Albert and his boys

As in, Albert Einstein and the guys (and gals) of Physics. His ideas were central to the development of truth engineering. The trouble is, what are his ideas? He, himself, complained that once the mathematicians got hold of his model, he didn't understand it. Too, he covered a lot of bases over his time. So, in truth, we will have to track through all of that, over time. 

And space? Look at GenAI (which is really is AIn't as I have mentioned many times since 2021) and how it represents unwarranted "search" through hyper/multi-dimensional spaces. We will look at that closely. This recent work is dabbling with heterogenous stuff and assuming that transforms will bring in homogeneity. But, the work of Einstein dealt with things that were more amenable to being handled in the "canonical" fashion that homogeneity brings. 

Note: That last paragraph points to the essence of the main issue of the cloud which we can (and will) go into in detail (over time and space). However, when we look at the foundational issues being addressed by Einstein, we will see a close stepping forth (dance like) of mathematics and the operational so as to become problematic to the extreme. GenAI is a mere symptom of a huge problem. Time to start to grapple with that. 

All of this plus more is on the table as we bring truth engineering to bear using knowledge based engineering as an initial framework. Let's look at one book that will be of use for this work. It's his book with Infeld (so, E&I) with the title of The Evolution of Physics using archive.org's copy. The authors briefly start with the briefs and come through the usual trek of Galileo and Newton on down the pike. They look at the rise and fall of the mechanical view after which, of course, we get the introduction of "field and matter" that comes from the advent of relativity. They go through the ideas of (and which contributed to) special and general and finally end with a view of the quantum work that somewhat merges (interlaces) with relativity. 

Okay, we all know of the visual arguments that Einstein used (train, elevator, and others). The book has no mathematics, so the authors grunge out explanations using words. It works. On the other hand, there is something to what Feynemann mentioned with respect to not being able to understand quantumness without mathematics. 

I say, mathematics drove the development of the thoughts. We will spend a lot of time there. BTW, if there seems to be a different tone to these posts, that's quite observant. If not, that's okay, too. But, the work to date was mostly surveying all of the thoughts, as expressed over the past few centuries that relate to the themes associated with deciding what's true. That issue became imperative as the computer evolved, but we did not. 

Want an opinion? We have bent over backwards over the past few decades to make the computer look good. Oh yes. The biggest argument for this? The descent brought by misguided development of the web and its muddy cloud which was then fed into ML (machine learning) in order to become some sort of omni presence or know-it-all or what have you. How about overall jerk (3rd derivative, if you're an engineer)? 

But, back to E&I. I have been through the book several times. Why? I had it for some time and mostly dabbled (as Koestler mentioned with respect to library angels). Of late (blame GenAI's rise and verge toward a fall), I took the time to step through E&I's logic. Plus, having used GenAI to probe somewhat into the workings that were hidden, the imperative nature became apparent. So, we'll get through the whole of it. 

For now, I just realized that E&I mentioned television. The book is about 1938 in emergence to public access. E died in the 1950s. The book was republished. I said that he looked to make changes to bring it up to date and only did a few. So, the book stands as a point in time reference to needed discussion. 

See pgs 189 and 190 for the discussion of an inertial frame and its clock. E&I lay out how to pick some central position and try to synchronize. Remember, this was from the 1930s. But, there were rudimentary sets which showed the concept. Now, jump ahead. We have the internet with its cloud and more. Too, we have sophisticated clocks that can sync across the country. When we watch a game in the U.S., everyone seems to consider that the variability is minor with respect to delays and such. After all, consider the work put into supporting real-time streaming. 

It was good enough for on-line (say Zoom) meetings during the pandemic. People walk with phones to their ears (some drive, too) and seem to think that they're having a real conversation with little delay in the signals. Oh yes, for those who may want to know, we'll include some technical sidelines. 

For instance, the cloud? It's a bunch of services that are provided via distributed (some very much far apart) servers running synchronized  algorithms using high-speed connections. Oh wait? Everyone knows of Nvidia and its $trillions evaluation according to the ca-pital-sino (my neologism - see Fedareated). Right? That whole affair handles the relativity issue quite well, at least ostensibly. You know, we could be picky (and might due to the importance of the topic) and point out issues.  

But, that's later. People need their games even if it's like gambling and pulls money from the pocket and one's family needs. Same goes for GenAI which was done without due concern for things that are important. Don't worry, we'll get there. 

No, remember, E&I are not the only players in truth engineering. We're targeting that due to the interest in things quantum on the part of the computer people who like the ca-pital-sino and seem to want to have control more than is necessary. 

People's rights are being trampled with insidious algorithms. But, then, it's early yet. Will there be improvement or further decline. 

So, with that digress, let's put this off until tomorrow or after. 

Remarks: Modified: 03/21/2024

03/21/2024 -- 

Alchemy lives

I first heard of Herbert L. Dreyfus while listening to a discussion about artificial intelligence and databases at a conference that was sponsored by the "very large-database" group. The meeting was in the 1980s and was held at Kyoto, Japan. The reactions were varied, but one could see the positions being taken. He didn't seem to have many friends there defending him. 

Okay, leap forward. Looking further, I agreed with the guy. However, at the time, my focus was on implementation of algorithms for knowledge based systems (and, knowledge base engineering modes) that were highly effective in providing solutions that mattered. Needless to say, subsequent work involved a broader scope for computing that suggested its potential. 

Ubiquity? The concept was not unknown. Hoever, the release of IP changed the whole tone. That was in the mid-1990s. Since then, we have had several cycles of boom and bust. The first one? Go look up the tech bust of 1999/2000 to read about one. 

There were others before and after 2000. A couple of the ones before related to artificial intelligence. This post provides a brief summary of Dreyfus's involvement in the discussions. 

•  Alchemy and AI  

Now, the theme of this post. Here is a little blurb from Bard (Google's xNN/LLM). 

• Business is often seen as a way to make money, and in some cases, this can lead to people trying to get something for nothing. For example, some businesses may engage in deceptive or fraudulent practices in order to make a profit.

Oh, was this prompted? Sure. The idea was to tell it that the ca-pital-sino (coined in a sister blog in a post on Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 - Shell games) deals specifically with this issue. 

Remarks: Modified: 08/23/2023

08/23/2023 -- 

Beans and such

Back in 2009 (we started this in 2007, right before the display of idiocy arose everywhere, densely), we wrote about beans (as in, our  our daily bread). So, let's do this, again, and again.

I am 11 years retired, now. So, I was able to watch all of this silliness, from afar and up close (being slapped silly by bankers who tell me that they do not want, nor do they need, deposits - say what?). Too, my whole life has been analytically oriented, albeit in an unorthodox manner (which is more boon than bane). Too, I know economics and that whole little bit of gaming, more than I like to admit. As, I am more interested in issues related to a sustainable economy than the mess (ca'pital'sino) that we currently have.

How to do the cleanup? Well, it is complicated. Okay? For those who might want to pay attention, though, there are some things that ought to be considered and understood.

And, as for going to an financial adviser, even if the such a person thinks that they are doing their fiduciary duty (what does this mean?), one might be better off thinking for oneself. But, where does one go for information that is not so embedded in the capitalistic chimera as to stink?

And, such information ought to address all ages. For now, let's talk about the later years, say like the boomers are facing now.

---

When I retired 11 years ago, the first thing I did was to look at morbidity and mortality (see below). One motivation was that there had already been deaths in the family. Too, I was on a plane and found a report (MMWR) left by some earlier passenger that I took to be a reminder.

After looking at M&M, I went into a deep dive on finances and then intelligence. After that, there were many more topics covered. This post and the next are looking a the first two.

---

If we are to talk beans, time has to be considered. When we are young, our life has a long horizon, very long for some people. Also, the earlier years are usually spent working. At some point, the later years, and how they will be funded, come up. For the younger set, the earlier that you think of this, the better, as when one does get to a certain age, there is a quicker pace of departures from a cohort.

CDC of HSS 

The table shows expectancy for white males in the U.S. in 10-year increments. The last year added, 2003, is on the bottom. Notice the comparison with earlier years, especially those awhile ago. Life expectancy has been increasing. In fact, many of a cohort will live long past the average which is shown here (next graphic).

As an aside, the financial adviser is mentioned above. Many times those types were more into picking pockets than not, unfortunately. It seems that the whole financial industry is a big game, many times. We have gone into that and will again.

--

This graph shows a typical cohort's timeline in the sense of how many more years they can expect to be alive. Cohort? Think generation, but it is really those who were born the same year. Notice, the bottom axis is "Age." Why does it start at 20? Well, before that all of these lines were too close together to see any one. On the left, the value is the chance of living a certain number of years.

Slippery slopes
2004 data, U.S.

The curves are lookaheads from Age: 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. As in, say Age of 55, the green line shows that over 90% of the cohort can expect to live another 5 years. 10, 15, and 20 years are a little less.

But, 25 years has a value of 80%. That is, 20% of those who are 55 years old can expect to be dead by 80. You see, that is higher than the average life expectancy. Also, the green line is still at 40% for a 5 year look-ahead at 90 years of age. What does that mean. At 90, the red and yellow lines are gone. At that point, one has a slight chance of living 15 years and a little more for 10 years.

IRS gives only a couple of years even when one is over 100.

The numbers come from tracking done every year. We know the size and characteristics of a cohort due to records. When people die, we know their cohort. After a number of years, we would know the cohort's remaining size.

This type of thing is part of an on-going statistical effort that relates to planning and management by the U.S. government. Below, we get into M&M, a little. As, one responsibility of the CDC is epidemiology, especially for those things that contribute to bad health and early death.

---

2004 data, U.K.

One thing of importance is that the health professionals have been recording deaths and causes, for ages. By now, we have a fairly good collection as each year the cohort database is updated. Of course, all of the time, new causes come about, except the broad categories do cover a wide range.

This chart is from U.K. data and relates two things. On the left, there is a scale of those who are still alive. As you would expect, this curve (pink) goes down. The other curve (blue) rises and does so fairly rapidly.

The range of Age here is from 60 to 85, so we are talking the early part of the boomers. As we mentioned (above), for the youngsters, these lines would be mostly straight. It is in the later times that the choices related to this come more to fore. And, that is the theme of these posts.

---

Finally, the look at M&M would not be complete to look at a typical year. As we have heard and seen, heart problems and cancer are the largest factors in early death. Notice that there is a huge bucket of "Other." As with any data report, we deal with definitions and outliers from that.

Morbidity and mortality report

---

Given that a good percentage of a cohort can go way beyond the average life expectancy, the issue of outliving one's assets is not to be taken lightly when planning.

And, planning is a continuous activity. Two main factors would be income and expenses. Next time (Boomer lessons), let's look at a good way to handle this. That is, plan in 5-year increments (updated yearly) with a daily focus for accounting.

Remarks: Modified: 04/13/2016

04/13/2016 -- We also covered beans in the oops sense.

Many truths

One motivation for this post was seeing this headline for an article (WSJ): 'Smart Cities' Will Know Everything About You. The other motivation has to do with talents that get ignored in the modern age which we must discuss and keep in focus.

First, I must mention my reaction to the article. After seeing the headline, I thought, oh no, we have not even, properly, handled issues that relate to "undecidability" (note, please, usage beyond that associated with Turing). Then, the next thought was that this type of thinking is what is behind the growing, insidiously so, cloud that is falling as a mesh on our future and freedoms (and that of our progeny).

Finally, while reading the article, I saw that the ugly crowd called "marketers" kept coming up; yes, those who buy data in order to manipulate people (in finance, this means the gaming of the ca-pital-sino). The article does touch upon the issues, such as privacy, lack of control, and such.

In the end, the writer says that things would not be Orwellian "if businesses act responsibly" (pigs fly?).

---

We have grown dependent upon the engineering/technology viewpoint as it has been known to get things done; progress requires this type of applied science. But, how many modern advances have had deleterious results far beyond any benefit that might have ensued (ah, consider why we need to worry about the enmeshing)? As well, we do have people who sell. In fact, some feel that the economy is mostly made up by consumer activity. Too, some of the Beats (below) pushed financial schemes. Too, we have the artists who support marketing and public relations (respectable, of course - if they behave - who defines the rules?). Then, we have the big pockets (I have left out several classes - say, labor, and many more) who pull things together (some like to coin themselves as capitalists, though they are really oligarchs).

---

Now, let’s get to the other motivation. My cognitive framework is so wrapped around truth engineering's particulars for several reasons. As such, a balanced view is important (we will establish this part of the requirement); balance looks at all sides, even the counterculture (below). And, while reading things like the-above article, the "Beats" come to mind due to the specific time frame of that phenomenon (though, the early American experience had nonconformists, too; actually, the main intent of the emigres was to remove themselves from something to which they could not conform). So, we can use the Beats as the point of origin; post the Beats, we had the Free Speech activities, Civil Rights workings, Hippies lolling about, ..., and, of late, the conglomeration named Occupy Wall Street. In other words, that which has a strong element of iconoclastic-ness and nonconformity has been a continual presence in a not-small part of the population for 60+ years.

Activism, as well, comes to mind; in that case, there are as many variations as there are truths that we need to engineer. Unfortunately, “activism” includes things like hedge funds trying to force businesses to make decisions that maximize the return for their (the hedge fund’s) investors (so much to say there).

---

One thing that needs immediate attention: truth and what it is. People get puzzled about truth, especially about the need for "truth" engineering. I asked a scientist to define truth, without mentioning whether I meant the big or little one (as in "T" or "t"). He, to my surprise, went to the big side without blinking an eye.

You see, science is not (supposed to be) of that ilk (except, is it that Truth and Science are equivalent? - pun). Science deals with a whole lot of little "t's" (though the cosmologists like to browbeat everyone into accepting their "itty bitty" views about the largeness of Creation (intentional big "C" which is at this point unqualified; people have grappled with these things for eons - the new factor deals with computers, networks, and insidious stuff like the cloud - so, we're starting from scratch here - or, taking a constructive approach, if you would) as that worldview of science is supposed to be provisional (very hard for humans to do). Yet, engineers have to firm things up in order to work, so right there is a quandary (engineering as applied science – which tends toward Scientism in too many cases).

---

Recently, I got reminded of an old friend, namely Charles Sander Peirce. You see, his work (as well as that of many others) gives us part of our prowess in abductive approaches. We'll get back to that, for sure.

---

But, to continue on about truth: how many truths are there? Some claim that there are as many as there are people. But, one can bring in situational truths, to boot. Let's just say this, even the big "T" side of things is multiple. Why? For one thing, we have issues of interpretation (which, for the most part, come from free will – yes, how about the neuropeptidergic bag?).

---

And, as we know, a lot of truth has to do with power (all sorts, even that of politicos). That is, overbearing-ness is a common human trait (oh Lord, deliver us). But, of that power ilk, those who score highly on tests  (yes, the so-called best-and-brightest) are of the worst variety (see below).

That is, so what that they can solve problems with a laser-like focus and do so quickly? Consider: is the sum total of all of the possible laser foci reality (yes, that is not a misstatement - look at topology, please)? Well, some seem to think so. Too, are the sum total of all people's views reality?

Aside1: Humans, please, get over yourselves (and your selfies) - that which is called "Pluto" was there long before we became aware of such. The world was here long before your entrance glorified the realm of existence.

Aside2: Yet, were we not made in the Image (purposefully left dangling)?

---

Since people are so involved in truth, and what it is, we can look at categories. For starters, we can take two. On the one side are those who excel at STEM. Now, mind you, some of these are the best-and-brightest. But, no, not all of the b-and-b are good at mathematics. STEMers, for a large part, might do well since they can focus and filter without expending much energy. Others might be more like the turtle (however, in some cases, slow and thorough beats quick and dirty). For instance, some types of dyslexia make it hard to handle things like numbers. There are other examples. Engineers, by design of the discipline, do STEM.

Now, what is the other side? Before we look at that, please be aware that some who are of this ilk can do STEM, too (The blogger – he will quote Von Neumann who said that we do not understand mathematics, we get used to it.  True, operationally. But, mathematics is more discovered than created). So, what is it about this non-STEM side that is of essence? Intuition, for the most part (that which is behind creativity and other great talents).

There is much to discuss, here. But, poets, painters, and others demonstrate the facility. In this case, we will use the Beats as the example of a type of truth processing. The reasons for this choice will be apparent when the discussion continues with a later post.

Remarks:   Modified: 07/27/2015

07/19/2015 -- This post was done using a professional editor implying that a new process will be put into place.

07/27/2015 -- Another poster boy popped up the other day.

Unplanned house?

What was that about the monkeys (thousands, millons)? They could write a book? Of course, I could have google'd the answer; the point is that "monkey" appears in a whole lot of memes.

Now, we are talking "truth" in all of its possible aspects; in computing, we deal with whether things are done as they ought (as in, expected to or specified so as to). The whole of tru'eng deals with these issues, some of which are not of practical interest, at the moment (but will be, in time). Besides, the issues of computability, we have things like goodness of systems (methods to predict (insure) such) or their soundiness.

A key issue is addressed by Leslie Lamport: Who Builds a House without Drawing Blueprints? (ACM, Comm, Vol. 48, No. 4). Leslie describes some of the motivations for his work, namely TLA - Temporal Logic of actions. It is not that doing systems is strictly like construction, after all, we do not see flow charts being used nowadays. However, nothing good comes about, except by extreme luck, from lack of planning. Agile methods (more below) seem to be like that; from where I sit, the users are expected to adapt with whatever the developers come up with, especially in the freebie systems that are so prevalent nowadays.

But, trust your life on some of this software? Earlier, we pointed to some discussion of the bazaar / cathedral theme (yes, juxtaposed, for obvious reasons). Test/code/review does not allow one to lift (to be discussed).

Now, about TLA, in the same issue of the Communications of the ACM, Amazon allowed their workers to present some comments on its use.

---

Aside: I fell out of my chair; for many reasons, one of which is that I have not dealt (by purpose) with the company ever (except from 10 yards away). So, I'm impressed and will look more closely at this. ... In actuality, the company has done very well in handling technical problems (I just hope that the owner doesn't diddle with the Washington's Post editoral nature - too much) that are not simple. They, like others, are facing problems daily for which there is no known solution (except that we can do types of approximations, adequately enough, so as to be practical - stacking up what karma that will bite us later? - that is, many (of the hapless) get pulled into the troubles without their knowledge and against their wishes - to wit, the idiocy of 2008 til now for which we are still paying and have a ways to go yet - world-class moron-hood, Jamie, et al). Now, I need to look at AWS for another project.

---

TLA has some add-ons, one of which is mentioned in the Amazon article (actually, other companies are mentioned - including Oracle): PlusCal.

Oh yes, the article: How Amazon Web Services Uses Formal Methods. There were several authors. But, this quote needs attention: A precise, testable description of a system becomes a what-if tool for designs, analogous to how spreadsheets are a what-if tool for financial models.

Of course, there is this, too: Formal methods deal with models of systems, not the systems themselves, so the adage "All models are wrong, some are useful" applies. As in, using our terms: territory-map.

One author, Marc Brooker, has blogged about his experiences (post on TLA+). Notice that the domain is fairly particular. As one travels out the abstraction chain, things get further from the machine (even if everything has to still funnel through the execution stream) into realms of creativity.

Which, then, brings up one issue. The more formal (too, the real sciences bigots who bewail that humans are so unpredictable - wake up, folks) like to think that they can compress being (whatever it is and however we might know it) into a box (actually, enmeshing our glorious selves in a trap that is onerous to the extreme) and, thereby, get risk (and all related ilk) under its thumb (hah). In actuality, we can (not the cathedral, by necessity, but with a bazaar with some bit of decorum) find our ways through to a safe and healthful experience (virtual and otherwise).

Remarks:   Modified: 05/14/2015

05/14/2015 -- If you cannot read the ACM articles, please send a note. I can pull out public links from the references which would be equivalent in concept and close in content.

05/14/2015 -- And so, after the post and content has been digested (does not imply absence of forethought), then epilog bits come to fore. The first half of that letter is what resonates. Then, Ben&Steve talking "incredible returns" in the stock market grates (harshly). For one, the thing, as run now, is a ca-pital-sino and very much can be characterized by near-zero (both terms have links in the text). Too, though, is the whole thing of the magical multiplier (wild expansion of value), of returns mainly for the early birds (connivers), and of enormous grabs (by some) that desires serious analysis (again, foreclosure - not in any way now profiting, nor in the past profited, from the gaming - whose main thing is to impoverish the masses). ... There will be a change in tone, thanks to Canfield (yes, he of the chicken soup thing). --- So, the diatribe series will stand as an example: so-called constructive looks, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3.

State of affairs

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

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

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

Models and models

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

---

The progression in the world of ideas somewhat has parallels which can be seen to be like those of the markets. Which means that there are downturns in thought, just like we see with the ca-pital-sino.

Ca-pital-sino? The roaring bulls, essentially.

So, thought downturns? Well, we see this several ways, all of which bear a look. One that is really prominent deals with data, as in big data, and all of the truths there. Well, that would not even be possible without computing.

So, computing is the next thing in line. How can it be problematic? You mean, "heads in the apps" living (and driving) is an adorable trait, to be emulated?

Too, computing plays heavily in the issues related to the ca-pital-sino. So, that theme will be central to a lot of discussion.

---

Going forward, though, how is it that we have lost any grasp on truth? DC? Public stances and spin, essentially. Banking? Well, it is nowhere near the utility (as in piping, folk) look that it ought to have. Even with wheeling and dealing (which would be outside of the plumbing), we still need to have a robust system (without the systemic risks inherent in what has evolved with technology).

And, what is truth? Exactly. Can it be engineered? Ought it be? We'll have to get back to our fundamentals.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

11/03/2014 -- So, we, here, need to get away from the monied view. You see, it very much is limiting (for many reasons). The proper thinking needs one's mind divorced from things economic. Now, our problem is that the Harvard-ites of the world (and the FBers) are very much tied into money. In terms of the latter, that is due to the current blindness of the web'd. In terms of the former, ah, "how did it happen?" I have to ask the folks in Cambridge. So much to discuss.

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

The best

The post is motivated by the fact that the most-read post is "Best and brightest of what?" from almost a year ago (10/03/2013).  There has been much change in the world since then that ought to be of interest to the theme.

Let's recap a few of these changes:

• We had the Olympics in Russia. Despite some infrastructural problems, things happened enough to allow the record books to continue. Yet, right after, the Ukraine became a hotspot. 
• There was a loss of an airliner (777, which has had no major crashes during the program's long life - kudos to engineering) which has never been explained. Then, another plane was lost to a ground-to-air missile over the Ukraine. 
• We now have solidification of an Islamic-based organization and society to contend with. If you have to ask, it's ISIS (lots to discuss regard this emergence). 
• Janet has seen to it that savers (flayed to the bone, if you would) are still the fall guy. The ca-pital-sino rages along nicely due to a continual filling (spiking) of the punch bowl. Yes, QE is easing; the coo-coo (goo-goo) talk has not (yes, they need a continuation of the soft-handling - and do not even think of removing the training wheels from the bike). 
• Google said that creativity and other attributes trump that which leads to good (and perfect) SAT scores. The theme will continue (many reasons - best of what?). 
• Early responders (9/11) are reporting after-effects related to health. 
• ... 

One thing of interest will be to look at the posts from early on. The problems are still there, not having been resolved by the political wags (leveraging is up, dark pools are seen as necessary, ..., a very, very long litany whose elucidation attempt might be a worthy expenditure of time and energy).

Remarks:  Modified: 11/21/2015

11/21/15 -- Why-does-the-Islamic-banking-system-not-charge-interest-on-loans-and-advances-What-are-their-alternative-sources-of-revenue? 

December, 2007

That was awhile ago. Since then, things tumbled (the DOW got to about where it ought to be). The chimera started to re-inflate, yet not without lots of help from Big Ben who just recently kicked the printing presses up to high gear.

---

So, again, December, 2007. After awakening to the idiocy that had abounded while the blogger was working on real problems, it became apparent that the financial guys had gone too far (that post was written on Christmas day, of 2007).

Tranche and trash was added later.

---

It's obvious that the wizards are confounding issues with their money, their lobbyists, and snowing people with mathematics and computation (the most popular post of the FEDaerated blog). How do we get a 'reset' going that would help build a better basis?

---

So much has gone into building the 'market' economy, is it possible to delta off of that in some incremental mode? To what, though?

OWS talks about symptoms. It is not a solution definitional system.

---

Politics? We have seen how that descends. The story now is that those who get elected to Washington come away rich. They even pull silly games with the Street. Ah, yes, are politicos not those who salivate with they see (or think of) a buck (or have it passed beneath their nose by lobbyists)?

---

If you haven't noticed, it's a real mess. Of course, the 1% likes it since they can muddy themselves, and us, as they rake in their takings. The 99%? Of course, that is where the real hurts always happens.

This is a new meme; perhaps, it'll be helpful.

---

Disclosure: In 2007, I started to look at finance to see why the younger ones had queued up there in droves during the prior 10 years. Well, given the shenanigans, it was obvious that the open field (relaxed oversight, greed as good, etc.) allowed many to make money; at what cost? Oh, yes, impoverishing of the many (near-zero). So, it was seen, in 2007, that the walls were beginning to shake; who thought to what extent? Those who were benefiting still were expecting bonuses. You see, the whole game quit (markets froze, bankers sat on their money, people like Jamie became focals of too much attention, et al) since the players knew that it was a crooked game (wake up, Ben) and stopped playing when it became clear that they could make decisions that would cost them (ah, Bank of America, et al). Yet, at the same time, these people didn't acknowledge the reality (given that we can know the actual state -- too, they play to win, expending enormous energies to ensure that they win -- ah, then, the re-insurance scheme was shown to be faulty, to boot). The lemon lesson kicked in; if you and your peers are crooks, who do you trust? Oh, the American taxpayer from whom can be extracted oodles without any side-effect (not so, says the OWS - before them, the tea-party). So, it became obvious that finance was a lot of fiction (recap -- how did we allow this?). It was unsettling to see Iceland fail, since they listened to the idiots (see Remarks 02/03/2011) and made themselves vulnerable. So, too Ireland. England (with its thrust on finance) ought to have known better. And, now we're seeing holes all over Europe which Ben is trying to fill with his cheap bucks. Since 2007, we have had changes in laws. Yet, there is truth to the statement that those who legislate now become rich while in office. Too, they let those who skim off the top do so without any threat (the stench comes from systemic pustules). The ca-pital-sino needs to be reigned in; so too, those new kings who run rampant over the populace. That the 1%-99% meme brought forward some recognition was nice to see, too, albeit a little reminiscent of earlier times.

Remarks:

05/29/2012 -- Jamie's bank in the news, again.

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

Modified: 05/29/2012

OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files

OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files

Yes, it is almost as if old Rip ought to wake up now. One ought to hope that wonderful things will come out of this manifestation of human spirit.

People are tired of hearing arrogant, best-and-brightest, finance manipulators talk about how good that they are at pulling the ca-pital-sino strings, silly game that it is. And, this is after they trashed our world (remember the Irish) by playing with our money in insane ways.

Were any lessons learned? When will 'near-zero' be understood (in this sense, folks -- a lot of the game playing is not unlike a wish for perpetual motion)?

It has been only two weeks since this event (and the follow-ons) started, yet things have changed really fast. And, given the new order (social media), one has a lot more information available that requires digestion.

---

Thankfully, we can lag in that work. We just hope that the phenomenon persists long enough to lay down some lasting tracks and have real effects.

---

And, we hope that economists learn from this, especially those of the financial ilk.

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

10/20/2011 -- It's said that the OWS doesn't have an agenda. That is not bad. However, there ought to be a list of things that NEED attention (and, not just cursory -- or from the 1%'s viewpoint), such as leveraging and speculation. Neither is as necessary as the fat cats argue. Too, there is a whole lot more that could be added to the list, many of these topics have been touched upon here and in the related blogs. Thinking of a Magna Carta equivalent would be a very good exercise.

10/18/2011 -- Hopefully, the OWS will bring this type of thing to public awareness.

10/15/2011 -- The recognition goes global. Banking ought to be handled by those whose greed is close to nil.

10/14/2011 -- One thing that has always concerned the blogger was the trickery that finance did with student loans which ought to be as straightforward as mortgages. Yet, some play games with those needing the support and, in doing so, made oodles (atrocious, in essence). Some of have this in mind as they join in the protest. Yes, it was turned over to bankers of whom there are many types; and, do not bankers exist for the purpose of filling their pockets?

10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.

10/12/2011 -- The CEO MVPs need to look to Paul.

10/10/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about.

10/10/2011 -- Economists, please explain why this is allowable, implying that it is not unconscionable and that it is taken to be ethical.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/it/financial-trading-at-the-speed-of-light

A deeper look will expose multitudes of these types of shenanigans that the less than 1% have spawned (and have been allowed to spawn) in order to perpetuate (almost guarantee - especially with our implicit acceptance of moral hazard'ry) the sucking into their large pockets the very substance of the many (whose members are becoming increasingly hapless).

Of course, the technological basis that enables this type of mischief (yes) is not our friend, either.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Economic truths

We could not continue without eventually getting to beans and books. Everyday, there are innumerable amounts of attention, incalculable exertions, tons of media assets (time and resources), and a bunch of hoopla about the markets. Ca-pital-sino, we can call it.

At its basis, what is the truth? We do not know, folks, for several reasons. Things continue despite starts and stops. Derivatives overlay the reality which is not 'real' in that the things which are being valued and counted do not map well to that abstract world of money.

So, we have arbitrary rules, defined by a bunch of old men, and then interpretation leeways.

---

Sorry state of affairs. Can we do better?

---

Who is trying? Warren, and the whole cadre, want to fill their pockets.

Let me propose this: someone who has taken a vow of simple living, and who has the discipline to not pilfer, could set matters straight. But, we would have to get the fat cats out of the way.

What is the chance of that happening?

---

Well, we can discuss how this might work; at least, that is a start.

Remarks:

08/05/2012 -- This post is on the most-read list. Things continue to be interesting.

10/10/2011 -- New horizon forming? Perhaps, chances of leaning (as in, de-fatting) the fat cats have risen slightly.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

09/14/2011 -- One source of problems is, of course, from accounting. Yet, t-issues would make the claim that the technical problems are exploited by humans intent on misdeed. These need to be categorized, to boot.

Modified: 08/05/2012

Doers II

In reviewing some old posts (2008), I ran across this one (Doers and speculators). Sheesh, we think those types that deal with abstractions as being so smart. Like, how many idolize Warren, as if he is some epitome? Then, Big Ben has his following, too.

Now, reading this post made me recall the motivation. Too, I see that it is right on three years later. For some reason, there has been a little digression but not really.

Let's, first, pull together posts related to this theme from the past few years.

• Criticism and truth (October 26, 2007) - if one looks at sports, for instance, it's really apparent. How many arm chair quarterbacks are there each monday night throughout the NFL season? In baseball, there are nine on the field for any team at any point in the game. Forgetting the few, coaches and staff and such, that support the team, how many are involved (fans: at the game, watching on tv, etc.)? So, we have only a small collection of doers and a whole lot of watchers. Trouble is, the economy is like that, too. Just as people bet on games, the markets (as currently defined) allow a whole lot of gambling that is really not of much usefulness (crowd sourcing notwithstanding).
• Justice and truth (November 10, 2007) - as the workers toil, they diminish to naught. As the watchers gain, fat cats grow unbounded. Part of that is the belief that business has to be ruthless (to wit, article about Warren's recent misstep - see Remarks 04/30/2011).
• Free and fee (August 27, 2008) - something for nothing seems to be the underpinning motivation of greed (or more for less, etc.). That this cannot lead to realistic, and sustainable, economics is what we need to look at.
• Truth and toil (September 16, 2009) - of course, there is always the 'classism' that is the basis of capitalism (which is one big factor in the emergence of the ca-pital-sino).

--

What is the point of all this? Well, there are two things. For one, problems with handling abstractions cause more than just the map-territory mishap in which we see the model becoming more real, in the minds of some, than that which is modeled. Pity the poor sucker caught in the jaws of the six-sigma tightening belt.

Secondly, many, who are in the positions of power, never did a lick of 'real' work (as in, dirty hands, of course). Now, we may consider that excelling at some sport may be considered 'work' in this context. A joke that one heard prior to the wedding of last week was that some, within the ranks of the royals, were aghast that Kate had actually worked for a living.

Perhaps, if some of those who are the diapered CEO types had been forced to work their way up (in senses to be discussed), they would not fall so much under the weight of their egos into hubris. The military model works in this case. There are few higher-order officers who have not come up through the ranks (O-series, sufficient, okay?). That is, one does not fall into a position of command via family or appointment (though, some politicos would probably want this).

In terms of exhausting their resources, some top-down thinkers would know more about the reality of what can be accomplished if they had the proper experience. But, no. Management has taken itself to be above differentiation by domain as it operates from universals (or, almost).

The whole out-housing phenomenon is predicated on a never-ending pool of potential exploitees. But, that is a whole another subject to be addressed.

---

Of course, the whole system is awry in this sense and has been for some time. After all, it was several 100s years ago that the first insurance minds cast lots in betting on the success of the doers (people like those who produced goods and those actually moved them from one place to another - in many cases, facing storms on a raging sea). Then, we have funny money which has no basis in reality, at all.

Remarks:

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.

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

05/09/2011 -- Milking the system, something from nothing, ... (analogous to perpetual motion).

05/06/2011 -- Good engineers are doers.

05/05/2011 -- New America Foundation: Middle class under siege.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Truth and media

Of course, we mean 'media' in a broad sense which includes the social, such as Facebook (the metaphor).

The Atlantic has a good article related to the fuzzy nature of facts. Of course, they're talking about this: that which could be called 'disinformation' seems to have taken hold of the information flow by using manipulations of computational (including network) technology.

Ah, there is no better way to introduce the need for truth engineering. You see, even with those supposedly solid facts of the past, it was not as solid as people thought - one source for the interminable conflicts. Even the facts of science can undergo slight perturbations. The same issue of The Atlantic tells us that even science runs after recognition and money.

Of course, we can know what is the underlying reality (big-T truth issue - which have been skirted around, to date, here) better than we have allowed, yet it will always be a mystery, for several reasons.

In fact, what we have found (look closely) is that our reality is wrapped in this digitally-framed cloud that has such power as to alter our thinking in order for us to correspond with (as in communication) the models based upon that set of frameworks (thanks a lot, applied mathematics). Yes, we dumb down ourselves in order to make our systems appear smart.

And, that dumbing is sugar-coated since we can lull ourselves into the belief embedded within a set of complicated mathematical expressions whose 'truth' we cannot compute (no, we need our artificial servants - to whom, we'll eternally bow, if we do not grasp the horn - again, truth engineering - with people's intuition as the key factor).

Wait, crowd wisdom? It may be a matter of training: move from lemming-ness to a higher-order (can we do this?) state (yes, ask any of the smartie group or, for that matter, the manic at their upmost part of the cycle).

Oh? Yes, neuropeptidergic will be important. Had a good breakfast? And, fasting-influenced cognition may be of interest, to boot.

Remarks:

10/28/2010 -- As with the ca-pital-sino, many of our rights have been usurped and our domains interloped.

Modified: 10/28/2010

Can of worms

Well, who are we to believe? It's turning out that the answer to this question is less certain through time than we would like, in many situations.

In a recent one, the past couple of days has us seeing Toyota trying to disprove one professor by using another. Nothing new about that; science is supposed work via a type of dialectic. But, gamemanship, and such, as the main focus? (A third professor's view)

That people have experienced, and suffered the consequences of, some type of failure of auto control systems is the one fact not to be forgotten.

And, one would hope that the illustrious car company, whose reputation has always been associated with value and quality, will take the high road and do the right thing. Which is? (Note: 03/12/10 -- ah, they are, here is their web site related to recalls)

Well, Congress' panels ought to take the thing to its full extent, or at least as far as their monied selves will let them (definition of the politico set, of late, is characterized by a salivation response to the stimulus of money under the nose).

The Administration needs to live up to its responsibility. Which is? Act as mediator for disparate views (see below) and be an advocate for us, the wee people.

Now, for some of the other roles and views. Engineers need (and ought to be allowed) to work out the technical issues as they may. However, that we're talking hardware (operational and computational - with software for the latter) means that it's a new game. Perhaps, this dilemma might be an opportunity to learn some necessary lessons.

Lawyers? Well, several things here. But, one of these ought not be suppressing the truth by manipulating fear. That counsel goes for both sides. Whose first principles apply?

People, and drivers? Wake the heck up to the growing presence of little hidden 'bots' (general use of a term which is meant to imply that the genie has been let out of the bottle) that can play havoc with us if we don't pay attention. But what are we to do?

Evidently, for awhile, there has been a growing computational framework for the driving platform due to our technical progress of the last few decades. Surprise! Of course, this has been obvious, but we've let ourselves trust too much.

Too, some of us seem to have gone to a total zombie state (you know who you are), in this sense: mind warped by, and wrapped around, an abstracted, thereby virtual, cloud via thumb and eye, in the driving mode, to the extent that the vehicle has become a mindless WMD with no one in control.

Such behavior, on the part of the reckless, has allowed the potentials for devastation, for the driver and for those unlucky souls in the presence of the driver, to increase inordinately.

Of course, we might use that last condition as evidence of the influence that the 'gaming' generation's upbringing (computation in their blood, almost) has had some insidious repercussions that seriously need our attention.

That comment is not being negative; it is more this: the issues related to truth engineering need to be at the forefront (more below) of both an analytic and corrective (in the sense of control theory) stance.

Does failsafe mean anything to the people? Well, we could think of several connotations that are general, but that any of these might pertain to some type of increased certainty needs to be lifted to view for some serious scrutiny.

Why? For a computational system to be risk minimal, there are several things that need to happen. For one, all domains need to be decidable. Okay, sub-domains will be decidable. Any arbitrary collection of these will not, by default, be decidable. It (that is, the order and stability that we all desire) has to be imposed.

By the way, for now, just think of decidable as subsuming stability, convergence, and other numerically behaved properties (technical geeks, be patient, we'll get there - quasi-empiricism).

Too, even if we attain the desired, decidable, state, it may have been due to some type of cleverness and accomplished by a man-in-the-loop. Yet, that 'man' is not everyman but is someone who needs to be cognizant of the decisional issues, to be awake (aware, see above, zombie reference (state of mindless flow (apologies to Buddha) which is insensitive to subtle changes in the related sensors)), and to be experienced (one impetus for the growing use of simulation/visualization in the modern world).

What is decidable? Well, it is not something to assume. Some designers will argue that they've accomplished the necessary assumption set for closure. Ah! In an open framework, such as we see with driving, there is no proof of this. Why do you think that new products require so much testing? Even those with mathematical, and modeling, support need some type of empirical workout (an airplane, for example).

You see, there is really no basic mathematical foundation for these types of decisions that alleviates us of the need for caution. Why do you think that managers and lawyers get involved? Too, the required, onerous, aspects are costly both in time and resources (money, people) so we get the bean counters involved.

Engineers know these things, but they are human and can err.

Who to believe? Well, this is solvable, folks, but requires some effort. We'll use the situation to explore some of the issues and propose possible outcomes.

Leaping ahead: how can we get the proper stable computational bases for these operational entities without some serious cooperation across the industry to the extent, even, of having common platforms?

What? Yes, any creative, and competitive advantage, aspect probably ought to be limited to a small region of performance that could easily be tested.

So, let's bring the concepts of failsafe to fore. This will take a few posts, but here is a short list, for starters.

• Failsafe - acknowledges the possibility of failure and attempts some type of prevention (and lessening) of consequences
• Failure mode - recognition of these is necessary to know how to manage the failures even if they are to occur with minuscule probability
• Who to believe? - yes, in the small world of a system, there will be sensors, decisioners (bow to the great GWB), connectors, and more which at any time can be in conflict (computational sense - constraint satisfaction, NP, meaning hard) about what they know and what to do; too, there will be need some type of rectification (we might say, auto programmers, like quants, ignore complexity) even if the situation is undecidable (that's one reason for overrides, folks - yet, a mere brake override is not sufficient)

In terms of the last item, yes, the macro issues very much parallel those of the micro view. Or, we can look at it the other way.

We all learn conflict resolution in kindergarten or earlier. As we know, conflicts are real, some may even say essential (think ca-pital-sino). And, we know that power from the top-down (hammering down the opposition, for the politocos) can suppress the truth, thereby causing easy (or so it seems) resolution (which usually is a partial solution).

That this situation exists can allow a more complete discussion of some important issues (subsequent posts).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/15/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Of course, some media may be better than others. Popular Mechanics has a good article about the Toyota issue. Notice the comments: a wide range, some seemingly coherent and well expressed. However, that the overall tone of the article suggests user error as the chief problem is something that ought to be analyzed itself. For instance, if the accelerator and the brake pedals are being confused by the foot and mind of the driver, is that not indicative that someone didn't think to cause sufficient means to differentiate the two? Ah, ought there not to have been some studies to 'optimize' such selection? One problem with the modern world, folks, is that we apply set discriminators (in general, separation algorithms) without regard to some of the nuances that apply. Oh yes. One criticism of Lean (and Toyota's system) is that is cuts to the quick in a very efficient manner; at the same time, these actions leave a state in which it is very hard to recover traces sufficient for analysis, many times. That is one thing the NHTSA ought to look at in terms of what might be necessary to perform ex-post-facto diagnosis.

03/12/2010 -- Forgot to mention one player, namely the media, especially TV. Guys/gals, don't monkey with reports in order to emphasize some viewpoint, such as ABC is accused of doing. Oh, it's just editing, they claim. Wait, aren't media businesses just like the car makers driven by market share and profit? ... The question was asked: doesn't the public know that Toyota, with all its resources, hasn't looked at the underlying issues? Well, we also know that Toyota publicly admitted moving negatively on a quality line in order to put resources toward expansion of the market share. How to attain balance? Good question in that even the best-and-brightest fail regularly.

Modified: 01/22/2013

The train

Oh, the train is leaving the station. Better hurry and get on board.

We'll be hearing that a lot, given the recent surge in the markets. Some will be tempted to buy in; many have, otherwise the rally would not exist.

What is behind this mania (best way to characterize the problem)? Well, casino capitalism lies at the basis. For some reason, our lawmakers keep letting the sirens pull them to choices that are not good for us in the matter.

Not that there aren't related hard problems that can give us grief. What's wrong with stepping back and taking a good look. That is, stop this so-called train; yes, halt the markets. It has happened before.

There are other things to consider, such as, let's unravel those supposedly too big to fail entities that are the giant suckers of value out of the economy.

Remarks:

03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

10/25/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?

11/10/2009 -- Glass-Steagall, again. Why not? Also, more on the gab standard.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. In other parlance, we can see that funny money (as determined by the FED) actualizes into delusional corners (the push for large mansions, etc.) since there is no being involved. In this sense, the lowly workers' grasp of reality (albeit, painful that it can be - what with the lopsided accumulation of wealth into a few hands - plus, mistreatment by the likes of bankers) is much more firm than is that of the best-and-brightest.

Modified: 03/05/2013

Who is to know?

Actually, we have the problem that finance confounds things, in its current guise, by necessity. Yet, we have people needing to know now in a reasonable fashion about choices.

Of course, using default logic, one might counsel be careful, and conservative. Forget the clamor and spin, no matter how attractive. Besides, ill-begotten gains (yeah, like we see with the likes of golden sacks and many more) frankly stink.

Only make a change from conservative when there is a strong, and justifiable, need for such.

The main problem is that the market ideology has evolved into casino capitalism, pure and simple. Why? Those who can get the thrill. Too, the total story is not ever told; near zero it is folks.

When, in actuality, a truthful approach would probably argue strongly for the sandbox isolation of those who want risk.

How is this to be? That is one focus.

Remarks:

02/26/2011 -- Who indeed.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

04/08/2010 -- From the gigantic chimera to ill-begotten gains.

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

Modified: 02/26/2011

Where is the money?

Some of this may seem moot now, what with Goldman making oodles (the WSJ counsels us to not 'hate' them for it - I say, yes, it's more evidence of near-zero) and with the increasing levels of the equity markets though they are still below the 2007 peak. But, we need to look at money in its various senses and existences. Even the Pope knows of its importance.

The post is precipitated by Marilyn's answer in the Sunday Parade to a subject that had been handled earlier by Investopedia.

• Marilyn: Where did the stock money go? -- if she were not so smart, I would worry about her being disingenuous. Sounds more like she has been taken in by those who want to perpetuate what is essentially the big pocket picking scheme.
• When Stock Prices Drop, Where's The Money? -- no doubt, these guys are into financial engineering which seems to always move toward pocket picking. But, then, so too does government action seem to run this way. The little guys cannot seem to get a break. (italics added on 8/2/2009 - see Remarks, same date)

Both viewpoints are a little misleading. Why? Several reasons described below.

For one, they do not consider nuances of 'intrinsic' as it applies to value that have been thrown out as not necessary (gaming can be partly to blame). Let's call it Okkam for convenience of the favored. Then, there are some temporal issues that are not addressed. First, a little background is necessary.

What we have is a bunch of people passing along the same few bucks. We can take any number as the basis though the Fed tries to really pin this down. Remember that the Fed can print as many virtual bucks as it want in the fiat situation within which we find ourselves.

These bucks pass at a high rate of speed to where some illusion rises that makes us think that there is more than those basic bucks. Ah, yes, delusion at its best. The illusion is, in part, due to the leveraging notions that have gotten out of hand, but, too, it relates to the casino effect (ca-pital-sino) that has grown to underlay things monetary.

A proper audit (to be defined), from time to time, would allow us to see just how few bucks there really are. We do not have to have the shaky times like we're seeing now where real people get hurt in order to do this audit. Of course, we do know that some of those who are richer (by definition of some, smarter) find themselves in a bind, too.

Now another way that the two articles are misleading is that they do not consider the leech effect. As well, through time monies go into the pockets of the several along the way who sold for more than they bought in the past. Some of it definitely would be in the pockets of those running the game. So, you see, there is a temporal issue that seems to be missing.

Today, the markets are up sharply. Of course, the interest rate is low, but who is lending for speculative buying? Supposedly, liquidity is still not what it was. Some say we're heading to a 15,000 DJIA (who is to know?).

There is definitely more to consider here, as we go along, than just a simple metaphor.

Remarks:

03/06/2014 -- An update of this theme.

03/03/2010 -- Applies to the debate about MM and equity/debt.

08/27/2009 -- I need to add that the explanations by these two emphasizes the multiplier effect of a fiat currency scheme. However, as the arguments against marking to market tell us, the additional effect is not, by necessity, ponzi or just hot air. (links pending)

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

08/02/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

So, is this what financial engineering is all about? Sounds more like leeching. We'll look further as part of an econoblog. Where is the money indeed?

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/30/2009 -- Note, everyone, the run up of the DOW lately. I'll agree that a lot of this may be fictitious capital, that is, gained through gaming means. Yet, the movement is real. So, where does the money go when equity tanks? It moves to another look, morphs, if you will (money, no better shape changer exists).

07/29/2009 -- The use of intrinsic will need some discussion, as we don't have to go to the level of t-issues. Rather, there is a broader notion that gets lost in the finance's watered-down abstraction. This theme will be central to the new econoblog (leaning toward FEDaerated).

03/06/2014