FEDaerated

Jobs, labor, disrespect

2012-01-15T17:45:00.001Z

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 -- wake up, please, POTUS, et al -- 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 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!

---

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.

Actually, yes Air Force. A corollary is someone sitting at a scope, applying gaming skills, and offing people (yes POTUS, et al, 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:

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: 01/17/2012

Coherence?

2012-01-13T13:18:00.002Z

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:

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: 01/27/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

2011-12-31T14:23:00.002Z

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:

01/13/2012 -- First post of 2012.

Modified: 01/13/2012

Rank and file III

2011-12-03T00:14:00.017Z

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

---

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

12/13/2011 -- 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: 12/13/2011

Ben, da man

2011-11-29T13:34:00.030Z

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:

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: 01/27/2012

Rank and file II

2011-11-26T14:33:00.018Z

Moral: Wherein we take a further look at the human conditions with which we are all familiar.

---

That is, those who could (or who were allowed to) have made the rules (any different now) and have defined the culture (throughout our history). So, we have had two sets: the minor minority who exploited and the vast majority of the exploitees (even to the extent of carvers and carvees).

---

Of course, there was the set who withdrew from the gaming as set by the exploiters. Some were quite successful with this. If you have a question about how this is or can be, we can explain. Is not this third set the one that is the most progressive?

You know, for awhile, there was a nobility, priesthood, worker split. Usually the nobility was small; some cultures had this set with a larger cardinality. In a sense, the nobility is the top of the top-down. Of course, the workers are peasants to be exploited. The priesthood? Well, some of the more organized situations were of the two sets, too.

However, there were sufficient of the priest (minister) type who really were effective at rising above the fray created by the malevolent. Too, though, we'll have to admit that those who were most effective were martyred (all sides have their own -- we ought to respect that).

---

Clarification: nobility/priest/peasant (the rest) -- this was there for some, for awhile, made up by the toppers, of course. On the priest, the above is by no means meant to imply that we need this type. Rather, adult humans who are effective, don't harm others, and contribute to the well being of all is meant.

Clarification, further: the mature humans are to be recognized and encouraged, as opposed to the sniveling, snotty toppers who want us to clean their diapers (oh yeah, I've known many -- will characterize at some point). These toppers are not mature; rather, they're exploiters of many ideas, such as those of Adam Smith (oh yea, capitalism as the savior, the epitome of the human race --- give us a break). This would only be true if it were couched so as to enhance the lives of all (that would include those who labor (many definitions) as the real basis).

Clarification, further, again: of course, we have those who think that the ways of the vikings/mongols (that is, takers, trashers -- we can point to clans that did this) is the way for a male to go; that is, destructing as a way of life; the adage to apply for these types is that it takes much longer to build something than to tear it down; so, there is no glory in destroying; of course, some of this set act thusly just in reaction to the snottiness of the toppers.

---

So, we're talking the top-down view, that seems to think that there is a passive bit of idiots (of endless count) beneath them who love to be trod on, who just adore their masters, and who exalt in being a slave. Yet, from time to time, that seeming mass of humanity rises and throws (or attempts to throw) off the yoke (then, we get those waiting in the wings -- essentially, latent dictators awaiting their chance).

Nevertheless, the ultimate drive to a middle-out then advances a little. What is middle-out? Essentially, that which is at the core of successful engineering, product'ing. and more.

---

As we know, bottom-up leads to chaos, always. There has to be a tempering. Even science knows this. Without theory, to what would the lab effort lead? Too, though, we know that theory, alone, is a mobius situation of nose to rectum (image: a circle of elephants, nose to tail -- mutual admiration society, in other words).

---

The bottom up can endure for awhile. Not for long, though, as the top-down force is powerful, indeed. We'll have to explain why (it has to do with that which some of the intellects strive hard to deny - as if their denial weighs on any but their own being). For one thing, class structures were always top-down affairs.

And, as said before, the rules and definitions come from the top. But, there is more. The masses energy dissipates without focus. This is nature (ah, too, the importance of earnestness, essentially the imperatives in action).

---

We are seeing, with the OWS, an attempt to use the web as a coordinating agent. This may have some effectiveness, but the power of being is way more than anything captured by the abstractions founded on the web. In a sense, the social media is top-down, too. The social media cannot trump being, as we'll see when the infatuation wears out for this current generation who has gleefully taken to being collective idiots in public display (the nerve).

---

Some say that the OWS is over, has grown rancid (the Post, for one). The current thrust may have worn out (arguable). However, the reality (being) behind the thing is still there and will, in the end (expression only, as we're dealing with something that has no known completion state), prevail. We have seen this time and again.

---

Related to the motivations of the OWS are a whole of of financial shenanigans that need much further scrutiny and correction. Bush looked for WDMs in Iraq. He had them right there, under his nose, in the financial system that his views help propagate; these WDMs started to be problematic right before the coming end of his ruling period.

---

While looking at the grievance list of the OWS, it seemed to be a review of the views of this blog and its companions for the past four years. So, ought we do a mapping of the 20 points to posts over those years?

Remarks:

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/30/2011 -- Uprisings have been there from the beginning. Wiki has a nice list (peasant revolts). Mind you, these are the poor suckers trying to shake off the yoke that was laid on them. Not some conniving aristocrat trying to usurp the power structure. Yes, poor people. The salt of the earth. Striving for something better.

Wait, isn't that the appeal of America? Or was?

After a revolt, things were generally worse for the poor suckers. In the collective genetic pool will be inhibitors for acting thusly in order to avoid the consequences.

Mind you, the U.S. start was not of this type. Not. After the fact, those of the top want to 'crown' Washington. Lucky for us, he knew not to want this.

How many after him thought that their role was indicative of some sort of coronation (leading to canonization?)?

As said before, bottom up can be problematic. So, what would be a good middle out system? Ah, so much to discuss.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

Modified: 12/03/2011

Rank and file

2011-11-25T13:15:00.017Z

Moral: Wherein we continue a re-look at themes related to labor (persons), corporations (the wannabe person), lord-serfs, and much more in the context of the development since Sept, 2011.

---

Which development? OWS, of course. Their grievance list (image from that page).

Rank and file? Yes, denotes another type of split: leaders (and egos) and the rest. Other concepts, of the same ilk, are the masses, et al.

---

The truth? Within the 'ranks' are many who are more smart (in about any way that you want to measure - except for 'ego' and out-and-out amoralism) than those of the 'elite' classes that seem to want to differentiate themselves (mind you, that statement implies, in no way, any denigration of refinement, and its usefulness to help us relate peacefully).

In fact, some autodidacts (what is this? the anti-thesis of the lobbyist's ilk) may very well out-weigh the smarties in those esteemed institutions, which are supposedly the foundation of truth. But, such types of comparison can be counter-productive (except for those who want to rise above the rank-and-file -- where God is (as in, in the details)? -- thereby pulling away from any semblance of the truth -- the source of problems, in a nutshell).

---

If the best-and-brightest (their term) of the generation are led toward egoism and selfish grabbing, from whence will come any progress? Oh yes, they work to establish (impossible) a firm basis for gaming as the sole metaphor for us (yes, and, this take does not populist make, rather out-and-out realism -- same planet, the elite's poop is more rank (as in, odorous - due to the rarefied airs within which they dwell), et al, ..., and much more, of course).

Who is helping us look at near-zero's (engineering) characteristics and control issues (not command and control, by the way)?

Remarks:

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/26/2011 -- Continuation.

Modified: 12/03/2011

Themes and memes

2011-11-24T01:40:00.008Z

Moral: Wherein we awaken ourselves from deep contemplation of the messes with which we find ourselves faced, economically and otherwise.

---

And, we do this in time for the Thanksgiving reviews. That is, are we not to be looking at what there is that we can be thankful for?

---

The related blogs have provided a short look at a couple of items.

- We ought to be thankful that we do progress, albeit at a slow pace. Fortunately, we got rid of the royals (oh?) and their influence; too, we don't draw and quarter anymore.
- Too, the common man can have some influence via the consumer focus of the modern economy (would not you think?); that is, if there were sufficient pay (the concept of rent applies, somewhat) to support purchasing. As we have seen, indenture'd-ness has been the game given us by the best-and-brightest. They have ensnared almost all countries, and their citizenry, into almost interminable debt burden. Smart, you guys! Anyway, Big Ben continues to stiff the savers (says that he'll do so for some time --- gosh, Ben, you haven't made the savers less thankful, but you sure have tried as you kissed up to the bankers); the local paper says that the banks are reeling in profits (very little lending, though --- strange state of affairs, indeed). So, we are thankful, for some little things, such as the fact that some retailers step up and do it right.

---

We have had recaps before on several subjects. Probably, another ought to be in order before going forward. As, memes do evolve with our predicaments.

Remarks:

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/25/2011 -- We'll go into the use of theme/meme. Let's, for now, use one example: rank and file.

Modified: 12/05/2011

Harvard, again

2011-10-16T14:13:00.035+01:00

Moral: Wherein we re-look at the esteemed institution (375 years old) that is (will, ought to, be) a focal for many things.

---

Earlier, we had harped about Harvard and raised, no doubt, some hackles and may have confused some things. So, it's time to restart the dialogue and, for now, here are some of the themes that pertain to the necessary discourse.

---

Harvard is a collecting point for the best and brightest. Who are the best and brightest? Those with mental acuity who, unfortunately, are not plagued by innumeracy (poor dears, those numerants, or poor us for being subjected to the outcomes). As such, they (not only those from the big H) have led us all astray through the mis-use of mathematics.

That is, they see the field in an operational sense leading, of course, to exploitation as motivation. Ah, our beloved mathematics, trashed.

Aside: What talent determines membership within the best-and-brightest set? Well, some of this is measurable using standardized tests, as we have seen develop (note the early interest by the U.S. Army -- there are analogs galore) in the past century or so. Some of the talent may (can) not be (subsumed under a metrical ontology); for instance, we see plenty high scorers who flunk out of life (but, then, we all know just how complex this issue is). Why the difference in scores (or what appears to be shown by scores)? Acuity was mentioned above. But, there would be energy, to boot (as in stamina to finish -- and, as well, trying to answer how perpetual motion is not assumed -- what? think about it!); also, patterns, and recognition thereof, are an important fact. It's an open-ended issue, folks (we'll get back to that and what it might (does) mean). And, preparation, as in S.A.T. tutoring, does NOT overcome innate issues (remember, as said above, that which is measurable is founded upon the very mathematics that is being mis-used -- so, suspicion is in order).

---

The image came from BING which likes to put out an interesting bit every day with comments. This particular one celebrated the 375th of the big H and got more of the blogger's attention than usual. What's this about the H-bomb (Lord, what does that smell like?)? Perhaps, their opinion is that anyone who doesn't bow in their direction is too stupid to know better (or something similar -- these types of things (egoism) are inherent and inflict even the, supposedly, best-and-brightest types -- many of whom never scored high on any type of ethics scale).

---

So given how higher-order education has kissed the behinds of the moolah'd, motivations related more to greed than not come to fore in those who pursue such achievements. What games are played by those who are possible candidates in order for them to be even considered by the institution? And, folks, not being accepted there does not make one a failure. Far from it.

Oh yes, being in Cambridge raises one's IQ (Institutional truths?)?

---

Why is greed mentioned? Harvard decided to leave the Lord's work and become secular (and elitist). From whence, then, will come any direction? But, have we not seen others (meaning, of course, non-big-H) who tell us that they are serving the Lord and then founder under their greed, too?

Aside: Lord? Yes, early on it was that One about Whom the Protestants (even amongst themselves) and Catholics fought. Then, it was (and still is) the One at the core of the battle between the Muslims and the not. ... But, there are many more from which to choose, from the modern view as expounded by big H. In fact, that there is NONE is considered (without any rational support) by many. Why that assertion? Modern theorem proving techniques show that Anselm's view on the matter reduces to one premise. Does that not say that it's an either-or choice? Yet, the blogger mentions the Lord. Why so? Again, given the basic choice, one can pick what label to place on that which is beyond what one knows (even in the sense of the total). Why not 'Lord' for this reason? There are many, many connotative attachments (call them memes, if you would) that can make it more interesting and emotionally appealing. Except, there will be those who would prefer anti-Lord. You see, has the big-H ever followed through reviewing the consequences of their secularism especially since it has bled over to our culture and times (leading to massive indentured-ness at the personal, institutional, and national levels)? Another aspect to this is whether or not the Lord is embodied. Some have a long tradition of saying so (too long to mention). What 'Lord' is there for the best and brightest (see above reference to moolah'd)? Too, whether it's known or not, the Lord is there!

---

Again, as we have said before, Harvard can extract itself from its mire by opening up to fostering the autodidact (perhaps, even pushing public service). Of course, their argument is that their students are self-directed. But, we want them to look at the talents beyond those amenable to numerant manipulation and to help these progress as needed to save humanity.

Again, they'll say that they do this in a sense. We'll see, if they can show this.

---

One has to ask, are not some of the best and brightest out there with the OWSs?

---

Now, when you consider the roles of the aristocratic over the complete history of us (the people, who else), what were these roles and how did they get to play them? Well, the types were smarter (see above about the best and brightest), in a way (or several ways). They were dumber in many others (this deals with being which is something still to be discussed). Yes, particularly the royals. What we have now is the means to measure to try to identify these types early on.

A perpetuating scheme, at the least. Then, we pave their way. As the crap of the recent downturn shows (and the big pockets of those who let loose the young'uns without supervision -- heck, the big pockets cannot even supervise themselves, how could we expect them to help others to be better? --- mind you), money as value is not much more than crap (who will lead toward a proper definition of wealth?).

---

One could picture a world in which the Harvard area would be where the dynamics related to those who rise (or can rise) come into play, even doing so in ways that we have not thought of. Are we talking sandbox?

---

Too, as we would learn things, we would improve situations such as preventing things like the most recent downturn that came about from the gaming of the idiots/geniuses (yes, computational mathematics is at fault, for one thing, since it empowered the a**es) in the finance world (our, as in OUR, beans). There are so many other ways that we will be at this for awhile.

---

Yes, the real princes and princesses (of all types) would be in that New England area having gathered from around the world. Highly endowed responsibility, indeed, would be accepted by the institution.

Actually, one could argue that it could not be replicated elsewhere (ye olde country?), except that we don't want to deny that internationalism will be imperative at some point (before the little green men show up?).

Remarks:

12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?

10/18/2011 -- How many of the 99% end up at this institution? Not fair? We know for a fact that not all of the 1% are related to the place. By the way, it's not always that ratio (1, 99); the ratio's use is effective in stirring up the pot, though.

10/17/2011 -- Finished the text on this old topic and added links (there may be more).

Modified: 12/16/2011

Reflections on Steve Jobs' work

2011-10-06T13:21:00.033+01:00

Moral: Wherein we look back at our computing history, a little.

---

Mr. Jobs' work was central to several themes that will continue (such as, truth engineering). He'll be fondly remembered by many, for a long time.

The below reflection is not to be considered as critical, in any sense. Rather, it is meant to be the start of several posts that deal with the evolution of computing and with what might be needed to bring the genie back into the bottle (impossible in practice, but nice to think about).

---

The blogger saw Steve Jobs in person before the blogger saw the first Mac.

The blogger was working on a project, based in Cupertino, that was trying to attain wafer-scale integration. As you would expect, the computational modeling requirements were enormous (as in, there was no possible way to print out the circuity on paper, let alone try to compute properties) and pushing the envelope. Of course, things may have been a little too risky from a business sense (but, that's another story).

That project was 30 years ago (Mr. Jobs wasn't the only former-hippie in the area); the idea was fairly progressive at the time. It was definitely too early for the desired scale. Mr. Jobs was interested in technological aspect, as were many, at the time.

---

It was a mere few months later that part of the world went crazy over the little Mac. Mind you, it was cute. But, it could not be, at the time, compared to what the blogger had as a workstation (which you could not lug around, of course) that was needed to handle the demands for large-scale modeling. Yes, the workstations were networked (early use of the local internet facilities), had large memory and storage, and were somewhat fast.

In the early days, it was the non-technical ones who were enthralled with the Mac. Or, those who were not fortunate enough to be working on projects that could (had to) shell out $100,000s (in multiples) for networked workstations and their software (very fat clients, essentially).

Later, the blogger was able to use enhanced Macs. That is, we put special purpose cards into the little guys to make them capable to support the work demand.

Unfortunately, after that, the companies that the blogger worked for went with the IBM/MS thing (if you type 'win' you lose -- type of deal). So, Bill Gates, too, will be another part (much later) of the story.

---

Now, of course, a device that fits into your palm is as capable, somewhat (cannot, as of yet, make any comparison of what are now termed 'apps'). Mind you, it takes banks of these devices to perform the types of tasks that we were attempting with workstations (needless to say, a lot of the speed-up is due to trickery, trimmings that may very well come back and bite us on our collective behinds).

---

In the past thirty years, the computing world has changed; yet, the underlying pinnings are no more sound. In fact, one might say that Mr. Jobs' work exacerbated the problem. Mind you, that is not a criticism. It means this: in the hands of about everyone is a whole lot of computing power, much of it wasted, and all of it can potentially contribute to an increasing amount of mayhem.

---

Of course, Mr. Jobs' outputs and devices have been crucial. For instance, his NeXT work was important in carrying forward several modeling technologies. Again, the blogger was involved with applying this capability.

There will be much, much more to look at.

---

In essence, Mr. Jobs' life and work was central to an expanding theme; of course, many have made money (extreme amounts) on the back of this development; too, many have suffered (the latest? I-Phone/IPAD suicides).

We need to look at the whole picture; Mr Jobs' (and his zen-mind) would appreciate that.

---

And, given that the recent protests are about what essentially is an exploitation by the best-and-brightest of computational frailties, the theme is very much apropos.

---

So, the coming posts will have more of a technical focus, as the blogger reflects on the changes that were concurrent with Mr. Jobs' life.

Remarks

01/17/2012 -- I've been slowly reading his authorized bio; at some point, more reflection will be forthcoming, especially when we look at equity (private and otherwise).

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better?

10/20/2011 -- We still need to follow up. USAToday on Mr. Jobs.

10/17/2011 -- There is so much to cover, however look at Rick's latest post. Of course, Turing's test doesn't deal with the 'being' issue (what test would?).

10/11/2011 -- Weathermen reminisce about what the Mac meant to them. These are interesting and relate to a couple of points that need to be addressed: function/presentation, metrology/close enough (of course, they're trying to solve a hard problem, yet, flashy graphics do not 'truth' make).

10/09/2011 -- The prior Remarks will bring in issues related to the 13th Amendment. Aside: do employer-driven non-disclosure agreements tread on rights pronounced there?

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%).

We need to discuss how much Steve's work may, or may not, have helped those who want to achieve self-sovereignty. Zombie-like attachment to an idiot box (yes, including the so-called smart phone) provided by technology (owned and ruled by another) is probably one of the worse types of enslavement.

See Washington Post article (link, next Remarks): kids won't glance up from their IPhones. They'll never need to. (Ah, we'll bring them bed-pans? Wait on the little zombies hand and foot?).

10/9/2011 -- And, the Washington Post weighs in.

10/8/2011 -- Interesting essay, at WSJ, that bears some response, at some point. Technology, in this sense, provides rose-colored glasses and puppet strings to be pulled by the wizard? Ah, ironic that the Mac appeared in '84. What conversations are George and Steve having?

10/8/2011 -- These Remarks are, in part, collecting themes for the future posts related the subject. The genie is out of the bottle, as noted above; we cannot go back (the time arrow is forward -- for all that we know, now); therefore, resolving 'truth' issues will be central (not unlike the need for defensive mechanisms -- albeit, we would like to think that peace and love are the norm -- not succumbing to Dick's paranoia). The context requires a technical focus, but a whole lot of intuition is in order, to boot. That is, trained intuition. Do we know how to do that, yet? Somewhat, Steve's work was directed toward this.

10/07/2011 -- Steve's efforts raised two essential ideas to the fore such that they had to become part of the milieu: usability and object-orientation. The two (and a few others, to boot) will be looked at further in additional posts. Usability, especially the touch-click notions assisted by graphical displays, is central to certain types of human-computer interface. That interface can get in the way, though, from a technical focus (we'll define this further). The whole notion of entities with behavior (we'll look at the history of this development) that are accumulations of disparate (not disjoint, necessarily) attributes is at the basis of a whole lot of modeling. Too, though, it can lead to confusion (computational vertigo). Again, this is not criticism, but, rather, it is an attempt to discuss the evolution of computing using the effects of Steve's participation.

There is a sort of dichotomy involved here. Apple allows an intuitive interface that enhances creative efforts, of a sort. That type of interface can inhibit others (we'll get into that). At the same time, though, this whole evolution has favored those who have numeracy (with the effect of reducing (or trying to) the innumerant set into the corner of eternal dumb-ness. Ah, no wonder things are so awry as the best-and-brightest are numerant and are exploiting the game.

One can argue (zen) that numeracy is more idiotic than not. Got that, smart folks? We'll be explaining why. Hopefully, the protesters of Wall Street do not lose their sense of urgency.

10/07/2011 -- Steve believed in his own intuition. We'll have to look at that a little, in this sense: mathematics and science have denigrated intuition (many examples of the counter-intuitive being correct - to a certain point) yet we know that we need this in order to be creative. Those two poles, or seeming poles, are at the crux of the computational problems of today.

Modified: 01/17/2012

The public's heart

2011-10-04T12:57:00.036+01:00

Moral: Wherein we mention a couple of items related to the public's view (that is, the other 99%).

---

Protests about the best-and-brightests' gaming? This emerging scene is reminiscent of several that the blogger has seen personally, including early civil rights sit-ins, anti-war demonstrations, and even the be-ins from four decades ago.

---

In reading about the Wall Street event, I ran across a news source that is of the new media and seems to have a fairly broad coverage (alternet.org), though the Kochs think that it is 'subversive.'

Aside: Yes, though it might seem beyond belief, the blogger just ran across this site a couple of days ago.

Another thing about the protests is that the abstracted views of theory (economics, political, ...) do not consider the 'heart' of the people. Who looks at that large source of power?

---

We'll have to go back to discussing the need for a Magna Carta equivalent for busyness, among other things.

Remarks

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

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better? The OWS can find all sorts of examples like this to use.

10/18/2011 -- Hopefully, the OWS will bring this type of thing to public awareness.

10/15/2011 -- The recognition goes global. Banking ought to be handled by those whose greed is close to nil.

10/14/2011 -- One thing that has always concerned the blogger was the trickery that finance did with student loans which ought to be as straightforward as mortgages. Yet, some play games with those needing the support and, in doing so, made oodles (atrocious, in essence). Some of have this in mind as they join in the protest. Yes, it was turned over to bankers of whom there are many types; and, do not bankers exist for the purpose of filling their pockets?

10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.

10/11/2011 -- Topics related to this theme have been addressed here from the beginning. One example: shattered dreams. Busyness has stunk to the high heavens for some time now.

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.

10/10/2011 -- The new media in action. The best-and-brightest who are behind the faults that trashed the financial world (early 2008 finger pointing) were good at playing the issues (exuberance plus fairy dusting) seemingly without any repercussions (where were the clawbacks? -- zombie, indeed).

10/09/2011 -- Kings (and Lords) 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.).

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%).

10/07/2011 -- See Remarks, this day, about innumeracy. Those who are numerant think that they are the smarter (smartest) -- even science has trended toward reinforcing this notion. But, the jury is still out, folks. We'll go into that. Go, protesters! Keep it legal, though.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof. We need one of these for business. What would it look like?

Heard, from others, that the Wall Streeters jeer: we cannot help that we are good at what we do, find a job you lazy protesters. Oh, yes, Wall Streeters, you are good at what, exactly? Oh, yes, having defined the shell game, then you keep it running so that monies are sucked out of the pockets (no fair deal) of the hapless.

10/06/2011 -- It seems like old times, almost reminiscent of the late 60s and early 70s. Notice that the tea party seems to be the favorite of the rightmost (Republican) minds. Labor and the left seem to be on board with the Wall Street protests. Great play on the major stage; ought to produce a whole lot of material.

10/05/2011-- We need to appreciate the dedication of the protesters and their supporters. The site in NY has an infrastructural basis, in a sense, with its medical, legal, and other support. Now, who would have thought that the requirements for, and recognition of, 'morals' related to money would play out in this type of fashion? Somehow, there seems to be a different tone about the whole thing.

10/04/2011 -- Dedicated to GEK III.

Modified: 11/30/2011

Public service

2011-09-28T00:26:00.024+01:00

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

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.

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: 01/16/2012

False positives

2011-09-24T00:06:00.016+01:00

Moral: Wherein we consider more background, such as some 'problems' related to economics.

---

While looking at EconoSpeak, I found a post with 'Economics is not a Real Science' (09/23/11) in its title. The theme of the post refers to the recently obtained data that might suggest that changes may be needed to Einstein's view.

That is, if the data turn out to be correct. A whole lot of analysis is needed to remove any doubt of measurement error.

---

There was a remark that many didn't want their names associated with the findings, just in case there were errors found. Evidently, avoiding such a stain means more in that scientific world than it does in the dismal one of economics.

That is, just as we've claimed that changes are pushed out (like some of the recent Big Ben moves) without any framework for seeing how it works. The 'cowboy' mode is used in some circles to describe this sort of thing.

Dorman uses the concept of types related to hypothesis testing. In fact, he points back to an earlier post: Annals of Unscientific Economics (04/05/11).

---

Before proceeding, comments to these two posts bring in a couple of blogs that are of interest.

Maison Fluery -- makes the very correct relation of economical thinking with systems analysis which then can be used to show that the monetary system is unstable. Is that arguing against fiat money? Of course, it's nice to see Minsky (7oops7, Truth engineering) brought into the argument. (see Comment at the 9/23 post)
Very Deep Left -- on the dogmas of economics. (see Comment at the 4/5 post)

---

Science must (can afford to) be consistent, since it cannot be complete. Even with all of its effort, you can expect to find problematic findings. Why? There is no science that is not filtered through the human experience.

On the other hand, can economics get away from the human frailties? Perhaps, if it dampened those who perturb at the top (firming up the basis might help here). Bottom up? Yes, all sorts of initiatives, such as neuro-economics, need to be pursued.

Too, though, effort ought to be put into a 'sandbox' with which to maintain a little more stability.

How? Well, that's why we're here.

Remarks

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)?

09/27/2011 -- Science cannot be complete, therefore it can spend its time (and energy - enormous requirements) on being consistent (or, more formally, sound). Yet, we cannot wait for science in our daily lives; nor, can we entirely run ourselves on this limiting (yes) viewpoint.

Engineering (as one of the application frameworks) uses much more than 'science' in its achievements.

Economics is different from (some) science , as it deals with people and their lives. The reality is that Economics uses types of compactification as the basis for arbitrary (some better founded than others) closures that then are, or are not, operationally effective. Our problem is that this creative effort can be stable, if done in a mature manner; yet, it is mostly pirated (and made unstable) by those who take advantage of situational opportunities (because they can or are allowed to; or, because we are all idiots in their view).

A good example of the situational is what is called the 'quants' (original post) phenomenon. Supposedly done by the best-and-brightest, this type of activity essentially exploits differences (as in, that which is behind volatility) in a manner that is not unlike siphoning off the cream. The net effect (near zero) is an almost guaranteed impoverishment of the many whose health and welfare serves as the source. The sink? Of course, the pockets of the fat cats and their players.

People, these types have 'played' with us, humanity, forever. It is time to grow up and let them know that we are more than mere commodities (kleenex metaphor applies) for their use and exploitation.

How to do this? Again, that's why we're here.

Modified: 09/29/2011

Wealth

2011-09-14T14:28:00.038+01:00

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

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).

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: 01/01/2012

Big Ben and the consumer

2011-09-09T20:39:00.014+01:00

Moral: Wherein we opine that Big Ben's trip to the mountains didn't help him.

---

Come on, guy. Get your head out of the 1930s, please.

---

If one uses 'bernancke blames consumer' on Google search, one gets a bunch of hits. There are many of note, but BNET and QOTD are of interest here. The latter has a list of what might be causing caution.

---

But, two things come to my mind, after listening to President Obama's jobs speech. He made note of the veterans, after WWII, getting the GI Bill's support for college. If we looked at the sociological aspects, we'll see that WWII was a threshold event in many areas.

One of these was allowing access to the many to the possible futures that had, before then, been available mostly to the offspring of the privileged. Of course, this is an arguable point. But, putting that aside, for now, consider the following.

Post WWII, we allowed the many, who could, to tackle, and to attain, an aspect of the American dream that has since diminished (next bullet). Except, I might add, for those best-and-brightest who have their experience at Harvard (note, please, this was the first University here -- we have to ask whether it has veered from its ideal path -- again, debatable, but I have a lot of time and interest in the subject). Then, those who excelled in the post-WWII times went on to, essentially, change the landscape of business, academia, and more. The post-WWII times were loaded with many progressive steps; yet, things went awry a lot, to boot. However, that which can be termed the American Dream continued its appeal; in fact, the number of people who could look to the Dream multiplied, too. As Obama said, people worked hard; one can argue that most worked their fingers to the bone (not the fat cats, though, despite claims of such and of their accepting risk -- hah, the game is to push risk off to others -- such as, let the military obligation be met by other than their selves).
Then, things went awry several ways. Post the GI Bill, there were several ways that students could fund college. And, there were programs oriented toward educational attainment that were successful. But, guess what? These all devolved into some type of quasi-governmental thing that led to exploitation of students and to the fattening of the pockets of some cats (idiots, oh Lord, please help us get these a-holes into line). Yes, that was a recent affair (last decade or so), but it, combined with other factors, staunched the flow that some might have had toward realizing the dream.

---

This, and other things, are what you ought to be looking at, Big Ben. And, if you really want to know, I'm here.

---

Talk about throwing water on a dream. And, Big Ben's largess is just further abuse. You see, those who are the workers (a very large set of consumers - albeit, not of luxury items) have been under increasing pressure by the same fat cats that Big Ben, and Little Timmy, like to hang around with.

How can the consumer, who is weighed down by debt and by exploitation, even think of laying down a buck for other than necessities? A buck, by the way Big Ben, that you have been doing everything in your power to trash.

---

Nationalization of the banks would have been the right move, a couple of years ago. Too, we need respect for workers (manual and otherwise); how can this come to be? If you look at the early settlers, they worked. Except for some of the hoity-poity clergy who thought that they were God's gift to mankind (ah, is that Harvard's heritage?).

Remarks

12/05/2011 -- Now, he's giving money to Europe, on the backs of our savers.

10/19/2011 -- Big Ben lets B of A put its hands in our pockets: are they ready for Chapter 11?, Ben tells the FDIC where to go, but golden sacks was allowed to do it!

09/27/2011 -- Yes, Ben, keep steering us toward those who pick the pockets.

Modified: 12/05/2011

Financial piracy

2011-08-30T13:09:00.035+01:00

Moral: Wherein we opine about the current state of financial affairs now that Big Ben has graced (?) the Tetons with his presence, again.

---

There used to the a thing called "debtors' prison" where one who got into dire straits, whether by fate or by own's one idiocy, spent time. In some of these, people were not fed; essentially, the place was a warehouse to stack those whose fortunes diminished to negative terms.

Somehow, we got to where being in debt was the "thing" to do. In fact, some exalted at how much credit they had and could use.

Sorry state of affairs. Both the physical prison and this virtual new prison. We are going to argue that this latter prison is more insidious by a long shot.

What did we do? We have the USofA now indebted to the likes of former enemies.

---

Now, why "financial piracy" in the title? Some claim that morality left business. Was it ever there? One might say that the last drop of 'morality' ran out. So, we have this monster of a thing, with flashing lights and boisterous hawkers and, of course, the priestly types. And, it is daily proffered through our technical prowess, yes, television and the web and more.

The so-called "markets" of such importance to some. In the case of the financial pirates, there is little of 'value' that is bought and sold.

To what end is this crap-shooting ca-pital-sino? To suck monies from the pockets of the hapless into that of the fat-catted ones who are in position to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, the politicos (those who salivate at the thought of a buck) have turned their backs on those in need in order to make things better for this upper crust.

---

It may be that the larger part of the basis for a sustainable economy is the consumer. Yet, several things are implied there, the first of which would be that 'piracy' under the guise of financial imperatives would be strictly limited (sandbox'd, in other words).

Yes, those who are in control of the money (and whatever basis that we put it upon) would be of 'simple living' (the military metaphor holds - but, not the officers who become Generals and pains in the asses -- no, talking the enlisted here [E1, in fact] -- ah, but general-hood implies ability and talent to use such, does it not? --- hah! for any officer, there are scads of enlisted who are as smart and talented).

---

This theme will be explored more. If Big Ben were such as to think about Main Street rather than the Wall'd warts (and all of their ilk), he would not have polluted the rare air of the Tetons area with all of those hot-air'd types who gathered last week to honor 'moolah' and its chimera. No, there are countless slums in the world (and in the US) where these types could have seen the effects of their decisions up close and personal.

Oh? Of course, they do not want to do this, as is not their dwelling in the 'heights' too much fun and causes them to disdain the 99.9999% who suffer from their coddling of the big guys?

Ah, think of those who were bailed out, cooling their heels in a debtors' prison? Nice thought!

Remarks

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)?

09/27/2011 -- Recover missing image (Allah and moulah).

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

09/09/2011 -- Big Ben and the consumer.

08/30/2011 -- A tale from the trenches, not exaggerated. There was a techie company that has a piece of it that has been around since the 60s. The company is no longer around, except in memory. However, the group has been picked up multiple times by other companies over the years. A devoted type of employee (by the way, war vet) has endured with the group during this time. Following the history is a good read on changes over the related decades. The message? On one of the movements between overlords (financial types, of course), these employees' retirement accounts were given to a large, well-known insurance company for management. What was the first thing that they (the cruds) did? Took a large percentage (way beyond what one would think was reasonable) off the top, as their fee? What? There are tales, such as this, all over the economy. Do we pay attention? Do the regulators (ah, remember how they could not even see Made-off when he was right in front of them?) even know how? Sorry state of affairs, folks. Not only are there these tales, but they are legion (putrid to the core - what the hell has happened over the past 30-40 years, folks?). Oh, is it the lack of any sense of responsibility, or ethics, on the part of the boomers? Much to discuss.

08/30/2011 -- The status of Officer versus Enlisted is one of the last bastions of legal 'classism' in the United States. Is it necessary? Not really. All the arguments about 'leadership' run toward what we see with 'politicos' who cannot keep their salivating selves in check when they see, or think of, a buck. Sad state of affairs. Of course, the idiocy started with the onset of the new country. Yes, we're talking over 200 years of divisive methods. It is a wonder that the country has survived the shenanigans. Another bastion? Those new royalty who are the corporate elite riding herd on what the Supreme Court's members say is a 'person' and whose use of their money is equivalent (same type of ruling) to free speech (ah, twisted, indeed). Too, these royals can trample the mere citizen with impunity (no wonder, those who are the masses still yearn -- yes, the chimera has stolen the American dream).

Modified: 09/29/2011

Largess, by another name

2011-08-12T20:35:00.009+01:00

Moral: Wherein we realize that Big Ben and Little Timmy cannot be forgotten, even, for a moment, as they seem to like the ca-pital-sino nature of our modern economy with its infatuation with the big chimera.

---

Yes, Big Ben will continue to sack savers for another couple of years. He wants money to run after the chimera (about which, we have no accounting).

---

No, there are rumblings of QE3. Lord forbid!

And, he has another few years to go in his term.

It is a good thing that some have taken the vow of simple living (ask me, Big Ben, Warren, ...) and will not succumb to the sirens that have entrapped the busyness world.

Remarks

10/24/2011 -- Those who have not received Big Ben's largess congregate.

09/09/2011 -- Big Ben and the consumer.

08/16/2011 -- Big Ben treasonous?

Modified: 10/24/2011

Enron of Kansas

2011-08-10T16:52:00.007+01:00

Moral: Wherein we forget Big Ben and Little Timmy for the moment and look at a good example of the ca-pital-sino nature of our modern economy with its infatuation with the big chimera.

---

How? By considering Westar, a little energy company in the mid-west. Actually, the company is not the focus, but a CEO who was a 'pure' capitalist but who really is as representative of what's wrong with his ilk as was Made-off an example of his genre. Too, he is an example for others who may not have access to gigantic sums but still maneuver for suspect gains.

The guy's name is David. Here is an exert from an editorial at the WEagle about him: A former Wall Street hotshot hired to prepare the company for a deregulation of electricity that never came to Kansas, Wittig oversaw a period during which Westar piled up debt, attempted misguided mergers, battled regulators and shed jobs, all the while paying for outrageous executive salaries and perks.

---

It has been some saga. Granted, David saw some time behind bars. Yet, did he learn anything? Did we?

Rhonda (see the editorial) is right; where was there any culpability assigned from the last downturn that was precipitated by obvious, and identifiable, idiocy (oh, being such is not illegal?)?

---

We have gone on about the new royalty. This is a prime example. The news source says that Westar customers are not going to pay; no, it's coming from a fund set aside for this purpose.

What? Tell that to the woman who was on the front page with an electric bill of over $500 for one month which was an amount several multiples beyond any before. Of course, mix in the rate raises that have been approved, and you'll see the problem.

---

We have seen several examples lately of quasi-governmental (notion that the commonweal ought not be privatized), and even non-profit, companies paying exorbitant amounts to executives. Foxes in the hen house, for sure.

Remarks

08/10/2011 --

Modified: 08/10/2011

Ben and Timmy

2011-08-05T14:29:00.018+01:00

Moral: Wherein we let someone else talk about Big Ben's and Little Timmy's culpability in raising the ca-pital-sino nature of the big chimera.

---

Ben and Timmy, two of a kind.

---

Seeking Alpha has a real good read on this. Note the use of 'narcissistic males' in the discussion as to things that drive toward the awry (oldest profession - see Remarks 08/03 & 05/2011 -- head butting -- somehow, this has morphed into what risk is all about - as in, that risk that gets the reward - the second oldest profession - yet, which is first? ).

---

Please note, this post is not an endorsement of the viewpoint (Quants) expressed at the 'seeking alpha' site. However, the post being referenced does say a lot that is right.

Remarks

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

12/05/2011 -- Now, he's giving money to Europe, on the backs of our savers.

09/27/2011 -- Yes, Ben, keep steering us toward those who pick the pockets.

08/16/2011 -- Big Ben treasonous?

08/13/2011 -- Banks still struggling. We could have taken them over.

08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

08/10/2011 -- Down 600+, then up 400+ (due to Big Ben's group having their meeting -- and continuing to poke it to the old folk), then down 400+. What is stupid here? People actually trying to find some rhyme and reason to this madness. Let's look at an example company that shows the results of the excesses of the past decade and that demonstrates how the consumer suffers.

08/09/2011 -- Historically stupid (sacking the savers through 2013 --- giving our money to the fat cats who 1) got us into the mess, 2) has sat on their bucks to the effect of keeping the economy dampened, 3) made easy money off of Ben's largess).

08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?

Modified: 01/27/2012

Our basis II

2011-08-03T15:12:00.019+01:00

Moral: Wherein we consider the economic (and other) agent as we try to understand the appeal of the chimera.

---

Earlier, we looked a little at human cognitive issues; essentially, the illusion of the rational agent needs to be explained. How awry has economics been due to that bit of irrationality? Too, we might look a bit at neuroeconomics.

---

Recently, neuroscientist David Eagleman has a must-read article, The Brain on Trial (be sure to see the Comments). David uses legal settings to demonstrate the genetic/environment (nature/nurture) influences on thinking and behavior. In other words, he almost argues that the 'rational' man is a myth. Yet, we all want to be capable and rational; along with that, we look to assign blame or reward.

Who wants to be considered a freak of nature? Then again, is 'free will' anywhere a factor in the modern, materialistic world (truth engineering topic that will rise to the fore)? Too, upon what can we put legal consequences, let alone matters of conscience, if we're all just neuropeptidergic messes?

---

Aside: some can claim morality without teleology (this topic will be addressed more fully, at some point, in discussing truth engineering's T-issues).

---

Our quandary rests in the fact that we can show how we can control ourselves and can teach this to others, to an extent. In some cases, there are metaphysical underpinnings that may need more attention in order to resolve some of the issues. In others, the framework is experiential-ly based and passed on from generation to generation (to wit: the military, corporations, families, ...).

Yet, any balancing act attained is easily disturbed (fragile, as we see with the market-theoretic viewpoints). In fact, there is a lot of science put into disabling people (black arts of defense).

---

Aside: failures in mind-control (note use of meme) ought to suggest something in regard to that which coherently pulls everything together.

---

The chimera, and all of its supporting casts (legions upon legions), assumes agents, with information, rationality, and more. From whence this, we might ask? That we see bubbles (sometimes, this seems to be the status quo - Alan wavered when faced with the fact -- yet, he did have a long reign) is almost inevitable.

What to do? Well, that depends upon several things which we'll get into.

Remarks

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).

08/04/2011 -- One might add that the medical field seems to have a split personality. We have neuroscience insights galore questioning the basis, yet the M.D. holder is considered to have attained the epitome of learning (and earning). To boot, hubris seems to abound in those realms. To wit (and, we'll be documenting some cases, folks; naturally, names will be changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent): subjecting patients to intolerable side-effects in order to show their prowess with bio-chemistry, cloaking euthanasia under the guise of geriatrics, and more. Yet, some efforts at preventative medicine (and improved conceptions of how this all ought to work economically) are very encouraging (M.D.s are not responsible for the bad behavior, and choices, of their patients -- oh, given the referenced article (above), the medical establishment will provide us a made-up soup of chemicals, with which to live, in order to improve on nature's (the Creator's) work?).

08/03/2011 -- Reading the comments to The Atlantic article brought out another meme: heart driven (ah, is busyness not the antithesis of this except for the capitalist? -- yes, unless they are exploiting 10s of thousands, and more, of people, they are not happy -- how did these guys/gals get to be such icons (idiotic, people) and have so much influence (oh, yes, money) on so many?). So, I'm happy to learn about HeartMath! The correct meme? A triad: environment, genetic, and heart (T-issues required, oh when will that be allowed?).

Modified: 01/01/2012

Evolution of business

2011-08-02T14:20:00.018+01:00

Moral: Wherein we look at the influence of families on the evolution of business as we try to understand the appeal of the chimera.

---

Evolution? Yes, business reflects the times and the memes set. Time moves on, so too do things change.

At any point, some think that they may have reached an epitome. Dynasties arise. Some fall. Others amble on. Generation by generation expectations grow. 'Having it all' describes one type.

One can just see the mind storms of a well-endowed best-and-brightest on the Street (not Main) gloating in the bonuses (excessive by any definition) and fat-catting down life's highways, expecting that the getting will always be good (creating copy-cats).

Then, those who play took their balls home in order to stop the game, froze the economy, knew that their partners were as crooked as they, and more.

And, the common folk suffered.

---

While doing research for an entirely different reason, I ran across a family that would serve as a good example (Moore). Henry, of the mid-1800s, epitomized the mentality behind buy-outs. One grandson was a decorated marine, a priest, and liberal. There will be others, to boot.

Looking further at this type of example would extend that done so far: backbone, commoners, non-commoners.

---

The latest realm of busyness is heavily computational and global. Exploitation of workers, and consumers, is not new; we haven't learned the real lessons there, yet. When can we?

---

It's not hopeless, though how many eons will be needed? Well, hopefully, it's not a PTIME issue. Yet, one knows that the lessons can be learned quickly, given the right circumstances. Which are? ... Another topic.

Remarks

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

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

08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?

08/05/2011 -- In case there is a need to be more obvious (the meme: the chicken or the egg -- below), which is the oldest profession: head-butt or mate. Note, if you would, that the latter is usually preceded by the former, in many cases.

08/03/2011 -- There are several ways to ponder economics within an evolutionary framework. However, starting with the two (no, not one) 'oldest' professions might be of interest: head-butting (see Remarks 07/29/2011) and, then, that which is usually cast as the oldest. Which came first (the meme: the chicken or the egg)?

Modified: 11/30/2011

Cambridge Non-commoners

2011-07-28T17:19:00.017+01:00

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

---

Last time, we looked at the Salem Commoners whose use of 'commoner' provides an interesting twist. Yes, many involved were not common, at all.

Fortunately, Fortune now provides another, more usual, twist that deals with the antithesis of common, namely the elite. The topic deals with the Ivies as a route to Wall Street.

As an aside, Cambridge also has MIT (juxtapositions, thereof, are of interest here).

---

Mind you, this blog has said, from the beginning, that any worldview that puts its epitome on the Wall, rather than the Main, street, is very much suspect from a sustainable sense. Why? It continues the notions that were motivators for aristocratic excesses of ego and ignominious exploitation of the trodden; too, these ones, of the privileged heritage (some, lordly princes) and of a highly un-grounded basis, proliferate mindsets that are seemingly well-founded but that, in actuality, sliver and quake (house of cards).

---

An appropriate Magna Carta must become part of the discussion.

Remarks

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%).

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

09/15/2011 -- Henry and George.

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

07/29/2011 -- Another nod to GEK III would look at his thinking on the 'sweet science' of mankind (and analogs, thereof). As in, head butting (actually, this is the oldest profession). Rick had a post on his BJJ longevity (to which I commented, as it leads to discussion of the necessity of the sandbox) describing the various benefits of the martial arts. In the large, mayhem has been used by those of the upper realms to control the lower classes, plus they manipulate the energies for the uppers' goals. In the small, we have males trying to establish an illusory dominance (yes, zap your brain out to 1 million miles and think: to what effect?) among themselves while letting the uppers exploit the situation. That is, divisive energies prevent the necessary unity (that which would free the trodden). ... Now, to twist the view a little, can we learn lessons from the efforts at succeeding in these areas (as in, something equivalent to that considered by the ivory-towered minds)? Yes, consider a topsy-turvy change that is experientially (and not abstractly) based, if you would. We'll be getting more into this later.

07/28/2011 -- This is the second of the G.E.K. III, defender of justice, series. As one comment to the Fortune article notes: (bern 3922) Actually, I think we're becoming more like the feudalistic classist dumps our ancestors fled here to escape. Hopefully we'll realize we're making the mistakes of the past and change course. What we need is for elite education to be allocated to those most intelligent and capable instead of those whose parents have the most money. We also need legislation that will make nepotism a form of employment discrimination.

Modified: 10/10/2011

Salem Commoners

2011-07-12T14:44:00.031+01:00

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

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: 09/15/2011

Chimera, explained

2011-07-05T14:25:00.027+01:00

Moral: Wherein we stop to consider why 'chimera' has been used in reference to that which gets more of Big Ben's attention than is warranted.

---

Oh, some have benefited from the chimera's increasing heftiness. This is not unlike the house raking in the dough due to how odds are set.

For some reason, Big Ben has not pulled his head out of the '30s and seems to think that the ca-pital-sino is it. Sheesh, big guy. Will you learn?

---

Most people's lives are in the crapper. Many get by on scraps. The fat cats (less than 10%, the new aristocracy -- where is our Magna Carta?) are gaining more weight. Those same fat cats are raking in over 80% of the takings (will not use profits, as stock rising in prices means nothing of value, folks, let's get that straight - future topic -- for now, recall near zero, please).

---

Well, Big Ben's two targets (for which he has controls that supposedly help him aim) relate to unemployment (ah, that is one rub) and inflation. The first we all know is problematic (even, though Big Ben panicked early, supposedly worried all along, and wants to help), so we'll ignore that for now. Taking the second one, he has removed the chance of deflation. How? He trashed the savers, essentially junked the US Bonds (gosh, again, Big Ben, where is your head?), floated his QEs, and more. Liquidity, it's called.

From where I sit, looks like the banks got impacted (yes, think hose: high, hot, and hell of a lot -- old timers ought to know what this means) due to their improper diet.

Aside: Jamie? My jaw fell when I heard that some think that he ought to replace little Timmy.

---

Big Ben has another thing going against him. Fake money. Yes, he's been allowed to print without restraint (oh wait! that's little Timmy whose presses have been running overtime). Big Ben's role in this is that he determines what is the balance that is related to money (how much, of each type, etc.).

Big Ben and little Timmy are two peas in a pod.

---

What is this all about? Well, that which is termed 'chimera' has tenuous links to the bulk of the economy. How did this come to be? And, in a sustainable economy (yes, with an global focus) to what extent would the gaming called the market have a gambling flair? That is the question, folks. Mind you, there are many suited, lobbyists who do not want the game to be fair.

---

Of course, what would be fair? After all, it has been interminable that we have the upper class (a small set) and then the masses who are there mainly to be exploited. Even the phenomenon of those who may be meritorious and who arise from the teeming-ness of the masses, forget their past real quickly. Human nature, 'tis.

---

Given that we're just past the Fourth of July, let's, at least, not be pretentious that those ideals mean anything to the few who make the decisions. Oh yes, they mean a lot to those who need to think that things will get better. Or, to the idealist. ... Or, to the saint (yes, there are those).

---

There is a firm (not to be mentioned by name) that is so much an example. It in part deals with jetting, that bailiwick used by the rich to keep their little selves out of the fray. Oh yes, by using private means of transportation (that is subsidized by our monies -- oh, if this were not true, why do you not see the masses lining up for fractional jet time? -- that is, let the rich pay for the 'real cost' of their chosen method (to keep from rubbing elbows with those who fly first class using their earned miles or to keep from hobnobbing with the working class who might also be million milers) ... oh yes, this is equivalent to costing out the expenses of a private suite -- how many day-to-day work traveler can do that?), these types can work faster to keep those teeming masses in chains. Well, there was a sell-out from public to private that left oodles of debt on the books. Oh yes, monies flowed to a few pockets. That debt's service cost has been just debilitating on the company. Yet, who pays? They cut people, move (or try to move) to places of cheaper (more exploitable workers), trash worker benefits (of many types), get the local community to belly up with tax breaks, and so forth.

Why are they in this state? Well, it isn't that Obama questions why tax breaks are necessary for the rich's flying toys. No. There is the fact of the deal (in which, golden sacks made oodles -- set up the details, reinforced the notions - yes, they're the best), plus there was a downturn. You see, the firm was not able to IPO yet. It had a sister company that did partly get to IPO (enriching a few pockets), yet it has debt, to boot.

---

Well, that firm may have been of a sustainable mode for years. But, it's current turmoil ought to be studied very closely. For many lessons, such as leveraging's pitfalls, worker exploitation, limitations of pursuing the luxury market (except, what will be the reality of personal jets - strap on - equivalent to the flying bike?), and more.

---

So, 'chimera' it is whose sirens seem to strongly allure. Even Big Ben has been seduced. What is the way out of this debacle?

Remarks

08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?

08/03/2011 -- Today, the DOW is at 11.7K (hey, let it go to 8K) at mid-morning. Ah, what irrationality lurks? Yet, Big Ben wants to continue to sack the savers while being ultra-charitable to bankers (like Jamie).

07/13/2011 -- QE3? Sheesh, Big guy. The article says that stocks went up 6% during QE2. Let's see. How did the pockets of the savers diminish? More than that, it seems.

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

07/07/2011 -- Oh yes, Jaime probably wants a 0.01& reserve so that he can take even more due to supposed income from churning. Have to give Big Ben credit to standing up to the guy's rant. Let's put Washington Irving's theme to use.

07/06/2011 -- Yes, to get monies to service the debt, without the opportunity to sell more, what does the firm do? Take it from the workers, squeezing out the last drop of blood, selling assets, and such. How could they then be nimble enough to actually be effective in the future? Why is it that cuts seem to take on some equivalence with an anorexic drive? For all this, consider that no amount of cuts would come close to servicing the debt (where did that type of thinking become the paragon to which we all are supposed to bow?). Could they even sell all of their assets and pay the debt? Yet, when they do push out an IPO, it's supposed to be a great investment?

Modified: 08/10/2011

Chimera IV

2011-06-10T19:50:00.015+01:00

Moral: Wherein we continue our look at the chimera and its shaky foundation that is attributable to Big Ben's largess, in part.

----

The market (DOW) is below 12K. Well, let it go down below 8K, please. All this ballooning is due to the frenzy being sustained by Big Ben's free money. Whereas, savers have been sacked.

----

Mind you, ca-pital-sino is not what we need for a sustainable future. Big Ben, the big boards, some politicians, and a lot more, really need to do something useful, with real consequences.

----

So, let's track back through some comments.

The Big Chimera (Nov, 2009) -- Since we got this thread started, the markets got to some type of low, started upward, and kept rising. So, some would think that the notion of 'chimera' would be wrong. Nope. Note that a recent report, looking at commodity trading, shows that 90% of some activity (see CFTC remarks) is related to speculation. And, that this ratio came about after a move to remove limits back in 2001. Minsky would love this. How is it that we care so much for the stupid game that enriches only a few?
Chimera II (Aug, 2010) -- Still with the upturn in those things traded who have little behind them (derivatives), some were thoughtful enough to consider that we deal with 'myths' more than not.
Chimera, again (Jan, 2011) -- Undoubtedly, things are complicated. Yet, folks, it is just that which those who want to malfease things hide behind. And, those in charge have just let loosen the rules in order for the best-and-brighest to play havoc.

One would hope that a proper basis can be defined, maintained, regulated, and improved.

Remarks

07/12/2011 -- Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).

07/05/2011 -- Chimera, explained.

06/26/2011 -- Changed 11K to 12K (typo). ... On another note, some recognize that derivatives can cloud the issue of value, especially if they're handled 'darkly' (implies several things to look at).

06/22/2011 -- This is Jamie's bank?

06/16/2011 -- Why doesn't golden sacks instill confidence? Too much rogue table?

06/14/2011 -- The cream is raked off, immediately, for fat cats only. What they're calling liquidity is maximized flow from all pockets to a few. Sorry state of affairs.

Modified: 07/12/2011