We're only 10 months into blogging, but it might be a good time to review the posts and to form some cohesive viewpoint.
One of the things to look at would be Cyberethics which was mentioned in Mission and Methods. Too, a re-look at motivations will be in order.
Remarks:
05/08/08
As indicated by the labels, there have been several themes that have developed through the posts. The initial motivation was an attempt to show the potential problems that can arise with advancing computation especially as it is increasingly associated with communications.
That is, it's one thing to know when an algorithm is to be trusted. It's another problem entirely to know what to trust on the web which is not a naive wish; think business-to-business practices that require known parameters to prevent errors whether accidental or fraudulent.
There is no doubt that we're seeing civilizational evolution, however that one which is of the 'cloud' (not necessarily bad, yet rife with issues of undecidability) has leap-frogged forward into an essential role. This is our focus.
Modified: 05/08/2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
More on balance
The below is not a criticism of Tolle or Oprah; rather, it's an attempt to get to the next step.
During the 4/21/08 webcast that Oprah is doing with Tolle, a young fellow in LA brought up some questions that had a critical thinking flavor. In doing so, he demonstrated one benefit that the western heritage has brought to the table and has used to drive progress.
In the same webcast, Oprah mentioned left-right brain issues which will be discussed in a follow-on Monday right after the end of the Tolle series. This may be another way to look at this thing where we see the left being more analytic versus the wholeness flavor of the right.
Many have scoffed at the left-right idea, just as the whole idea of spirituality grates on several viewpoints. It would be interesting to see what insights a scientist might obtain from Tolle's approach. More on that below.
Others might couch these issues as east versus west (one could say holistic vis-a-vis reductionistic) or as spirituality versus materiality.
As an aside, technically, the webcast method is right on as it allows interaction at the time, plus review after the fact. Let's hope that Oprah continues these. They could grow to help found a better way of thinking.
So, what is the issue here? Tolle's message has resonated (AHA! moments) with a whole lot of folk all over the place. We have to ask why this is so.
That humans ought to use their mind and not escape from it (which is what Tolle seems to desire) is one concern to bring up. No amount of being present is going to solve a problem or to resolve a mathematical proof. It may help the intuitive grasp of the problem or the theorem; yet, we know from advanced mathematics that one does not necessary understand, one just gets used to it (von Neumann).
Which, of course, brings up how being present might help in mathematics and science, in that order because of the quasi-empirical issues related to modern views as they evolve through science.
So, what I see Nick asking is that no amount of being present is going to help a young person know anything. Okay, to use the parlance of the 60s, it'll help one groove; but, that's not sufficient (though, one may argue that what Tolle and Oprah are offering is necessary - hence the appeal).
I would rephrase Nick's question thusly: When Tolle drops role (but takes function as necessary) and gets us out of mind (into Being), how do we collect the necessary framework to succeed in any advanced system of knowledge that requires that we play roles and use extreme mental efforts?
Now, for Oprah, she ought to ask Dr Oz's opinion on this. Why? Neither Oprah or Tolle have the technical attainments (if that needs further clarification, I'll be happy to explain though this blog and 7-oops-7 have dealt with the issues) to know what some of the questions mean. There is an interest on the part of Oprah to hear from the under-30 crowd which ought to keeps these issues on the forefront.
For Tolle, I would challenge him to offer to work with a staunch materialist who has adopted the atheistic ontology and see what benefits could be drawn from the exercises.
There is another dimensional aspect, too. I half expect Tolle at some point to talk along the lines of Zukav who was earlier on Oprah. Why? It's not due to passivity, yet an enlightened and present state can lead toward reception beyond our space/time limits; as well, that we have the left-brained language and LOGOS is a much deeper phenomenon that I think than Tolle allows for.
Then, the whole set of computational phenomena which is behind the webcast (and more) is based on us using the Present in a manner that has been non-intuitive (ever wonder why kids seem to intuit more than adults?) and perhaps erroneous. Think what a 'spiritual' overlay on the web would do in terms of constraining all the rush to the negative.
Oh, by the way, look at the purpose for this blog. It is namely to work with 'truth' issues and to get the human element more fully involved so that evolution can accelerate as it will.
During the 4/21/08 webcast that Oprah is doing with Tolle, a young fellow in LA brought up some questions that had a critical thinking flavor. In doing so, he demonstrated one benefit that the western heritage has brought to the table and has used to drive progress.
In the same webcast, Oprah mentioned left-right brain issues which will be discussed in a follow-on Monday right after the end of the Tolle series. This may be another way to look at this thing where we see the left being more analytic versus the wholeness flavor of the right.
Many have scoffed at the left-right idea, just as the whole idea of spirituality grates on several viewpoints. It would be interesting to see what insights a scientist might obtain from Tolle's approach. More on that below.
Others might couch these issues as east versus west (one could say holistic vis-a-vis reductionistic) or as spirituality versus materiality.
As an aside, technically, the webcast method is right on as it allows interaction at the time, plus review after the fact. Let's hope that Oprah continues these. They could grow to help found a better way of thinking.
So, what is the issue here? Tolle's message has resonated (AHA! moments) with a whole lot of folk all over the place. We have to ask why this is so.
That humans ought to use their mind and not escape from it (which is what Tolle seems to desire) is one concern to bring up. No amount of being present is going to solve a problem or to resolve a mathematical proof. It may help the intuitive grasp of the problem or the theorem; yet, we know from advanced mathematics that one does not necessary understand, one just gets used to it (von Neumann).
Which, of course, brings up how being present might help in mathematics and science, in that order because of the quasi-empirical issues related to modern views as they evolve through science.
So, what I see Nick asking is that no amount of being present is going to help a young person know anything. Okay, to use the parlance of the 60s, it'll help one groove; but, that's not sufficient (though, one may argue that what Tolle and Oprah are offering is necessary - hence the appeal).
I would rephrase Nick's question thusly: When Tolle drops role (but takes function as necessary) and gets us out of mind (into Being), how do we collect the necessary framework to succeed in any advanced system of knowledge that requires that we play roles and use extreme mental efforts?
Now, for Oprah, she ought to ask Dr Oz's opinion on this. Why? Neither Oprah or Tolle have the technical attainments (if that needs further clarification, I'll be happy to explain though this blog and 7-oops-7 have dealt with the issues) to know what some of the questions mean. There is an interest on the part of Oprah to hear from the under-30 crowd which ought to keeps these issues on the forefront.
For Tolle, I would challenge him to offer to work with a staunch materialist who has adopted the atheistic ontology and see what benefits could be drawn from the exercises.
There is another dimensional aspect, too. I half expect Tolle at some point to talk along the lines of Zukav who was earlier on Oprah. Why? It's not due to passivity, yet an enlightened and present state can lead toward reception beyond our space/time limits; as well, that we have the left-brained language and LOGOS is a much deeper phenomenon that I think than Tolle allows for.
Then, the whole set of computational phenomena which is behind the webcast (and more) is based on us using the Present in a manner that has been non-intuitive (ever wonder why kids seem to intuit more than adults?) and perhaps erroneous. Think what a 'spiritual' overlay on the web would do in terms of constraining all the rush to the negative.
Oh, by the way, look at the purpose for this blog. It is namely to work with 'truth' issues and to get the human element more fully involved so that evolution can accelerate as it will.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Wall Street and more
Recently, a Fortune article by Shawn Tully asked "what's wrong with Wall Street - and how to fix it" and dealt with one current problem. Another type of problem deals with product development and delivery. These problems do have similar characteristics as has been discussed here.
Looking at Wall Street (and its cohorts) and the financial gaming involved, one has to ask a few questions. Tully suggests three major factors to resolve: ethics and gaming, leverage, and pay.
For the first factor we need to remember that Wall Street and gaming are almost a necessary partner; hopefully, oversight, such as that being suggested by Paulson now, will help. To support their gaming addiction, the Wall Streeters like to leverage big time; let's just say that banks are not allowed to approach what Wall Street takes for granted; again, Paulson needs to reign them in. Now, of course, the main motivation is to line pockets. And this is done short term. Why not make those guys/gals wait?
Why? In one case, a company made oodles (10s billions) the past few years; then, lost big (even more 10s billions) last year. However, pay and bonuses took a bunch of the profits, which were not paid back when things tanked.
We can see similar things with product development with some adjustments. Naturally, we hope that ethics apply to announcement, yet earned-value assessments are very hard to do. Besides, doing things lead to oops, by necessity. So, adjusting and reporting ought to be a normal part of things, not just a game of hide-and-seek. Too, Wall Street might like leverage, but product people like to outsource.
You see, leverage allows grand earnings on the up side; on the downside, it eats the cake and more. The same holds for farming out; you hope that you get magic and rewards. It's not a given, as Boeing has learned of late.
Finally, on the pay, one reason to outsource is to cut cost; that is, one can hope that the supplier can work their magic despite limits. Swamping suppliers with your own experts must be costly; where's the saving?
One can see how finance and marketing might lead to gaming; engineering a plane or any other type of crucial product as a game? Not!
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
Looking at Wall Street (and its cohorts) and the financial gaming involved, one has to ask a few questions. Tully suggests three major factors to resolve: ethics and gaming, leverage, and pay.
For the first factor we need to remember that Wall Street and gaming are almost a necessary partner; hopefully, oversight, such as that being suggested by Paulson now, will help. To support their gaming addiction, the Wall Streeters like to leverage big time; let's just say that banks are not allowed to approach what Wall Street takes for granted; again, Paulson needs to reign them in. Now, of course, the main motivation is to line pockets. And this is done short term. Why not make those guys/gals wait?
Why? In one case, a company made oodles (10s billions) the past few years; then, lost big (even more 10s billions) last year. However, pay and bonuses took a bunch of the profits, which were not paid back when things tanked.
We can see similar things with product development with some adjustments. Naturally, we hope that ethics apply to announcement, yet earned-value assessments are very hard to do. Besides, doing things lead to oops, by necessity. So, adjusting and reporting ought to be a normal part of things, not just a game of hide-and-seek. Too, Wall Street might like leverage, but product people like to outsource.
You see, leverage allows grand earnings on the up side; on the downside, it eats the cake and more. The same holds for farming out; you hope that you get magic and rewards. It's not a given, as Boeing has learned of late.
Finally, on the pay, one reason to outsource is to cut cost; that is, one can hope that the supplier can work their magic despite limits. Swamping suppliers with your own experts must be costly; where's the saving?
One can see how finance and marketing might lead to gaming; engineering a plane or any other type of crucial product as a game? Not!
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.
11/26/2008 -- The mess grew and grew, fairy dusting indeed.
10/26/2008 --
That the gaming is insane goes without mention, except many expect otherwise (old Marx had it somewhat right, fictitious capital). So, not only is there the Minsky issue, we have abuse of mathematics. Very interesting, indeed.
08/01/2008 --
It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 11/04/2010
11/26/2008 -- The mess grew and grew, fairy dusting indeed.
10/26/2008 --
That the gaming is insane goes without mention, except many expect otherwise (old Marx had it somewhat right, fictitious capital). So, not only is there the Minsky issue, we have abuse of mathematics. Very interesting, indeed.
08/01/2008 --
It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 11/04/2010
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
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Leverage and truth
Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.
--
As said before, some of the financial methods lead to fiction, and leveraging is one of these. Let's look at the problem.
According to the Modigliani-Miller theorem, capital structure is immaterial given certain conditions, such as the presence of an efficient market and absence of information asymmetry. There are other factors but notice how the two stated conditions are extremely abstract and wishful. In terms of the first, efficient market, computation is thought to be key. But, too, we need things like Sarbanes-Oxley for the second.
So, what is the point? Well, a lot of the recent problems came from the use of leverage. It used to be that there was caution about margin trading. Using Bill Buckley's concept, 'Stop', that is, don't borrow to speculate. And, the issues have not all been resolved; many are concerned about amount of margin trading that is extant in the current market.
The point is not to argue against modern trading schemes, such as the futures market, much of this goes back to something real; rather, some realism needs to be imposed. The arguments would probably follow closely those related to monetary standard (for example, gold) that is other than the current illusory one (the Fed can print at will).
Taking one recent example, the Fed's low rate allowed cheap short-term borrowing. Many borrowed to create long-term instruments which were inflated via 'magic' from their native junk state.
Well, some fundamental change is required. Supposing someone's hot idea needs funding with cheap money (will that become a rare commodity?). The original source of the funds ought to share in the take, to boot. What about risk? Well, in some cases, the original loaner lost when risk, that was supposedly filtered out, came down the line.
Reinsurance (ah, yes, AIG comes to mind; we had all the risks handled, didn't we guys? 10/26/2008) is supposed to help with some of this. But, how often of late have we seen people puzzled that the model broke down under severe stress such that what was supposedly good showed its junk-ness.
The discussion will continue.
Remarks:
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.
--
As said before, some of the financial methods lead to fiction, and leveraging is one of these. Let's look at the problem.
According to the Modigliani-Miller theorem, capital structure is immaterial given certain conditions, such as the presence of an efficient market and absence of information asymmetry. There are other factors but notice how the two stated conditions are extremely abstract and wishful. In terms of the first, efficient market, computation is thought to be key. But, too, we need things like Sarbanes-Oxley for the second.
So, what is the point? Well, a lot of the recent problems came from the use of leverage. It used to be that there was caution about margin trading. Using Bill Buckley's concept, 'Stop', that is, don't borrow to speculate. And, the issues have not all been resolved; many are concerned about amount of margin trading that is extant in the current market.
The point is not to argue against modern trading schemes, such as the futures market, much of this goes back to something real; rather, some realism needs to be imposed. The arguments would probably follow closely those related to monetary standard (for example, gold) that is other than the current illusory one (the Fed can print at will).
Taking one recent example, the Fed's low rate allowed cheap short-term borrowing. Many borrowed to create long-term instruments which were inflated via 'magic' from their native junk state.
Well, some fundamental change is required. Supposing someone's hot idea needs funding with cheap money (will that become a rare commodity?). The original source of the funds ought to share in the take, to boot. What about risk? Well, in some cases, the original loaner lost when risk, that was supposedly filtered out, came down the line.
Reinsurance (ah, yes, AIG comes to mind; we had all the risks handled, didn't we guys? 10/26/2008) is supposed to help with some of this. But, how often of late have we seen people puzzled that the model broke down under severe stress such that what was supposedly good showed its junk-ness.
The discussion will continue.
Remarks:
01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.
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.
10/06/2009 -- Near zero applies to this discussion.
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.
03/01/2009 -- Sufficient time has elapsed to allow things to unfold in ways that are of interest to our analysis.
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.
03/31/08 -- This post took little steps in looking at problems related to leveraging, somewhat feeling the way. However, the concepts of leveraging and de-leveraging are found used more often now in books and articles that look at current financial problems.
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.
03/01/2009 -- Sufficient time has elapsed to allow things to unfold in ways that are of interest to our analysis.
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.
03/31/08 -- This post took little steps in looking at problems related to leveraging, somewhat feeling the way. However, the concepts of leveraging and de-leveraging are found used more often now in books and articles that look at current financial problems.
Modified: 01/05/2015
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wealth and truth
Retirement issues are getting more press with the aging boomers coming to the related milestones. In many cases, the articles are of practical use as a growing set of people will need to manage their affairs in the fall of their lives. Generally, retirement has not been given much attention; why else would there have been the raids on savings and funds that we've seen which essentially depleted hope for many?
And, financial gaming is finally getting some attention, especially in its impact on those approaching retirement.
Sometimes, the articles relate to a very small set. Today, Barron's article "How much of a nest egg do you need to join the true elite?" asked the question of what is needed to be rich (the general agreement is around the $25 million mark) and looked at three groups who can be considered rich ($25M+, $50M+, and $500M+). Naturally, the cardinality of these sets, presumably of the US population, is comparatively small (129K, 49K, and 1.4K, respectively).
One could think about types of studies that such facts might lead to, such as asking how 'elite' in this sense compares to other types of eliteness or looking at what particular game provided the spigot or similar analysis. Questions arise about what emaciated economic carcasses line the playground after having fed into the wealth stream.
So, value and related concepts will continue to be of importance to discussions about truth.
Remarks:
11/12/2008 --
Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!
07/31/2008 --
It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 11/12/2008
And, financial gaming is finally getting some attention, especially in its impact on those approaching retirement.
Sometimes, the articles relate to a very small set. Today, Barron's article "How much of a nest egg do you need to join the true elite?" asked the question of what is needed to be rich (the general agreement is around the $25 million mark) and looked at three groups who can be considered rich ($25M+, $50M+, and $500M+). Naturally, the cardinality of these sets, presumably of the US population, is comparatively small (129K, 49K, and 1.4K, respectively).
One could think about types of studies that such facts might lead to, such as asking how 'elite' in this sense compares to other types of eliteness or looking at what particular game provided the spigot or similar analysis. Questions arise about what emaciated economic carcasses line the playground after having fed into the wealth stream.
So, value and related concepts will continue to be of importance to discussions about truth.
Remarks:
11/12/2008 --
Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!
07/31/2008 --
It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 11/12/2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Truth, fiction, and finance II
The lack of activity on this blog resulted from downtime to catch up with the world's craziness, especially as it deals with those aspects for which we would like to see a stronger 'truth' (finance, for instance).
Well, the Fed is bailing out a failure with our money, again. The other day, one financial writer mentioned all the new instruments that have come about, creatively, the past few years. Well, let's hope that our choking on these help us learn some lesson.
The trouble is that we don't seem to, as a group. Those who get burned may learn something; for the most part, some idiot is always waiting in the wing to try a new trick. It has gotten worse, of late, due to the computer's availability to leverage and multiply gains. But, there is a risk involved which we need to understand better.
For those who fail in the financial world, if they are large enough, they don't have to accept the consequences of their risky behavior, as we get to bail them out of their stupidity.
As one looks at what is seen as progress, one can get baffled. Of course, those who create these new instruments, and line their pockets thereby, enjoy the game. In many cases, value is created out of nothingness by acclaimed wizards. Of course, this is age-old, it's just that the computer, and the globalization fostered by the computer, spread the hurt.
And, there is usually no payback of outrageous bonuses.
Something is awry. We will slowly be arguing for, and looking to build, a stronger foundation through truth engineering.
Remarks:
Well, the Fed is bailing out a failure with our money, again. The other day, one financial writer mentioned all the new instruments that have come about, creatively, the past few years. Well, let's hope that our choking on these help us learn some lesson.
The trouble is that we don't seem to, as a group. Those who get burned may learn something; for the most part, some idiot is always waiting in the wing to try a new trick. It has gotten worse, of late, due to the computer's availability to leverage and multiply gains. But, there is a risk involved which we need to understand better.
For those who fail in the financial world, if they are large enough, they don't have to accept the consequences of their risky behavior, as we get to bail them out of their stupidity.
As one looks at what is seen as progress, one can get baffled. Of course, those who create these new instruments, and line their pockets thereby, enjoy the game. In many cases, value is created out of nothingness by acclaimed wizards. Of course, this is age-old, it's just that the computer, and the globalization fostered by the computer, spread the hurt.
And, there is usually no payback of outrageous bonuses.
Something is awry. We will slowly be arguing for, and looking to build, a stronger foundation through truth engineering.
Remarks:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)