Endless insanity

One might blame recent actions (of the Fed and Treasury) on the fact that this is an election year whose resolution is quickly approaching. Why the use of insanity?

Well, the real-time experimentation (by the Fed and Treasury) continues based upon a gab-standard. Those who got us in this mess like to use 'financial engineering' as their chief flag to salute. Hah!

Well, we do know better than that. That so much has been spent in bolstering up the infrastructure for the gaming and in putting our taxpayers money in the game could be seen as really troublesome. But, it's only money; yet, the lives of real people are impacted by the decisions of the few.

Has it ever been different? Well, no. But, the problem now is that technology exacerbates the effect; too, the gaming ontology is technologically based and unstable.

It really can only provide fraud power to the new colonialists through more types of fairy dusting.

Where is the science? Ben Stein reminds us that Paulson pushed junk bonds, making oodles doing so, to boot.

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

08/04/2012  -- Over five years, we had a lot of side trips. We'll try to focus more. BTW, Rumsfeld has recently had his say.

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.

01/29/2009 -- Earlier, there were some words put here about Truth, Fiction, and Finance. Well, pick up the 1/28/09 Wall Street Journal and look at an article about a 'proliferation' of ponzi schemes. We all know about Madoff as he mis-handled a lot of moeney over a long period of time. But, a lot of states are finding that they have a madeoff/ponzi going on within their borders. How much of finance is a sham?

The WSJ mentions that the hedge funds' claims to high returns is one possible cause as people try to duplicate that. Sort of a Jones' keep up thing, we can suppose. Well, a reading of hedge fund tacits raises all sorts of suspicions to the rational mind. Just how legit are these things and why are they even allowed? Are we that much into some mass insanity?

12/17/2008 -- Too, many factors lead to things like made-offing and other schemes.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Estate and truth

Yesterday, E_S_T_A_T_E was used within the context of 7oops7 and the financial musings, especially of the personal issues. ‘S’ is for saving which is what experts say that we ought to do first, namely pay yourself. So, let’s go through these in a little more detail which can be expanded upon through time.

By the way, this is a linear stream, for the most part, though various combinations, and even permutations, would be very interesting to think about. For now, think of moving left to right from E to E.

Too, most like to think that their Earnings are theirs to keep. Well, we would all like that. Given the inevitability of the extractions, how do we make the best of the situation is one question to ponder.

So, here we go.

• E – Earn, however one wants that is legitimately pursued. So, what that entails is (and has been) subject to a whole lot of discussion. Let’s put it this way; there are moral/ethical issues, to boot.

• S – Save, and doing so in a pre-tax method is one benefit that the IRS (and Congress) has given us in the USA. That is, maximizing the tax-deferred helps make this equation work. So, savings are the first extraction.

• T – Tithe, and benefit. Well, for those who wonder about this, you can join T and A together under Alms, if you like. That is, consider what outside of yourself is important that you would like to fund, such as giving to the skeptical societies, et al. Otherwise, there are all sorts of theological and philosophical discussion that has been related to this that could occupy us for a long time. Just consider that the ‘T’ has tax implications, too, within a limit.

• A – Alms, which can be several things, such as helping the lesser fortunate. Again, all sorts of sides can be taken here. The emphasis that we see in business and society about contributing via some type of service comes into play here; it’s easier sometimes to just write the check.

• T – Tax, pay it and relax. You see, the infrastructure comes about via this, plus much more. Again, much to discuss; we’ll pay only slight attention to the IRS tax code which is always interesting to read.

• E – Enjoy what is left. Now, the wise actually will only spend part of what is left assuming that such is possible. Well, again much needs to be discussed, however any accumulation of debt would really be negative Savings. As well, notice that the Tithe comes after the Save which implies that debt management is paramount for the individual. Actually, be debt free, except for certain crucial types, is not an unworthy goal.

So, there you have it. These may apply, as well, to business, perhaps arguably to the smaller types. Yet, the shenanigans that have emerged with the unloosening of moral and other cloths is problematic, in the least, and downright stupid, quite frankly.

Elsewhere, quasi-empiricism is mentioned as being apropos here. Think of this little E_S_T_A_T_E chain as being one basis that might be considered a necessity, of many, for proper economy and thought.

Modified: 05/26/2008

Madoff (made-off)

We can thank Bernard Madoff for providing a means to update the 'ponzi' idea. After all, Ponzi lived long before the computer era.

Henceforth, when discussing things related to the Minsky idea of the necessity of crap, we'll use 'made-off' in order to be more modern. That is, Minsky suggested that financial matters always lead to froth (control in financial engineering would start with making money real).

So, expect some definition, plus itemization of examples around the various pieces of infrastructure built to sustain the gaming. Too, how do we ferret out all those 'made-offs' that are now in operation?

Actually, the whole argument that we're not dealing with near-zero sum is bogus. Why? Because the accounting is not extensive enough to show all the necessary relationships. Will we get there?

Well, 'when?' might be a good question. It's easy enough, via a mind game, to see how any of the richest got there through a giant sucking-out of multitudes and multitudes of pockets who, in many cases, were more hapless than not.

Hapless how? Look at those who took the direct hit from Madoff's games to see examples.

Remarks:

04/04/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos. Need to look at some background.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

12/18/2008 -- One thing to note in the Minsky hierarchy is a movement from the more concrete to the more abstract. Getting away from the gab standard would put a better basis on this, however any extrapolation goes awry (except in the special case of a linear extension - but even there we get to leveraging issues). All sorts of metaphors could apply, such as out-on-the-limb, bleeding-edge, ...

Modified: 04/04/2011

State of affairs

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

One might say that the post offers some remarks about "What I learned from Hitchens" or even about what the recent look at Hawking's life might be telling us. But, not. The former will be revealed at some future point (perhaps, nearer than not). The latter would deal with quasi-empiricism's role as one of many viewpoints that are important; yet, these get little more than a distracted look.

Distracted? Well, one phrase is of note: head in the apps. Yes, lose one "p" and convert the other to "s" and you will get the drift.

This post does do this: announce a change of venue (mental, spiritual, mathematical, computational shift, so to speak). Now, what is all of that? Did evolution happen overnight?

Let's just say that a new school has been formed. Compared to those, say the illustrious one of 1636, that are behemoth'ic now, this school is not much more than an idea that has increased in importance, the energy source necessary for its fruition, and credentials affording the facilitation.

Say what? Unlike Hawking with his current interest in being the one mind that we are to listen to, the new school is non-elite, open to all of humanity that might catch its drift, and very much grounded (at the same time, oriented toward inspiring the best that people can grasp).

---

For starters, a rant is necessary to begin a description of the current state of affairs. Thank God that the filth encapsulated in TV ads has ceased, for the moment (they will be back and more negative -- think "black holes" as Hawking might see if it was presented correctly). These two were written firstly in the FB milieu but then cut over to this post which will be pushed back as a link.

1: FB user: I have a question about Facebook. There are two choices for reading your Timeline, "most recent" (which I tend to think of as chronologically reading the comments) and "Top Stories" (which I assumed were the most popular). After being suspicious about these choices, and switching back and forth all week, this is today's timeline: Most recent - top 5 comments were Sept. 10, 20 hours, 5 minutes, Nov. 1, 48 minutes. Top Stories - 12 minutes, 15 minutes, 50 minutes, 1 hour, 1 hour. OK, what is going on here? 

Response: No mystery. Behind the scene are youngsters of little ethical/moral education or leaning (speaking from decades of experience - at one point, opening email would have not been considered to be okay - do we expect the post man to open and read our snail mail?). Under the current scheme, there is not even a way to ask for an accounting (use at your own risk). Is there someone somewhere thinking of a robust, trustworthy platform. Of course, perhaps, given the current environment, even asking such a question might be considered laughable. Sad, sorry, state of affairs.  

How did we get to where adults trying to communicate in a mature manner are subjected to psychological (however couched, it still stinks) testing, with our information being used for unknown ends, all the while getting further entrapped with each little bit transmitted?


Whence such thoughts? In 1215, King John was forced to seal/sign the Magna Charta. Internet/cloud users have as much right, many rights, as did those Lords of old (their concerns did not include serfs - of which class, internet/apps users, today, are, most likely, the modern variant).


2: All this media talk about the infrastructure being at risk through hackers? Gosh, guys, where was this attention when the genie was let loose (as in, a defense-developed system put out for general use with little thought given to security - everyone seemed to be so gaga about the web, which turned wild real fast)? Where were you when utilities (dumb bosses running after big pay for themselves) were stupidly putting critical systems on what is, essentially, a flimsy framework? Oh, then, what can we say about the m/billionaires who have raked in the dough from exploiting the system and those who get pulled into morass? ... Actually, media, look back and see if there were foresighted people who were castigated, at the time. Tell us about these "heroes." Perhaps, we could learn something of use (actually, the same thing goes for NSA).

The first was a reaction that has been expressed before. Like we see with the world, led by mathematcians/physicists (and many others), like Hawking, everything is fluid and situational. People, some, have grasped after the chimera (different connotation than used with the ca-pital-sino, but not that dissimilar) as if it has some value ("spiritual" and otherwise) that is of a lasting nature. How many find such? Well, many have found sufficient lure to completely forget the wondrous world offered them by the Creator (yes) or to suppress such reality beneath their abstract'd overlay that comes via the augmentation via ubiquitous computing and the uber (cloud). More will be said here. Now, too negative. Well, that is why this post denote a demarcation point (no more following those who fall into the valley of filth - ah, again, thank God, it's over - not, we now will watch new personality dynamics unfold (while Janet ponders unwinding, later than was needed). The truth in those comments is there, to be lifted.

Truth engineering. Perhaps, we'll rephrase the concept, but there will be additional effort put into describing (yes, not created, rather discovered - actually, it's either/or).

Now, the second. How did we get to this state of affairs? The general adoption of abstraction as more real than that which is extruded by mammals (and others) such that we can step in it. Think of this. One deep view of such matter may just have more to say to us than a whole lot of abstracted nonsense. Hyperbole? Perhaps from one view, but, we'll get to that (multi-verse implies multiple viewpoints - in an active sense (yes, psychology and physics) -- the kids actually get it - we drum it out of them).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

11/14/2014 -- One very good example is a major hotel chain whose founding family sold out to private equity which let existing properties decay (through neglect) while focusing on new; then, the going public bit (can be characterized so many way) put 10s of billions in the pockets of the private equity people (and their cronies) who laughed on their way to the bank (which they own) while employees labor, in a Sisyphean manner, to keep customers (some of long time loyalty - stupid jerks that the clients are) happy so that they might return despite the deteriorating conditions. And, customer reviews, perhaps too strongly but perhaps not, all talk of the state of affairs not being up to the exalted name of the chain's founder.

01/05/2014 -- Renewal, see Context line.

Truth, fiction, and finance

Fiction is a respected genre of literature, yet we use the word, sometimes pejoratively, to characterize non-truthness.

Finance deals with money. That some parts of finance approach fiction is troublesome (see Business Week, Jan7, about the Bear flu), yet some might actually want that as a means to line their pocket (and we cannot just blame Ponzi). Finance, unlike building a plane, has a problem in that evaluations deal with nothing real (thanks to decisions in the 20th century). Therefore, expertise, opinion, and other human traits are the main devices. Yet, some types of 'empirical' effort are possible and essential, such as verifying that a borrower has a good potential for repaying.

Engineers, at least, can go up against nature and the real world with their ideas. Yet, finance has been adopting scientists in its modeling; one wonders if these new players, who were supposedly well-grounded, have let froth grow between their ears; but, hey, who cares if you're making millions?

A WSJ article (1/10/08, David Wessel, "How to Unbreak the Banks") touches on this subject which is near and dear to truth engineering. In fact, Wessel addresses computer modeling and risk analysis as two major culprits. Wessel also points a finger at the Basel agreements as they leave too much leeway in leveraging (techniques for the few to bilk the many) among other things.

Truth engineering sees it as a generational issue, cultural rather than biological. That is, the advent of the computer's ubiquity and usefulness has turned things topsy-turvy (Chaitin) and brought to fore the importance of those concepts first approached by Wigner and others under the umbrella of quasi-empirical issues. Yet, we have major operational differences through time with generations; the younger only have their limited experience to control their enthusiastic use of new stuff; the older haven't kept pace with changes (not true in general, as the writer of this blog is of the generation now approaching comparatively advanced age).

So, such statements, by the WSJ, denoting insight into the bases of some problems are encouraging.

We can use issues related to both finance and engineering to understand and to apply truth engineering.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.

12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.

10/21/2008 -- Yes, it's time to re-look at this theme.

10/20/08 -- It got even worse throughout the year, from Ben's blink, through spitting in the face of savers, to bailouts (what?) of those touting capitalism.

03/14/08 -- Lots of water under the bridge, yet the financial games continue. A whole lot of industry and resources have gone into the infrastructure for finance. That these would inflate the gaming aspect is natural consequence.

01/18/08 --- We'll need to look again at three ways to evaluate in more detail. These are market (which goes beyond the gaming that we have seen), model (a necessity, though wizards of mathematics and computation can be problematic without the quasi-empirical framework), and myth (that is, myth may be a function along the belief axis).

01/17/08 --- Some call for more openness, yet effort is required to know.

01/16/08 --- Stories from yesterday relate to this theme. Many argue that the market (whatever that is) is not zero-sum. That's saying that the system is open. To what? Shenanigans?

Granted the advances in handling abstractions (the gift of the 19th century) and the ubiquity and power of the computer (the gift of the 20th century) have opened the door. To date, the old human traits (gifts of nature, etc.) have come to fore, namely greed and others.

If there is a market, and if it is built upon mathematics and computation, then the 'value' ought to have a broader basis than we see with pocket lining, one upmanship (unless, of course, we allow gaming in a controlled fashion), etc.

Modified: 05/25/2011