Or is it near-zero?
This is a place-holder to fill in a hole (much like the earned-value post). It'll be filled in, through time.
For now, here is a brief summary in the finance context. It'll apply everywhere else, too. Now, consider a popular financial (see 2nd bullet) article of faith. That is, that we need to kiss up to those who display risky behaviors. Well, the mess is from these gals and guys who played in our sand (with our beans) as if there were no tomorrow. Sheesh.
Okay, to be technical, and using money, the truth is that noone gets more than a certain amount without extracting a larger multiple (especially, in terms of the relative effect) from the pockets of others. So, what is the proper share, that is sustainable and acceptable? Well, that is open to discussion, but it is definable and doable.
We have the current problems due to many factors, but the gab standard is right up there in the prime area (it's not alone, okay, nor is the set of factors necessarily minute).
Remarks:
06/08/2014 -- Does time tell? We need to look at near-zero's use in this case.
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?).
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, in order to know when a game is stupid (always, when others' monies are concerned).
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.
06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.
05/16/2009 -- It's interesting how fairy dusting allows bloated remuneration schemes.
04/27/2009 -- Near zero, especially when the full picture is considered, especially that related to the human impacts. Accounting is deficient; oh, wait, its motives relate more to book cooking (oh, tsk, that's not fair).
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list. Too, near-zero is true; that there is argument for any notion of not zero-sum is bogus. We'll get into that.
Modified: 06/08/2014
Monday, March 30, 2009
Aspects to truth
Notice the small 't' in the Title. The intent is to begin to focus again on various aspects, with occasional reminders about the big 'T' issues. As one would expect, the area of scope is large, though we'll have some main threads, to wit economics/engineering and finance, that will provide some coherence, it is hoped.
Two recent publications are of interest to the subject.
-- What we know or can know: Say history and those involved in this discipline. Leonard Pitts wrote about Dr. John Hope Franklin and his work in the context of who even knows, or knew, the guy . Dr. Franklin was a historian. The interest of the subject to this blog is that the present is largely made up from the past (will forgo mentioning related adages). In this piece, Mr. Pitts listed a few books that can help to provide a more complete historical perspective.
-- New ways of knowing: More benefits of science and technology. In the recent Parade, Dr. Ranit Mishori asks "Can Your Genes Make You Rich?" which is of interest to the topics related to the mess covered by this and the related blog. The viewpoint of the article seems to glorify risk which needs to be better understood (it does not need a pedestal, folks - remember, near-zero). Of course, neuroeconomics, itself, is very much worthy of our attention. But, at this point in time, its basis is as shaky as any other, and topics related to neuroeconomics are very much apropos for discussion here.
Remarks:
04/21/2009 -- From the 4/2/09 Economist.
04/03/2009 -- USA Today, this week, had a nice retrospective on Franklin.
Modified: 04/21/2009
Two recent publications are of interest to the subject.
-- What we know or can know: Say history and those involved in this discipline. Leonard Pitts wrote about Dr. John Hope Franklin and his work in the context of who even knows, or knew, the guy . Dr. Franklin was a historian. The interest of the subject to this blog is that the present is largely made up from the past (will forgo mentioning related adages). In this piece, Mr. Pitts listed a few books that can help to provide a more complete historical perspective.
-- New ways of knowing: More benefits of science and technology. In the recent Parade, Dr. Ranit Mishori asks "Can Your Genes Make You Rich?" which is of interest to the topics related to the mess covered by this and the related blog. The viewpoint of the article seems to glorify risk which needs to be better understood (it does not need a pedestal, folks - remember, near-zero). Of course, neuroeconomics, itself, is very much worthy of our attention. But, at this point in time, its basis is as shaky as any other, and topics related to neuroeconomics are very much apropos for discussion here.
Remarks:
04/21/2009 -- From the 4/2/09 Economist.
04/03/2009 -- USA Today, this week, had a nice retrospective on Franklin.
Modified: 04/21/2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Silly and more
Several posts have mentioned the new day. To take those as indicative of the position of the blog would be erroneous. Nor do they imply, necessarily, the vote back in November.
Rather, it's a new reality that we'll be dealing with. And, the twists make it interesting.
Fortunately, the new day is sufficiently different from the past eight years, and from that started by Reagan, that we'll get plenty of new data. Will this help resolve the issues of the dismal science? No. We will learn a thing or two. Some high-flyers will come down a notch or two.
It will help us to remember that the games are silly, have been for some time, and would have continued to be such with McCain. Would Madoff have been uncovered or would he still be pilfering?
Trouble is that we have oodles of resources now that keep the game and its visibility up. To wit, CNBC, WSJ, and a bunch more. There are talking heads, in multi-packs, all through the day with all sorts of numbers, graphs, gaffs, and opinions.
The WSJ has almost been showing a split personality as they allow many sides to be argued. It all makes the head spin to keep up with the factions.
Do these add any value (in the real sense, folks) to the market's basic task or efficiency?
At least, gross accumulation is not seen as any epitome now, for awhile, at least. How to show that we're talking near-zero? Though, plenty have argued otherwise.
Remarks:
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?).
07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Rather, it's a new reality that we'll be dealing with. And, the twists make it interesting.
Fortunately, the new day is sufficiently different from the past eight years, and from that started by Reagan, that we'll get plenty of new data. Will this help resolve the issues of the dismal science? No. We will learn a thing or two. Some high-flyers will come down a notch or two.
It will help us to remember that the games are silly, have been for some time, and would have continued to be such with McCain. Would Madoff have been uncovered or would he still be pilfering?
Trouble is that we have oodles of resources now that keep the game and its visibility up. To wit, CNBC, WSJ, and a bunch more. There are talking heads, in multi-packs, all through the day with all sorts of numbers, graphs, gaffs, and opinions.
The WSJ has almost been showing a split personality as they allow many sides to be argued. It all makes the head spin to keep up with the factions.
Do these add any value (in the real sense, folks) to the market's basic task or efficiency?
At least, gross accumulation is not seen as any epitome now, for awhile, at least. How to show that we're talking near-zero? Though, plenty have argued otherwise.
Remarks:
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?).
07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Beans and Truth
Yes, 'beans' as in accounting. It's interesting in hearing an engineer's take on the discipline. Engineers do real stuff; bean counters deal with things that are less so. Oh? How is that latter true?
Well, consider that the mess is related to accounting and rules. Some claim that the big drop in equity value (across all markets) is exacerbated by the 'mark to market' rule's bad influence. They wish. Too, the cause for related issues, like cooking the books, lie directly in the laps of accounting.
We've seen crooks come out of the corner; not, that there aren't many yet uncovered, but the modern accounting practices allow this. How?
There was a recent CYA by a SEC guy in the WSJ about their audits of Madoff. It seems that when the audit trail led to rotten smells, all Madoff had to do to throw the hounds off was mention OTC (yes, that open pit of casino capitalism) and foreign markets. That Madoff could, allegedly, create fictitious trails (Marx must love this!) for so long speaks a bunch about accounting's ills.
Accounting, in its current vogue, started with hand techniques, ages ago. Perhaps, the new day might be a time to recommend that, just like money, accounting can be put on a framework that would be as sound as physics. How's this?
Computation, for one, would be essential. Then, voting schemes that mimic markets and other mechanisms (to be defined, but getting away from the gab standard for instance) are a start.
Remarks:
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
Modified: 05/25/2011
Well, consider that the mess is related to accounting and rules. Some claim that the big drop in equity value (across all markets) is exacerbated by the 'mark to market' rule's bad influence. They wish. Too, the cause for related issues, like cooking the books, lie directly in the laps of accounting.
We've seen crooks come out of the corner; not, that there aren't many yet uncovered, but the modern accounting practices allow this. How?
There was a recent CYA by a SEC guy in the WSJ about their audits of Madoff. It seems that when the audit trail led to rotten smells, all Madoff had to do to throw the hounds off was mention OTC (yes, that open pit of casino capitalism) and foreign markets. That Madoff could, allegedly, create fictitious trails (Marx must love this!) for so long speaks a bunch about accounting's ills.
Accounting, in its current vogue, started with hand techniques, ages ago. Perhaps, the new day might be a time to recommend that, just like money, accounting can be put on a framework that would be as sound as physics. How's this?
Computation, for one, would be essential. Then, voting schemes that mimic markets and other mechanisms (to be defined, but getting away from the gab standard for instance) are a start.
Remarks:
05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
Modified: 05/25/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)