Surveying the landscape of ideas is always apropos in this context. The WSJ (weekly reflection, book reviews, opeds) seems to be a continual source for nuggets.
-- Putting spooky science to work (a WSJ reflection) -- about quantum entanglement, its possible uses, and some interpretations (science cannot explain being - but engineering can manipulate it).
-- Defying Doom (WSJ book review) -- temporal milestones, easily forgotten in the speed, and shallow depths, of the modern age are nice for allowing us to look at the longer term (ah, has the finance business heard that it's possible? - nope, for them it's bonuses and getting their mansions built). That 'large' and 'small' can be seen as more than just involving 'macro' and 'micro' issues ought to be discussed more. It's interesting that some of the 'big' institutions in 1000 were not that universal. Now, we have this globalized machine that pulls money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (the fatter cats, by their definition smarter).
-- If I don't see it, It's not there (WSJ book review) -- one has to love the use of "sheer delusional cheek" in describing some efforts at helping people to improve their situation that tout "Create your own reality ...". One has to consider that though 'truth' may be cognitively contrived, with computationally confounded issues, yet something does persist through time and across generations that is more than fat cats acquiring, and eating, more than they ought.
-- Easy Credit and the Depression (WSJ oped) -- about the book by Posner (he of the joint blog) putting the blame on the government and not the capitalists (see blog at Atlantic Monthly). Oh yes, like the fat cats are without any culpability due to some notion that the economy is purely darwinistic and that the regulators know (can know) what they are doing. If the guy wasn't a judge (and old enough to know better), I'd question his grasp on reality.
Ah, spooky science can come to the rescue. A related concept to discuss will be undecidability.
10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.
05/08/2009 -- Looks like Posner will continue his discussion which is great. He takes economists to task in this op-ed (WSJ) describing where things went awry in his view. It's not a bad overview, but some details could be picked on. Like his non-mention of the fact that financial instrumentations (ill conceived by the supposedly best-and-brightest) were applied in a cacaphony meant mainly to lure folks into allowing their monies to be give to the fat cats. But, Posner is taking the 30K view. Don't worry we'll get to the real details here (and through them eventually).
It's nice, though, to hear from a judge whose purpose is to support law and order. Ah, but he allows those in finance too much laxity. Gosh Judge Posner, it's like you wouldn't mind the convicts running the jail. Oh, wait, he's recognizing that we have an institution; he hasn't yet awakened to the fact that those in it are idiots and crazy (perhaps, too strong, but they don't exhibit much adult awareness of humanity and other common themes, in my mind). Sorry, Judge, dwarinism is not what needs to be argued when law and order are at stake.
05/07/2009 -- Why the remark about Posner? Well, he's a judge. He ought to see some parallels here. Like this: would he allow a parent to seriously abuse a child? would he allow a bully to wreck havoc in a playground? would he allow a misfit to harm innocent people in a deadly manner (or even less than deadly)? I could go on. That capitalism is supposed to be about sharks is pure idiocy and of an extreme ideological stance. We are to be adults and act thusly if peaceful coexistence is to become a reality.
By the way, many of the arguments that I see the bonus takes and CEOs making seem not unlike a toddler wailing to get its way in the case where the parents are quite adept at taking care of the needs.
I like that Posner is so talented in his expressions, yet he has to know that having English as an initial discipline left many questions from being asked by himself let alone his trying to get an answer. On the other hand, science and engineering education can unbalance a view, to boot.
Those types of issues, related to views as they are influenced by various disciplines, are very much apropos to truth engineering. Of course, the judge might tell me that law is the truly balanced viewpoint. Oh yes, we can eat lawyerly output? The Economist magazine recently said that lawyers argue from first principles; funny, I thought that engineers did that too, Ah, are we talking the same first principles? Interesting.