, mere tools with life in them, others had been the ends, free lives with delight in them. And those who felt and understood the injustice of this division were filled with a righteous anger. ... Without labor there can be no food; without work no human good whatsoever can come to be, no desire could be gratified, no wish attained, no life enriched. 

Ah, well put, Horace.

Aside: Horace's father was a Rabbi while he was an early secularist. But, as he said, one didn't pick (nor can one throw away) one's grandfathers. Horace is credited with coining cultural pluralism.

---

Consumerism has bad connotations since argument trend toward materialism, ostentation-ism (had to put that in for the Wall Street crowd), and such. But, corporations (with their God-give, and court-recognized, person-hood) and PACs (things of that ilk) are consumers, to boot.

Besides, looking at the economic equation (top view, as in GDP) shows a C. Guess what that represents and how large its effect upon the total?

---

Markets? Well, forget the idiocy currently in vogue that leads to financial engineering. They (we'll get into markets and their need) are to facilitate "business" at its core. We will be going back into that subject, time and again.

Be aware, that humans will be at the fore. And, I don't mean just those favored few, like Jamie and his ilk.

Aside: By the way, one use of the computer ought to be to level the playing field. Again, no Marxist label ought to be brought up here.

Remarks:

07/26/2015 -- This has had some recent reads. Lots going on, including poster boys coming out of the woodwork. We intend to get back to this topic: consumer as central to things economic (metaphysically sound).

09/17/2013 -- New blog. What is enough? Anyone remember room and board? That is a wonderful arrangement where you work, get fed, a roof over your head, and some spending money. Now, that may be an old concept. Nowadays? Yes, one would have a room provided by a slum landlord, the food would be gruel worthy of a gulag, and the money would be given to you on a debit card with exorbitant fees. Then, there are those who can never have too much. This is an interesting twist to use for discussing a central notion.

09/17/2013 -- Atlantic: where money was spent. Presupposes money to spend (hopefully, not by debt alone).

09/10/2013 -- Atlantic article: language and savings. However, note the U.S. position on the chart. Ben has slapped the savers silly (making them battered and bruised). Is he anti-savings? Or, is it that he wants to maximize consumption?

09/09/2013 -- Clarification. Of course, the "C" is for consumption (say, the whole collection of types of consumers - including those who would fall into the consumerism set). Needless to say, wouldn't unlimited production (without elimination via consuming) lead to the proverbial compacted state?

09/08/2013 -- Of course, it's not mathematics that's stupid, it's the misuse (which we'll get into). Marilyn says that mathematics doesn't inspire like literature and art (for once, I agree with her wholeheartedly). In fact, she thinks that mathematics ought to be taught early, then the later involvement would be by personal choice. Perhaps, then, some of the misuse would abate. Perhaps not, but let's wait until we detail the misuse before discussing that. Now, in the meantime, if you want to contemplate large "M" Mathematics, go right ahead, we'll take it any way that you want or need. 

Modified: 07/26/2015