Yes, Paul as in the Letters to the Corinthians. See One World, Under God.
Interesting secular take. My first thought was this: how unlike the CEOs of now, celestial stars that they are (in their own eyes manifesting, almost, a perpetual right-of-kings attitude - the Board, of course, as the bestower, thereof).
Then, the thoughts touched on subjects, like globalization, the consumer, labor, et al, as things have been screwed up by these celestials and their ilk, like the latter day variety that wants big pay (for what?).
Following that, and not needing t-issues yet in the scope, thoughts consider that we can look at the current state of the affairs in relation to the time of Paul, via the referenced article.
Briefly, Paul had imperial aspirations, like any CEO, yet his were not based upon needs for aggrandizement or vulgar collections of wealth. Nor, was it to exploit resources according to some doctrine of optimization which, by definition, is sub-optimal for us all, for several reasons.
Paul also had a greater purpose which a modern CEO could argue is outside of his or her scope. Yet, when one looks at the screwed up nature of things, and this is much more than the mere hiccups that we saw with the financial idiots this past year, where is any viewpoint that transcends the silliness?
The mention here, a time or two, that we need 'monks' to run things ought to have some appeal. But, wait! We could start, too, with some mature discussion about term limits. Who the heck needs 'professional' career politicians?
Solve that, and the issue of managers could follow, by law. By the way, see Fallows (same issue): Two years ago, ..., I described an economic symbiosis in which Chinese workers assembled many of the world’s products—while ... America or other rich countries got the lion’s share of the financial returns. It is the announced policy of the Chinese government, and of many Chinese companies, to keep more of the rewards in China. ... Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government ... no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people’s work.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Our basis
Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).
As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.
Now, truth engineering gets to look at the fun stuff such as talk about what's mentioned in the Aside on the 'Our basis' post. Some may wonder if the topic can be expanded without resolving, or at least addressing, t-issues. No problem there. In the beginning, there may be more metaphor than fact, yet, so what, as science itself deals both top-down and bottom-up. One thing constant, and consistent, is quasi-empirical approaches of which Lakatos' method of thought experiment is part of the tool kit. Too, the whole dynamic behind the clouded web applies here; we'll see many types of experimentation available now. Analogous efforts, such as business intelligence, are just a little mole hill, so far.
As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.
- Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
- 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
- FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
Now, truth engineering gets to look at the fun stuff such as talk about what's mentioned in the Aside on the 'Our basis' post. Some may wonder if the topic can be expanded without resolving, or at least addressing, t-issues. No problem there. In the beginning, there may be more metaphor than fact, yet, so what, as science itself deals both top-down and bottom-up. One thing constant, and consistent, is quasi-empirical approaches of which Lakatos' method of thought experiment is part of the tool kit. Too, the whole dynamic behind the clouded web applies here; we'll see many types of experimentation available now. Analogous efforts, such as business intelligence, are just a little mole hill, so far.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Mountains and mole hills
We can think of knowledge'd states (k'dst) as being of two types. Some use 'intelligence' in trying to describe characteristics related to being able to attain a k'dst. For now, let's assume that we know that there are these types of states and there are those who can attain the states which are, principally, humans, at this point, though as Turing conjectured, an artifact (used advisedly, since it could very well have natural properties or could derive from natural sources) may very well attain what now seems to be strictly applicable only to us.
Just look around, and you'll see that examples abound. The general interest in understanding, and measuring, k'dst events has to do with trying to get a handle on what leads to success, and failure (as the adage says, learn from the failures of others). One major focus for the measurement was the US military services' need to know more about those who came together (i.e. WWI) in very huge influx, namely enlistees (or draftees). Another thrust related to educational filtering (e.g. SAT, MCAT, GRE, ...).
Too, on the one side, the goal may be that the best-and-brightest can be determined in each generation and offered what allows for their success; and, then, secondarily and hopefully, the rest of us would have some benefit from allowing this success (trickle-down). On the other side, the motive would be to reduce the cost of failure (ah, if only the Street would learn, that is, to do more than just suck money out of our pockets).
Even those offered special treatment aren't guaranteed to have success. How can it be otherwise when the underlying, ontological, framework can not get away from hard issues like complexity and undecidability?
Aside: Might those who excel at the difficult tests be counseled that hubris can seem, in many cases, to be the most predictable result from having the cognitive abilities that appear to be related to mastering the tests? And, with the Corporation somehow being given person-hood, do not those at the peak (CEOs), seem to exhibit all the hubris-tic leanings (especially, bankers?)?
But, let's get back to the two types. The first is acquired through effort, as we see with certification-oriented work, such as that offered by institutions. The ultimate in our current culture is the PhD in the academic sense or the MD (or DO) in the health care sense. As well, there are various types, with a large enumeration, of certifications related to essential roles for any advanced society (e.g. Pilot, Firefighter, ...).
One can easily use a metaphor of the mountain for this attainment (of k'dst) which is really an accumulation of a whole lot of things, such as information, skill, et al. Some might argue that the modern bane of high specialization leads to knowing more and more about less and less for the academic roles and to the necessity of continual re-learning for many roles, especially those with ties to technology. Essentially, we have many mountains, implying a slew of peaks.
Ah, that point brings up the second type of k'dst which puts the individual, not the academy, its largess or bestowal of approval, at the center. The autodidact, in a myriad of ways, demonstrates this type of k'dst. The main thing here? Self-directedness in developing k'dst both broadly and deeply. In many cases, the resultant viewpoint is very much unique, almost impossible to express for peer review (the basis for the public orientation of science), yet effective for the individual.
Now, in many cases, that k'dst just described is what we find with a true 'leader' (as opposed to the piratical state of the supposedly good managers). Some have used labels, like guru. One could hypothesize the current mania relating to the personal coach's role results from our recognition of the k'dst's value.
We can point to all sorts of other types of success that are not directly attributable to having certification or having tackled some educational experience offered by others. In a certain sense, the individual is always the key.
And, it can be argued that anyone speaking outside of an area of expertise has to do so as an autodidact. Unless, we have a 'know it all' who has acquired PhD-level in all possible fields (encompassing all possible k'dsts), but, even then, what would be the integrating scheme or theme? The question, of course, suggests that the role of the general expert requires a type of integration which can take a lot effort (the blowhard is not being given serious consideration, at this time, however cannot ignore the element due to issues related to the wisdom of crowds phenomenon).
Aside: Financial advisement, folks, is not this type of integration. No, it is product selling type of k'dst. We'll go more into that later.
By the way, the 'peak' can have several uses in the context of this discussion: as an attribute of the acquisition of someone (that is some type of acme of a k'dst), as a type of denotation of the ability of someone (several ways to describe this further), or, as we would hope, as an indicator of a growing heap, through generations, of our collective knowledge.
As Sagan might say, we have piles and piles and ...
The point in this discussion, that will continue under several guises (including t-issues), is to bring forward the autodidact's role, as being important, to any democratic scheme. How else, one has to ask, is the populace not be led like sheep if effort does not go into acquiring the knowledge to know how to decide and to act independently?
Aside: In the current financial situation, people need to take responsibility for their own nest eggs and, actually, help secure those of others from the leeches who are inevitably extant (especially, when gab-standard'd, as now) in situations dealing with money. As, what we have seen, many times, is the 'privatization of profit' (where the fat cats accumulate large pockets) and the 'socialization of loss' (where we little people provide a bail out - without thanks, by the way).
Incidentally, John Galt (and Ayn Rand) have it backwards, unless the modern age has spawned a new breed of best-and-brightest who mostly have their thumbs in their mouths (infantile, yes). It will be the autodidacts' k'dsts, dealing with complicated schemes (take Langan, for an example), upon which the emerging, technologically-advanced, world's advances will rest.
And, some of those are ready to run the economic engine, in a non-profit manner, in order to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" much better than can the so-called leaders of industry.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
11/29/2009 -- Rationality and risk. Need a new look. Too, there are many more knowledge'd states than covered here; it'll be a task to start a numeration.
11/11/2009 -- A moment to honor veterans, and their kin, many of whom are of far more capability than the supposed best-and-brightest. ..., ... A theme to expand deals with command and control (even parenting or coaching). How many times is this thought of as a superposition? The strong leading the weaker. Ah, isn't that the case with CEOs and their hubris? Well, to be fair, it's a human trait to be overbearing. We learn to dampen this. The key issue is that you want autonomous, smart entities who do not need more than an overview now and then with limited updates from the HQ views. Of course, there needs to be feedback so that HQ can learn what their units have found in the field. Hey, isn't that how science is supposed to work? The experimental basis needs to be sound, within the limits of quasi-empiricism. The theoretic view needs to tie to something supportable (we'll go on at length about this - it is now topsy-turvy -thanks, Chaitin). Now, how is the learning experience supposed to raise up such a generation? From what we've seen, this happens anyway for some. Unfortunately, the promise of many generations (of course, we need both success and failures - boomers will figure in the discussion, since their time is about up) is not met; our task is to see how we can improve the odds for the most. It can be done despite the difficulties related to undecidability, etc.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Just look around, and you'll see that examples abound. The general interest in understanding, and measuring, k'dst events has to do with trying to get a handle on what leads to success, and failure (as the adage says, learn from the failures of others). One major focus for the measurement was the US military services' need to know more about those who came together (i.e. WWI) in very huge influx, namely enlistees (or draftees). Another thrust related to educational filtering (e.g. SAT, MCAT, GRE, ...).
Too, on the one side, the goal may be that the best-and-brightest can be determined in each generation and offered what allows for their success; and, then, secondarily and hopefully, the rest of us would have some benefit from allowing this success (trickle-down). On the other side, the motive would be to reduce the cost of failure (ah, if only the Street would learn, that is, to do more than just suck money out of our pockets).
Even those offered special treatment aren't guaranteed to have success. How can it be otherwise when the underlying, ontological, framework can not get away from hard issues like complexity and undecidability?
Aside: Might those who excel at the difficult tests be counseled that hubris can seem, in many cases, to be the most predictable result from having the cognitive abilities that appear to be related to mastering the tests? And, with the Corporation somehow being given person-hood, do not those at the peak (CEOs), seem to exhibit all the hubris-tic leanings (especially, bankers?)?
But, let's get back to the two types. The first is acquired through effort, as we see with certification-oriented work, such as that offered by institutions. The ultimate in our current culture is the PhD in the academic sense or the MD (or DO) in the health care sense. As well, there are various types, with a large enumeration, of certifications related to essential roles for any advanced society (e.g. Pilot, Firefighter, ...).
One can easily use a metaphor of the mountain for this attainment (of k'dst) which is really an accumulation of a whole lot of things, such as information, skill, et al. Some might argue that the modern bane of high specialization leads to knowing more and more about less and less for the academic roles and to the necessity of continual re-learning for many roles, especially those with ties to technology. Essentially, we have many mountains, implying a slew of peaks.
Ah, that point brings up the second type of k'dst which puts the individual, not the academy, its largess or bestowal of approval, at the center. The autodidact, in a myriad of ways, demonstrates this type of k'dst. The main thing here? Self-directedness in developing k'dst both broadly and deeply. In many cases, the resultant viewpoint is very much unique, almost impossible to express for peer review (the basis for the public orientation of science), yet effective for the individual.
Now, in many cases, that k'dst just described is what we find with a true 'leader' (as opposed to the piratical state of the supposedly good managers). Some have used labels, like guru. One could hypothesize the current mania relating to the personal coach's role results from our recognition of the k'dst's value.
We can point to all sorts of other types of success that are not directly attributable to having certification or having tackled some educational experience offered by others. In a certain sense, the individual is always the key.
And, it can be argued that anyone speaking outside of an area of expertise has to do so as an autodidact. Unless, we have a 'know it all' who has acquired PhD-level in all possible fields (encompassing all possible k'dsts), but, even then, what would be the integrating scheme or theme? The question, of course, suggests that the role of the general expert requires a type of integration which can take a lot effort (the blowhard is not being given serious consideration, at this time, however cannot ignore the element due to issues related to the wisdom of crowds phenomenon).
Aside: Financial advisement, folks, is not this type of integration. No, it is product selling type of k'dst. We'll go more into that later.
By the way, the 'peak' can have several uses in the context of this discussion: as an attribute of the acquisition of someone (that is some type of acme of a k'dst), as a type of denotation of the ability of someone (several ways to describe this further), or, as we would hope, as an indicator of a growing heap, through generations, of our collective knowledge.
As Sagan might say, we have piles and piles and ...
The point in this discussion, that will continue under several guises (including t-issues), is to bring forward the autodidact's role, as being important, to any democratic scheme. How else, one has to ask, is the populace not be led like sheep if effort does not go into acquiring the knowledge to know how to decide and to act independently?
Aside: In the current financial situation, people need to take responsibility for their own nest eggs and, actually, help secure those of others from the leeches who are inevitably extant (especially, when gab-standard'd, as now) in situations dealing with money. As, what we have seen, many times, is the 'privatization of profit' (where the fat cats accumulate large pockets) and the 'socialization of loss' (where we little people provide a bail out - without thanks, by the way).
Incidentally, John Galt (and Ayn Rand) have it backwards, unless the modern age has spawned a new breed of best-and-brightest who mostly have their thumbs in their mouths (infantile, yes). It will be the autodidacts' k'dsts, dealing with complicated schemes (take Langan, for an example), upon which the emerging, technologically-advanced, world's advances will rest.
And, some of those are ready to run the economic engine, in a non-profit manner, in order to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" much better than can the so-called leaders of industry.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
11/29/2009 -- Rationality and risk. Need a new look. Too, there are many more knowledge'd states than covered here; it'll be a task to start a numeration.
11/11/2009 -- A moment to honor veterans, and their kin, many of whom are of far more capability than the supposed best-and-brightest. ..., ... A theme to expand deals with command and control (even parenting or coaching). How many times is this thought of as a superposition? The strong leading the weaker. Ah, isn't that the case with CEOs and their hubris? Well, to be fair, it's a human trait to be overbearing. We learn to dampen this. The key issue is that you want autonomous, smart entities who do not need more than an overview now and then with limited updates from the HQ views. Of course, there needs to be feedback so that HQ can learn what their units have found in the field. Hey, isn't that how science is supposed to work? The experimental basis needs to be sound, within the limits of quasi-empiricism. The theoretic view needs to tie to something supportable (we'll go on at length about this - it is now topsy-turvy -thanks, Chaitin). Now, how is the learning experience supposed to raise up such a generation? From what we've seen, this happens anyway for some. Unfortunately, the promise of many generations (of course, we need both success and failures - boomers will figure in the discussion, since their time is about up) is not met; our task is to see how we can improve the odds for the most. It can be done despite the difficulties related to undecidability, etc.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
The train
Oh, the train is leaving the station. Better hurry and get on board.
We'll be hearing that a lot, given the recent surge in the markets. Some will be tempted to buy in; many have, otherwise the rally would not exist.
What is behind this mania (best way to characterize the problem)? Well, casino capitalism lies at the basis. For some reason, our lawmakers keep letting the sirens pull them to choices that are not good for us in the matter.
Not that there aren't related hard problems that can give us grief. What's wrong with stepping back and taking a good look. That is, stop this so-called train; yes, halt the markets. It has happened before.
There are other things to consider, such as, let's unravel those supposedly too big to fail entities that are the giant suckers of value out of the economy.
Remarks:
11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?
11/10/2009 -- Glass-Steagall, again. Why not? Also, more on the gab standard.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. In other parlance, we can see that funny money (as determined by the FED) actualizes into delusional corners (the push for large mansions, etc.) since there is no being involved. In this sense, the lowly workers' grasp of reality (albeit, painful that it can be - what with the lopsided accumulation of wealth into a few hands - plus, mistreatment by the likes of bankers) is much more firm than is that of the best-and-brightest.
Modified: 11/20/2009
We'll be hearing that a lot, given the recent surge in the markets. Some will be tempted to buy in; many have, otherwise the rally would not exist.
What is behind this mania (best way to characterize the problem)? Well, casino capitalism lies at the basis. For some reason, our lawmakers keep letting the sirens pull them to choices that are not good for us in the matter.
Not that there aren't related hard problems that can give us grief. What's wrong with stepping back and taking a good look. That is, stop this so-called train; yes, halt the markets. It has happened before.
There are other things to consider, such as, let's unravel those supposedly too big to fail entities that are the giant suckers of value out of the economy.
Remarks:
11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?
11/10/2009 -- Glass-Steagall, again. Why not? Also, more on the gab standard.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. In other parlance, we can see that funny money (as determined by the FED) actualizes into delusional corners (the push for large mansions, etc.) since there is no being involved. In this sense, the lowly workers' grasp of reality (albeit, painful that it can be - what with the lopsided accumulation of wealth into a few hands - plus, mistreatment by the likes of bankers) is much more firm than is that of the best-and-brightest.
Modified: 11/20/2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Who is to know?
Actually, we have the problem that finance confounds things, in its current guise, by necessity. Yet, we have people needing to know now in a reasonable fashion about choices.
Of course, using default logic, one might counsel be careful, and conservative. Forget the clamor and spin, no matter how attractive. Besides, ill-begotten gains (yeah, like we see with the likes of golden sacks and many more) frankly stink.
Only make a change from conservative when there is a strong, and justifiable, need for such.
The main problem is that the market ideology has evolved into casino capitalism, pure and simple. Why? Those who can get the thrill. Too, the total story is not ever told; near zero it is folks.
When, in actuality, a truthful approach would probably argue strongly for the sandbox isolation of those who want risk.
How is this to be? That is one focus.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Of course, using default logic, one might counsel be careful, and conservative. Forget the clamor and spin, no matter how attractive. Besides, ill-begotten gains (yeah, like we see with the likes of golden sacks and many more) frankly stink.
Only make a change from conservative when there is a strong, and justifiable, need for such.
The main problem is that the market ideology has evolved into casino capitalism, pure and simple. Why? Those who can get the thrill. Too, the total story is not ever told; near zero it is folks.
When, in actuality, a truthful approach would probably argue strongly for the sandbox isolation of those who want risk.
How is this to be? That is one focus.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
On behalf of
There is a notion that one has duties. Some of this is legal; a lot of it is cultural. And, then there are the 'big T' issues to consider, to boot (but, not yet).
How many finance people think that their duty is to 'make money' no matter the ways and means? Oh yes, how was this drummed into their best-and-brightest brains?
We're a year after a mess, are some folks any smarter? As we go along, there'll be hindsight and analysis. Some are more stringent than others in calling for reform.
Trouble is, these aren't easy issues. U-issues abound. We have half-baked quants muddying up the waters.
Note: Consider that those who work with other people's money ought to do it under some type of vow. Let's see the possible list. Fiduciary duty. No side-dealings. (Ah, perhaps, eventually, we could have an impressive enumeration - adding things like, vow of poverty - that is, no remuneration other than some nominal value).
How many finance people think that their duty is to 'make money' no matter the ways and means? Oh yes, how was this drummed into their best-and-brightest brains?
We're a year after a mess, are some folks any smarter? As we go along, there'll be hindsight and analysis. Some are more stringent than others in calling for reform.
Trouble is, these aren't easy issues. U-issues abound. We have half-baked quants muddying up the waters.
Note: Consider that those who work with other people's money ought to do it under some type of vow. Let's see the possible list. Fiduciary duty. No side-dealings. (Ah, perhaps, eventually, we could have an impressive enumeration - adding things like, vow of poverty - that is, no remuneration other than some nominal value).
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Truth and toil
Yes, as the title suggests, we're going to consider people issues again, in particular the working class. Earlier posts looked at talkers and doers, lords and serfs, and labor and laborers.
The trouble is that busyness has adopted a view of workers as commodity. Unfortunately, the world rewarded this view with a seemingly endless supply of cheap labor. And, those views grew somewhat stronger despite the longer-term issues of sustainability.
A related fact is that there are many of the able-bodied who have never labored (pity the poor souls) at anything. As I've said before, that could be cured by some type of national service that is mandatory. Jaron Lanier wanted to know if we would have intellectuals out in the field working with their hands as automatons took over.
Well, it may be well to be aware that some who work with their hands may actually be smarter than the best-and-brightest. Fat-cat-ness is sometimes like the rising flotsam in the effluent of life.
Many times, we have the fat cats, and some intellectuals, thinking that they're another class, read better. And, what's irritating is the notion that those who use their minds actually work harder than they do. You see, there is no CEO who expends more energy or exhausts bodily health (except, perhaps, in playing the back-slapping game and posturing - I know, isn't it so exhausting psychically) than those of their workers who face danger, wear themselves out physically, and such.
And, being in hock, in a growing fashion, to those who are allowed to entrap one financially is the worse fate. Some employers create indentured servants and even try to carry it forward to their workers' progeny. Oh wait, aren't we now impoverishing our future generations? Also, some bankers are the scourge (see Class Acts) in a sense; at least the pay-day loan people are up front about their snares and traps.
So, it is in the touch where we find the reality notwithstanding the urge for lights-out and hands-off. And, without a decent income, how can we expect to sustain the consumer part of the economy. Oh yes, let your machines play the consumer (there are those who do see that as a possible alternative, with robots in charge of the world).
Yesterday, the President talked to the union heads. Now, the trouble there is that, in many cases, those heads do not really represent those who are doing the toiling; no, union leadership becomes a type of career. Actually, in the worst case, union leadership was seen as the opportunity to exploit the worker. Ought union leadership be a service? Hey wait, should not those elected be representative rather than career-ive? Yes, you guys and gals, Senators and Representatives both, your role is service believe it or not.
Oh yes, we must not forget the finance guys! Hey, how about a type of world where your role would be service, too? Ah, how else can we break you away from your casino capitalism (gaming)? And, the leeching (circulatory system metaphor).
In my recent reading about quants, two views become apparent. There is the set that games in order to fatten the cats further. There is the more enlightened set that would like to make the modeling to be more scientifically oriented. Gosh, think of that? Economics being less of its usual dismal self?
Note: As said before, I dealt with quantitative methods. There was some magic as managers (and other clueless) were dumbfounded at some of our results; yet, we didn't have the direct link of ka-ching (whatever) of the Wall Street hit dumping oodles of money into the pockets of a few. By the way, this is how our magic was repaid: subsequent iterations were expected to produce what was only accomplished by very hard work (more than any CEO could sustain), by proper use of insight, good engineering, and, essentially, resolving intractable issues. Yet, the managers wanted a repeat, with a snap of the fingers. Perhaps, my agreement with the Vienna boys and girls about undecidability is from long observations on how actual accomplishment with computers comes about. Too, we were being quantitative in metric spaces that required high degrees of accuracy since we were going up against nature. Gaming can be metric, but it is very loose, comparatively. My hunch is that the quants are in-between. They deal in something that can weigh down a pocket, yet they have no notion of the reality of near-zero nor can they actually measure as much as their theoretical views seem to indicate.
Remarks:
12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.
Modified: 12/09/2009
The trouble is that busyness has adopted a view of workers as commodity. Unfortunately, the world rewarded this view with a seemingly endless supply of cheap labor. And, those views grew somewhat stronger despite the longer-term issues of sustainability.
A related fact is that there are many of the able-bodied who have never labored (pity the poor souls) at anything. As I've said before, that could be cured by some type of national service that is mandatory. Jaron Lanier wanted to know if we would have intellectuals out in the field working with their hands as automatons took over.
Well, it may be well to be aware that some who work with their hands may actually be smarter than the best-and-brightest. Fat-cat-ness is sometimes like the rising flotsam in the effluent of life.
Many times, we have the fat cats, and some intellectuals, thinking that they're another class, read better. And, what's irritating is the notion that those who use their minds actually work harder than they do. You see, there is no CEO who expends more energy or exhausts bodily health (except, perhaps, in playing the back-slapping game and posturing - I know, isn't it so exhausting psychically) than those of their workers who face danger, wear themselves out physically, and such.
And, being in hock, in a growing fashion, to those who are allowed to entrap one financially is the worse fate. Some employers create indentured servants and even try to carry it forward to their workers' progeny. Oh wait, aren't we now impoverishing our future generations? Also, some bankers are the scourge (see Class Acts) in a sense; at least the pay-day loan people are up front about their snares and traps.
So, it is in the touch where we find the reality notwithstanding the urge for lights-out and hands-off. And, without a decent income, how can we expect to sustain the consumer part of the economy. Oh yes, let your machines play the consumer (there are those who do see that as a possible alternative, with robots in charge of the world).
Yesterday, the President talked to the union heads. Now, the trouble there is that, in many cases, those heads do not really represent those who are doing the toiling; no, union leadership becomes a type of career. Actually, in the worst case, union leadership was seen as the opportunity to exploit the worker. Ought union leadership be a service? Hey wait, should not those elected be representative rather than career-ive? Yes, you guys and gals, Senators and Representatives both, your role is service believe it or not.
Oh yes, we must not forget the finance guys! Hey, how about a type of world where your role would be service, too? Ah, how else can we break you away from your casino capitalism (gaming)? And, the leeching (circulatory system metaphor).
In my recent reading about quants, two views become apparent. There is the set that games in order to fatten the cats further. There is the more enlightened set that would like to make the modeling to be more scientifically oriented. Gosh, think of that? Economics being less of its usual dismal self?
Note: As said before, I dealt with quantitative methods. There was some magic as managers (and other clueless) were dumbfounded at some of our results; yet, we didn't have the direct link of ka-ching (whatever) of the Wall Street hit dumping oodles of money into the pockets of a few. By the way, this is how our magic was repaid: subsequent iterations were expected to produce what was only accomplished by very hard work (more than any CEO could sustain), by proper use of insight, good engineering, and, essentially, resolving intractable issues. Yet, the managers wanted a repeat, with a snap of the fingers. Perhaps, my agreement with the Vienna boys and girls about undecidability is from long observations on how actual accomplishment with computers comes about. Too, we were being quantitative in metric spaces that required high degrees of accuracy since we were going up against nature. Gaming can be metric, but it is very loose, comparatively. My hunch is that the quants are in-between. They deal in something that can weigh down a pocket, yet they have no notion of the reality of near-zero nor can they actually measure as much as their theoretical views seem to indicate.
Remarks:
12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.
Modified: 12/09/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
