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
Showing posts with label Near zero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Near zero. Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 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
Friday, February 27, 2009
Ultimate game
In the gaming that is finance, we have several viewpoints to ponder as we look at the decline of dreams. Who is to know where things are going? Ben, of the Fed, talks his game. Dr. Doom touts nationalization. William M. Isaac says no way (WSJ, "Bank Nationalization Isn't the Answer").
One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?
The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.
As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?
Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.
Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.
The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.
Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
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.
08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
Modified: 01/27/2010
One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?
The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.
As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?
Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.
Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.
The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.
Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
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.
08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
Modified: 01/27/2010
Wednesday, December 17, 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:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
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
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
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Modern finance
As things unwind, there has been a lot of analysis appearing. Some of it is right on; some ought to be foundational. Recently, the Economist (Oct 19, 2008 - Greed is gone) mentioned that "Wall Street's finest have been humbled as never before" as they went from master to minion is a matter of a year. Actually, the flip-flop was going on longer; the decline was offset by the Fed meddling in order to keep the game going (Savers sacked).
In the same publication, we find a short history of modern finance, detailing what led to the current mess. CBOE's role in the foreign exchange aspect can be traced to 1972, according to the article; of course, CBOE has a much deeper gaming influence.
Recently, we saw the Naked Economist claim that we're in a twilight of "free-market ideology" and describes some of the beliefs that being shown to be myths. Yes, is there such a thing as a free-market or free anything, for that matter? Well, the whole notion depends on several things.
But, essentially, nothing happens that does not expend energy. We'll need to show that the market is near-zero sum (almost always and everywhere) in response to the common belief being touted by those economists who want gaming as the ontological basis.
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?).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
03/30/2009 -- The WSJ today looks at the Future of Finance. The idea is that finance is like the cardiovascular system. Okay. So leeches are a good metaphor for the sucking out that we see. Like the AIG guy who was central to the losses that we the taxpayers are paying and who left with $300M. We'll be referring back to this discussion.
02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
10/30/2008 -- Yes, many people see the misuse of mathematics. But, how could the financial people not see the fiduciary (which seems to get lost in gaming) and public trusts that are associated with their work? How did the notion arise that these guys can just play with people's money, in their giant sandbox, where outcomes are secondary to winning little games and lining ones pockets?
Modified: 05/25/2011
In the same publication, we find a short history of modern finance, detailing what led to the current mess. CBOE's role in the foreign exchange aspect can be traced to 1972, according to the article; of course, CBOE has a much deeper gaming influence.
Recently, we saw the Naked Economist claim that we're in a twilight of "free-market ideology" and describes some of the beliefs that being shown to be myths. Yes, is there such a thing as a free-market or free anything, for that matter? Well, the whole notion depends on several things.
But, essentially, nothing happens that does not expend energy. We'll need to show that the market is near-zero sum (almost always and everywhere) in response to the common belief being touted by those economists who want gaming as the ontological basis.
Remarks:
05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!
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?).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
03/30/2009 -- The WSJ today looks at the Future of Finance. The idea is that finance is like the cardiovascular system. Okay. So leeches are a good metaphor for the sucking out that we see. Like the AIG guy who was central to the losses that we the taxpayers are paying and who left with $300M. We'll be referring back to this discussion.
02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
10/30/2008 -- Yes, many people see the misuse of mathematics. But, how could the financial people not see the fiduciary (which seems to get lost in gaming) and public trusts that are associated with their work? How did the notion arise that these guys can just play with people's money, in their giant sandbox, where outcomes are secondary to winning little games and lining ones pockets?
Modified: 05/25/2011
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Culprits all around
This latest post-mania dump is very interesting. The WSJ has a whole section devoted to the subject, including discussions about the bailout. So, let's name a few of the culprits who caused the problem that we, the taxpayers, are going to have to pay to resolve.
- Government, believe it or not. Several initiatives oriented toward extending home-ownership to the less well-to-do are related to the mess. Freddie and Fannie went haywire, to boot, using the goodwill extended by their special status. Even, old Sallie was troublesome (pity the poor students; pox to those who lined their pockets). The main issue here is that the pseudo-capitalists running those quasi-shows really lined their pockets (without an payback being deemed necessary).
- Gamers, namely those who helped build and use the 'gambling' palaces of Wall Street and Chicago. One technique took things that were worse than junk (think, sub-prime) and layered on them some glorious thought related to value. As if the AAA rating comes out of nothing.
- Regulators, not doing their job, as they were given to believe that it was no longer necessary or that they could not make judgments (thanks to Alan and Ben, et al). Oh yes, says Alan, we clean up the poop afterward. Ah, like a baby's diaper?
- The less than well-off who bought the dream of the house that always increases in value. Of course, that such increases lined a few pockets does indicate that some type of appreciation can happen; that 'capital' theory looks elsewhere is the story to tell.
- Those smart cats who thought that mathematics and computing would tie up the world's messiness, especially those from engineering and science who may have gone to help make that whole gaming ontology more unstable.
- CEOs and others who think that the world is their big oyster to eat by divine right, usually to the detriment of the doers.
- Workers who laze on the job and don't work (this added to be fair to all sides).
- Investors who look for the quick buck (albeit, some of the super rich did just that - the near-zero aspect of the game would point to any outsized reward as not moral or ethical, and perhaps, not legal.
- ...
This can be a long list. What will be the next mania? Is is already started?
There is a better way.
Remarks:
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
- Government, believe it or not. Several initiatives oriented toward extending home-ownership to the less well-to-do are related to the mess. Freddie and Fannie went haywire, to boot, using the goodwill extended by their special status. Even, old Sallie was troublesome (pity the poor students; pox to those who lined their pockets). The main issue here is that the pseudo-capitalists running those quasi-shows really lined their pockets (without an payback being deemed necessary).
- Gamers, namely those who helped build and use the 'gambling' palaces of Wall Street and Chicago. One technique took things that were worse than junk (think, sub-prime) and layered on them some glorious thought related to value. As if the AAA rating comes out of nothing.
- Regulators, not doing their job, as they were given to believe that it was no longer necessary or that they could not make judgments (thanks to Alan and Ben, et al). Oh yes, says Alan, we clean up the poop afterward. Ah, like a baby's diaper?
- The less than well-off who bought the dream of the house that always increases in value. Of course, that such increases lined a few pockets does indicate that some type of appreciation can happen; that 'capital' theory looks elsewhere is the story to tell.
- Those smart cats who thought that mathematics and computing would tie up the world's messiness, especially those from engineering and science who may have gone to help make that whole gaming ontology more unstable.
- CEOs and others who think that the world is their big oyster to eat by divine right, usually to the detriment of the doers.
- Workers who laze on the job and don't work (this added to be fair to all sides).
- Investors who look for the quick buck (albeit, some of the super rich did just that - the near-zero aspect of the game would point to any outsized reward as not moral or ethical, and perhaps, not legal.
- ...
This can be a long list. What will be the next mania? Is is already started?
There is a better way.
Remarks:
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
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?).
12/17/2008 -- USA Today had their list of culprits.
10/29/2008 -- Things to look at further will be financial engineering, gaming, and leverage, plus how we get fairy dusting involved.
Modified: 09/19/2013
12/17/2008 -- USA Today had their list of culprits.
10/29/2008 -- Things to look at further will be financial engineering, gaming, and leverage, plus how we get fairy dusting involved.
Modified: 09/19/2013
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The times
Reuters reports on Sunday dealt very closely with what we have been discussing.
Then, yesterday's news had it splattered everywhere. The failures continue.
Well, the causes are varied, but the culpability of the Fed (and the economic community) cannot be denied. Alan says that we can't see crap until it happens. Ben continues in that vein. So, then, the taxpayers have to clean up the mess, ex post facto.
Look, it's not that difficult, folks.
- put money on some real basis (remove the gab standard) and minimize the political aspect (yes, this is possible)
- financial instruments need to be scrutinized (including testing in a sandbox) in a worldview that understands why we have, and can know our, limits (quasi-empirical arguments are apropos)
- rearrange the thinking about the (supposed) mathematical support for this craziness (it's pseudo-math running amok)
- oh, by the way, tie computational modeling into truth engineering (I'm not after riches, folks)
- the basis for the future ought to prime in the economy, even over-lording what leads to greed, namely private profit maximization (Minsky's hierarchy is apropos). Besides, it's near-zero sum. Those whose arguments are for non-zero sum need to get their heads out of their illusion.
- establish some means to ensure that financials are tied to intrinsics (to be defined, but Buffet's attitude toward what he invests in is, in part, an example)
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?).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
09/25/2008 -- A concept that can bridge the waters and allow a larger set of associations is 'fraud power' in reference to modern financial methods.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Then, yesterday's news had it splattered everywhere. The failures continue.
Well, the causes are varied, but the culpability of the Fed (and the economic community) cannot be denied. Alan says that we can't see crap until it happens. Ben continues in that vein. So, then, the taxpayers have to clean up the mess, ex post facto.
Look, it's not that difficult, folks.
- put money on some real basis (remove the gab standard) and minimize the political aspect (yes, this is possible)
- financial instruments need to be scrutinized (including testing in a sandbox) in a worldview that understands why we have, and can know our, limits (quasi-empirical arguments are apropos)
- rearrange the thinking about the (supposed) mathematical support for this craziness (it's pseudo-math running amok)
- oh, by the way, tie computational modeling into truth engineering (I'm not after riches, folks)
- the basis for the future ought to prime in the economy, even over-lording what leads to greed, namely private profit maximization (Minsky's hierarchy is apropos). Besides, it's near-zero sum. Those whose arguments are for non-zero sum need to get their heads out of their illusion.
- establish some means to ensure that financials are tied to intrinsics (to be defined, but Buffet's attitude toward what he invests in is, in part, an example)
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?).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
09/25/2008 -- A concept that can bridge the waters and allow a larger set of associations is 'fraud power' in reference to modern financial methods.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Monday, March 31, 2008
Leverage and truth II
Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.
--
There are several connotations of leverage, but one that pertains to discussion here deals with a multiplier effect that is almost recursive (see "mathematization", below). In his book, the 'Trillion Dollar Meltdown', Charles R. Morris considers that the current crisis that may be facing the financial sector may be just an indication of more things to come.
But, of interest here, are his thoughts about why things are in such disarray. Well, Morris names three developments of the past 20 or 30 years that have been touched upon here in various posts. These are, namely, according to Morris: structured finance, expansion of derivative markets, and mathematization of trading.
All three of these relate to the issue of the appeal and problems of abstractions which have led us a jumbled up state of affairs. One has to wonder how computational froth is of any more substance than the natural type. One thing that Morris mentions is the AAA problem which rating appeared out of the air though the underlying instruments were no more than junk.
Effectiveness in capitalism and the market ontology evidently became associated with how well the Street people (gigantic bonuses) and their management (immense wealth) did. Of course, how could we blame just the finance folk who are, necessarily, removed from reality when similar problems crop up in engineering when the issues of quasi-empiricism are ignored?
Except that there is one difference. In areas where engineering deals with the critical, there are processes and policies that help ensure the general public's safety and means to support those who experience accidents.
In the financial world, there is no such science; there is motivation and creativity, where the measure seems to be greed (can "market dogmatism" ever get away from this?).
Some claim that the financial game is more a prisoner dilemma rather than zero-sum (see Fedaerated). Yet, analysis may lead one to see it more of the latter due to the advantages on the financial side (unless, there is oversight such as that being suggested recently by Paulson).
Remarks:
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
12/31/2013 -- A popular post.
05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (third most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap twixt the haves and those without. The post ought to be re-done using insights gained over the past six years. It seems like a life-time ago. Well, the theme of the blog needs to look at lessons from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). Too, money does not solve existential problems. Never has. And, one does not need a pot load to figure that out. Too, playing games with other people's money and lives ought to be a given (ah, smarts or not - the most popular post).
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)?
02/26/2011 -- When this was written, I was still incredulous (shocked) at the idiocy (which abounded beyond limit, and was held by supposedly smart people) that we can just wish 'value' out of nothing. Of course, that value did come from something: the sacrifice of the people by fat cats (need to think of a more appropriate characterization).
--
There are several connotations of leverage, but one that pertains to discussion here deals with a multiplier effect that is almost recursive (see "mathematization", below). In his book, the 'Trillion Dollar Meltdown', Charles R. Morris considers that the current crisis that may be facing the financial sector may be just an indication of more things to come.
But, of interest here, are his thoughts about why things are in such disarray. Well, Morris names three developments of the past 20 or 30 years that have been touched upon here in various posts. These are, namely, according to Morris: structured finance, expansion of derivative markets, and mathematization of trading.
All three of these relate to the issue of the appeal and problems of abstractions which have led us a jumbled up state of affairs. One has to wonder how computational froth is of any more substance than the natural type. One thing that Morris mentions is the AAA problem which rating appeared out of the air though the underlying instruments were no more than junk.
Effectiveness in capitalism and the market ontology evidently became associated with how well the Street people (gigantic bonuses) and their management (immense wealth) did. Of course, how could we blame just the finance folk who are, necessarily, removed from reality when similar problems crop up in engineering when the issues of quasi-empiricism are ignored?
Except that there is one difference. In areas where engineering deals with the critical, there are processes and policies that help ensure the general public's safety and means to support those who experience accidents.
In the financial world, there is no such science; there is motivation and creativity, where the measure seems to be greed (can "market dogmatism" ever get away from this?).
Some claim that the financial game is more a prisoner dilemma rather than zero-sum (see Fedaerated). Yet, analysis may lead one to see it more of the latter due to the advantages on the financial side (unless, there is oversight such as that being suggested recently by Paulson).
Remarks:
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
12/31/2013 -- A popular post.
05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (third most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap twixt the haves and those without. The post ought to be re-done using insights gained over the past six years. It seems like a life-time ago. Well, the theme of the blog needs to look at lessons from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). Too, money does not solve existential problems. Never has. And, one does not need a pot load to figure that out. Too, playing games with other people's money and lives ought to be a given (ah, smarts or not - the most popular post).
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)?
04/04/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos. Need to look at some background.
02/26/2011 -- When this was written, I was still incredulous (shocked) at the idiocy (which abounded beyond limit, and was held by supposedly smart people) that we can just wish 'value' out of nothing. Of course, that value did come from something: the sacrifice of the people by fat cats (need to think of a more appropriate characterization).
11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.
11/02/2010 -- Two years later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.
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?).
06/17/2009 -- Michael Milken says that structure counts (see WSJ article). Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.
12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.
10/26/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.
Modified: 01/05/2015
06/17/2009 -- Michael Milken says that structure counts (see WSJ article). Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.
12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.
10/26/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.
Modified: 01/05/2015
Saturday, January 12, 2008
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:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
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
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
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Market as measure
Some have argued that the market is useful as an indicator, or measure; the amount of focus and reliance put upon the market varies widely; many types of decisions are founded upon market value; evaluation of decisions, concerns about status, and other management assessments somehow relate to the market.
Yet, we have to ask how this all relates to truth (little 't'). As well, the extent of the market has never been across the total of the human population; the forces at play in the market lead toward fixed points for which we can assign clever terms, many of which are not flattering. So, we'll not venture there, at this time.
Adam Smith's work has to be taken in context of the times that he lived; the world has changed phenomenally since his time. The rise of globalization and internationalization, as characterized by the web, for one, has some thinking that the market, in its idealized goal, is better served. Is that true? You see, the same fixed point (for nuances here, consider an interpretation as might be characterized in dynamical systems) phenomena are still problematic.
Perhaps, they are more so. Aspects of this problem relate to funds (hedge or otherwise), 'quant' efforts, and even political influence.
One thing that will be discussed further is how a true democratization might work better than the market. Of course, some may argue that what is defined here is really how the market ought to be. That's not an issue.
Who says that the market has evolved to what it ought to be? The issue is that at each stage of its evolution, some learn how to optimize their take (usually in an unbalanced manner).
Is all this anything other than a zero-sum game at the moment? This we'll look at in depth.
Remarks:
01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.
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.
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?).
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
mm/dd/07 (earlier note) -- Market in the above sense is too constrained (gaming the world for profit by the few is not sufficient to knowledge as is needed for the many in future generations though it may be necessary) and does not consider the Collective Intelligence community in areas such as the bet2give example. We can look at these examples in terms of the need for a collective nose and how such might work. Of course, there are little and big 't' (truth or Truth) issues, and we must consider things and tribes, to boot.
Another issue to address might be attempts at obfuscation via abstraction, to wit the collection, labeling, slicing, and marketing of financial instruments that cannot be valued except by 'model' (or is it myth only?) - the sub-prime issue is extremely indicative of the problem. The cloud, supposedly made more palatable via the computational basis (read, the mathematical and related panache), then allows those in the know to exploit and fill their pockets. Do not the financial giants trample the simple little dreams of those who actually bring the 'value' to the table? All this because we've made progress with our control of the virtual via computation where only a few understand what is going on; granted a limited view of reality may have been enhanced thereby (we cannot go back but need to engineer computational truth), yet something is awry and stinks.
Modified: 01/20/2013
Yet, we have to ask how this all relates to truth (little 't'). As well, the extent of the market has never been across the total of the human population; the forces at play in the market lead toward fixed points for which we can assign clever terms, many of which are not flattering. So, we'll not venture there, at this time.
Adam Smith's work has to be taken in context of the times that he lived; the world has changed phenomenally since his time. The rise of globalization and internationalization, as characterized by the web, for one, has some thinking that the market, in its idealized goal, is better served. Is that true? You see, the same fixed point (for nuances here, consider an interpretation as might be characterized in dynamical systems) phenomena are still problematic.
Perhaps, they are more so. Aspects of this problem relate to funds (hedge or otherwise), 'quant' efforts, and even political influence.
One thing that will be discussed further is how a true democratization might work better than the market. Of course, some may argue that what is defined here is really how the market ought to be. That's not an issue.
Who says that the market has evolved to what it ought to be? The issue is that at each stage of its evolution, some learn how to optimize their take (usually in an unbalanced manner).
Is all this anything other than a zero-sum game at the moment? This we'll look at in depth.
Remarks:
01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.
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.
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?).
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
mm/dd/07 (earlier note) -- Market in the above sense is too constrained (gaming the world for profit by the few is not sufficient to knowledge as is needed for the many in future generations though it may be necessary) and does not consider the Collective Intelligence community in areas such as the bet2give example. We can look at these examples in terms of the need for a collective nose and how such might work. Of course, there are little and big 't' (truth or Truth) issues, and we must consider things and tribes, to boot.
Another issue to address might be attempts at obfuscation via abstraction, to wit the collection, labeling, slicing, and marketing of financial instruments that cannot be valued except by 'model' (or is it myth only?) - the sub-prime issue is extremely indicative of the problem. The cloud, supposedly made more palatable via the computational basis (read, the mathematical and related panache), then allows those in the know to exploit and fill their pockets. Do not the financial giants trample the simple little dreams of those who actually bring the 'value' to the table? All this because we've made progress with our control of the virtual via computation where only a few understand what is going on; granted a limited view of reality may have been enhanced thereby (we cannot go back but need to engineer computational truth), yet something is awry and stinks.
Modified: 01/20/2013
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
If you're so smart, ...
Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.
--
Have you ever heard, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (We can turn that around, to boot.)
Well, this was a common refrain in the 60s (and is even so now) when massive accumulations of wealth were only held by a few. Since that time, the set of wealth holders has grown quite large, yet it remains, with the proper perspective (what would be the threshold, etc.?), percentage-wise much smaller than the rest of us.
This retort generally was in response to statements alluding to philosophical superiority (since the posts, for now, are dealing with the 'little t' truth, let's exclude spiritual or moral arguments - yet the Fed jokes about moral hazards - it would be funny it this were not so serious -- also, see 3/30/08 remark about capitalism not honoring intellectuals). In many cases, the viewpoint being mocked was idealistic and may have even considered that determination of intrinsic value could be truthfully based.
In the sense of history, some economic and social analysis can start with that 60s era. Expansions occurred along many fronts, since then, that are too numerous for this forum. Just the advances in mathematics and science have been tremendous, and this enabled computation which then helped establish schemes for determining value.
The thing called the 'market' became to have a very large importance in the minds of many. For instance, in finance, 'marked to' market may be preferred to 'marked to' model which trumps 'marked to' wish (not in some views, see 6/1/08 Remark).
But, as recent events show, and again, we could say, since bubbles seems to be as ubiquitous as mankind has baser instincts, the market can become a ploy for those who are smarter to toy with the rest. It wasn't meant to be that way.
Slogan: 'marked to' the market needs truth engineering to improve handling of value issues.
A similar issue can be applied to advanced analytics (CAE, etc.) where the blurring of the line between reality and the model can push us toward losing sight of the former and setting too much reliance on the latter (see Unreasonable effectiveness).
Who is smarter? Those who fly high with abstractions or those who can trudge through gory details. You see, in finance, people chasing after the lure of easy money may fall into the former trap; yet, those pockets that do get lined (as, the success set is the smaller) need to rely on the reality built and maintained by those doing the trudging. So, too, in the product world, the reality is more associated with engineers and other doers rather than with other views (finance, mainly) that we hear from so much.
Remarks.
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
06/12/2014 -- One way to look at this: cognitive elitism.
12/03/2013 -- Born smart or rich: The Atlantic. If the former, it depends upon how far down the hole one's life begins. Standing on the shoulders of giants does help which is what richness may (but, not necessarily) bring. ... Case in point. Take the English aristocracy. If you look at the history some big name families, you'll see a later start. Many times, a guy marries up and starts a dynasty (din-asty, as the brits say). On the other hand, many families died out. Take Charlemagne, all descendants now are via daughters. That is, there is no male line that come down through the years. Whole series of books look at expired lines. ... Back to the present. Of course, getting help is needed (despite the protestations of some supposed self-starters - Ayn loved writing about these - who forget their infantile dependencies, and those who coddled them - in some cases, trampling their families under their feet). Cooperation is part of sustainability. Despite that, though, richness has side-effects that are not easily overcome (even if you give it all away a la Bill and Warren - that does not counter negative karma accumulated over the years of abusive practices). So, for me, I would pick smart (too many examples of idiots with money - need I elaborate?).
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
09/18/2013 -- Pop, fizz, ... Ben had to show largess because of idiots who ran the economy to the ground (rogues all around). Ben is going. What do we have to look forward to? Businessweek has a review issue (of the past five years). Several articles are especially interesting. Too, phrasing shines: spin dross into gold (in relation to mortgage bonds). Perhaps, we'll get back to some of the more pertinent ones, at some point. If we do, it would be to bring forward what has been said here, from the beginning. To wit? Tranche and trash (WSJ has a good take on that). Securitization? This article brings on weeping (one example of the misuse of mathematics and computing that has been harped about). Adoption, and improved understanding, of lazy evaluation let loose the powers that resulted in the wild web and its little children, namely social media and more. To grasp the problem, we have to go back to computing that is in some type of responsible area. Avionics comes to mind. If what is couched as software in looser domains (financial engineering? -- looser?, yes bailouts are the norm despite all of the protestations of the ruling elite; or the whole cadre of the poorer folk can just suck it up when there are problems in order to relieve the fat cats' loss) were to used in flight controls, would we not have planes falling out of the sky? We'll get back to the simple issues that seem to not be seen by the elites chasing after the bucks that Ben has been throwing out of his helicopter.
06/03/2013 -- Supposed smarties, with big pockets, are making computational hells for us all due to several factors that we'll address.
05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap twixt the haves and those without. The post ought to be re-done using insights gained over the past six years. It seems like a life-time ago. Well, the theme of the blog needs to look at lessons from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). Too, money does not solve existential problems. Never has. And, one does not need a pot load to figure that out.
03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit. There is no one so smart that they wouldn't learn something from the experience of the grease pit.
02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).
05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or.
10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
--
Have you ever heard, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (We can turn that around, to boot.)
Well, this was a common refrain in the 60s (and is even so now) when massive accumulations of wealth were only held by a few. Since that time, the set of wealth holders has grown quite large, yet it remains, with the proper perspective (what would be the threshold, etc.?), percentage-wise much smaller than the rest of us.
This retort generally was in response to statements alluding to philosophical superiority (since the posts, for now, are dealing with the 'little t' truth, let's exclude spiritual or moral arguments - yet the Fed jokes about moral hazards - it would be funny it this were not so serious -- also, see 3/30/08 remark about capitalism not honoring intellectuals). In many cases, the viewpoint being mocked was idealistic and may have even considered that determination of intrinsic value could be truthfully based.
In the sense of history, some economic and social analysis can start with that 60s era. Expansions occurred along many fronts, since then, that are too numerous for this forum. Just the advances in mathematics and science have been tremendous, and this enabled computation which then helped establish schemes for determining value.
The thing called the 'market' became to have a very large importance in the minds of many. For instance, in finance, 'marked to' market may be preferred to 'marked to' model which trumps 'marked to' wish (not in some views, see 6/1/08 Remark).
But, as recent events show, and again, we could say, since bubbles seems to be as ubiquitous as mankind has baser instincts, the market can become a ploy for those who are smarter to toy with the rest. It wasn't meant to be that way.
Slogan: 'marked to' the market needs truth engineering to improve handling of value issues.
A similar issue can be applied to advanced analytics (CAE, etc.) where the blurring of the line between reality and the model can push us toward losing sight of the former and setting too much reliance on the latter (see Unreasonable effectiveness).
Who is smarter? Those who fly high with abstractions or those who can trudge through gory details. You see, in finance, people chasing after the lure of easy money may fall into the former trap; yet, those pockets that do get lined (as, the success set is the smaller) need to rely on the reality built and maintained by those doing the trudging. So, too, in the product world, the reality is more associated with engineers and other doers rather than with other views (finance, mainly) that we hear from so much.
Remarks.
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
06/12/2014 -- One way to look at this: cognitive elitism.
12/03/2013 -- Born smart or rich: The Atlantic. If the former, it depends upon how far down the hole one's life begins. Standing on the shoulders of giants does help which is what richness may (but, not necessarily) bring. ... Case in point. Take the English aristocracy. If you look at the history some big name families, you'll see a later start. Many times, a guy marries up and starts a dynasty (din-asty, as the brits say). On the other hand, many families died out. Take Charlemagne, all descendants now are via daughters. That is, there is no male line that come down through the years. Whole series of books look at expired lines. ... Back to the present. Of course, getting help is needed (despite the protestations of some supposed self-starters - Ayn loved writing about these - who forget their infantile dependencies, and those who coddled them - in some cases, trampling their families under their feet). Cooperation is part of sustainability. Despite that, though, richness has side-effects that are not easily overcome (even if you give it all away a la Bill and Warren - that does not counter negative karma accumulated over the years of abusive practices). So, for me, I would pick smart (too many examples of idiots with money - need I elaborate?).
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
09/18/2013 -- Pop, fizz, ... Ben had to show largess because of idiots who ran the economy to the ground (rogues all around). Ben is going. What do we have to look forward to? Businessweek has a review issue (of the past five years). Several articles are especially interesting. Too, phrasing shines: spin dross into gold (in relation to mortgage bonds). Perhaps, we'll get back to some of the more pertinent ones, at some point. If we do, it would be to bring forward what has been said here, from the beginning. To wit? Tranche and trash (WSJ has a good take on that). Securitization? This article brings on weeping (one example of the misuse of mathematics and computing that has been harped about). Adoption, and improved understanding, of lazy evaluation let loose the powers that resulted in the wild web and its little children, namely social media and more. To grasp the problem, we have to go back to computing that is in some type of responsible area. Avionics comes to mind. If what is couched as software in looser domains (financial engineering? -- looser?, yes bailouts are the norm despite all of the protestations of the ruling elite; or the whole cadre of the poorer folk can just suck it up when there are problems in order to relieve the fat cats' loss) were to used in flight controls, would we not have planes falling out of the sky? We'll get back to the simple issues that seem to not be seen by the elites chasing after the bucks that Ben has been throwing out of his helicopter.
06/03/2013 -- Supposed smarties, with big pockets, are making computational hells for us all due to several factors that we'll address.
05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap twixt the haves and those without. The post ought to be re-done using insights gained over the past six years. It seems like a life-time ago. Well, the theme of the blog needs to look at lessons from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). Too, money does not solve existential problems. Never has. And, one does not need a pot load to figure that out.
03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit. There is no one so smart that they wouldn't learn something from the experience of the grease pit.
02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).
05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or.
10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
03/13/2011 -- The machine can help us realize our smarts, in part.
10/11/2009 -- Forbes has an article about the traits of those who made it rich. That one of these deals with technical talent (or the inverse of innumeracy) is correct, yet those who grab oodles of bucks, at the same time, have people working for them who are more talented. So, the question remains, is rich smart?
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?).
08/26/2009 -- Looking at some of the arguments (see Remarks), it seems that a corollary is: if you're so smart, then why don't you accept underdetermination?
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/27/2009 -- We can think about this in terms of money and class (as Orwell would have us do).
06/18/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.
05/08/2009 -- This'll be look at from first principles.
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
10/21/2008 -- Yes, it's time to re-look at related themes, hopefully coherently.
09/25/2008 -- Things continue to unfold. We're now going to bail out (we meaning the taxpayers) the idiots to the tune of $1 trillion. Oh well. Do smarts lead to fraud? That we need to answer.
06/11/08 -- Seems that some think that marking to 'model' is preferred to marking to 'market' which, if we think about it, could be true. Of course, it's a matter of who wins and loses (it's always near zero-sum, folks, we can only argue how far is 'near' which is an abstractionistic outfall, which, in the terms of money, results from gab standard-ing [a long story, to be told]).
06/01/08 -- Naturally, this topic would cover a whole lot of material, and it's is large enough to keep our interests for awhile. Too, both 'smart' and 'rich' are right at the core of matters that need discussion; that is, these topics cannot be avoided. For instance, we need to look at 'rich' in terms of utility, perhaps, as well as what is needed to be so (monetary basis, etc.).
The sub-prime event has brought attention to several related topics. How does one 'mark' for evaluation is one. No less august person than a Forbes magazine editor thinks that we ought not be marking to market. His argument is that such action causes unnecessary unwinding. Yet. given that abstraction leads to problematics (by necessity), continuing to mark to model stands to just perpetuate a house-of-cards, does it not?
Well, discussions about evaluation, in various senses, can follow a nose metaphor.
03/30/08 -- As referenced in a Cato Institute report, philosopher Robert Nozick noted that capitalism does not hold intellectuals to be of much value. Of course, the report emphasizes the intellectual as being a 'wordsmith' yet one could look at this as similar to the science and engineering rift, assuming that we could identify such.
02/24/08 -- So much going on that topics related to this blog keep growing. A recent article in the WSJ pointed to works suggesting that there is a new aristocracy in the making, the main story being that accumulation of riches is the key factor. That those at the top of business regularly skim off, albeit legally, pocket fillers could hint that the taking is considered as 'divinely' given. What would a different model for motivation look like and could it be sustainable? Well, the answer is not as quickly forthcoming as many would believe; we'll be looking at this further.
01/12/08 -- Things are getting interested, both in the 7'oops7 and finance realms. Plus, analysis is progressing as it ought.
12/02/07 -- So, accumulation and greed seem to be the operative viewpoint, or ought we say operational strategy. Too, though, is the drive to play the game. From the experiences of some, it might be that this latter drive is the stronger. Hence, we ought to provide a means for gaming that allow rewards to those who play the system well, yet, at the same time, protects the innocent (or not so). One result of this growing use of layers of abstraction is that the distance from the 'real' increases.
This whole post might get a different flavor at some point. Tolstoy had the right idea: how much land does one man need? So, the post might ask instead, how much money is necessary? However, large T (Truth) issues start to lurk.
Modified: 01/05/2015
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?).
08/26/2009 -- Looking at some of the arguments (see Remarks), it seems that a corollary is: if you're so smart, then why don't you accept underdetermination?
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/27/2009 -- We can think about this in terms of money and class (as Orwell would have us do).
06/18/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.
05/08/2009 -- This'll be look at from first principles.
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
10/21/2008 -- Yes, it's time to re-look at related themes, hopefully coherently.
09/25/2008 -- Things continue to unfold. We're now going to bail out (we meaning the taxpayers) the idiots to the tune of $1 trillion. Oh well. Do smarts lead to fraud? That we need to answer.
06/11/08 -- Seems that some think that marking to 'model' is preferred to marking to 'market' which, if we think about it, could be true. Of course, it's a matter of who wins and loses (it's always near zero-sum, folks, we can only argue how far is 'near' which is an abstractionistic outfall, which, in the terms of money, results from gab standard-ing [a long story, to be told]).
06/01/08 -- Naturally, this topic would cover a whole lot of material, and it's is large enough to keep our interests for awhile. Too, both 'smart' and 'rich' are right at the core of matters that need discussion; that is, these topics cannot be avoided. For instance, we need to look at 'rich' in terms of utility, perhaps, as well as what is needed to be so (monetary basis, etc.).
The sub-prime event has brought attention to several related topics. How does one 'mark' for evaluation is one. No less august person than a Forbes magazine editor thinks that we ought not be marking to market. His argument is that such action causes unnecessary unwinding. Yet. given that abstraction leads to problematics (by necessity), continuing to mark to model stands to just perpetuate a house-of-cards, does it not?
Well, discussions about evaluation, in various senses, can follow a nose metaphor.
03/30/08 -- As referenced in a Cato Institute report, philosopher Robert Nozick noted that capitalism does not hold intellectuals to be of much value. Of course, the report emphasizes the intellectual as being a 'wordsmith' yet one could look at this as similar to the science and engineering rift, assuming that we could identify such.
02/24/08 -- So much going on that topics related to this blog keep growing. A recent article in the WSJ pointed to works suggesting that there is a new aristocracy in the making, the main story being that accumulation of riches is the key factor. That those at the top of business regularly skim off, albeit legally, pocket fillers could hint that the taking is considered as 'divinely' given. What would a different model for motivation look like and could it be sustainable? Well, the answer is not as quickly forthcoming as many would believe; we'll be looking at this further.
01/12/08 -- Things are getting interested, both in the 7'oops7 and finance realms. Plus, analysis is progressing as it ought.
12/02/07 -- So, accumulation and greed seem to be the operative viewpoint, or ought we say operational strategy. Too, though, is the drive to play the game. From the experiences of some, it might be that this latter drive is the stronger. Hence, we ought to provide a means for gaming that allow rewards to those who play the system well, yet, at the same time, protects the innocent (or not so). One result of this growing use of layers of abstraction is that the distance from the 'real' increases.
This whole post might get a different flavor at some point. Tolstoy had the right idea: how much land does one man need? So, the post might ask instead, how much money is necessary? However, large T (Truth) issues start to lurk.
Modified: 01/05/2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)