Notice the small 't' in the Title. The intent is to begin to focus again on various aspects, with occasional reminders about the big 'T' issues. As one would expect, the area of scope is large, though we'll have some main threads, to wit economics/engineering and finance, that will provide some coherence, it is hoped.
Two recent publications are of interest to the subject.
-- What we know or can know: Say history and those involved in this discipline. Leonard Pitts wrote about Dr. John Hope Franklin and his work in the context of who even knows, or knew, the guy . Dr. Franklin was a historian. The interest of the subject to this blog is that the present is largely made up from the past (will forgo mentioning related adages). In this piece, Mr. Pitts listed a few books that can help to provide a more complete historical perspective.
-- New ways of knowing: More benefits of science and technology. In the recent Parade, Dr. Ranit Mishori asks "Can Your Genes Make You Rich?" which is of interest to the topics related to the mess covered by this and the related blog. The viewpoint of the article seems to glorify risk which needs to be better understood (it does not need a pedestal, folks - remember, near-zero). Of course, neuroeconomics, itself, is very much worthy of our attention. But, at this point in time, its basis is as shaky as any other, and topics related to neuroeconomics are very much apropos for discussion here.
Remarks:
04/21/2009 -- From the 4/2/09 Economist.
04/03/2009 -- USA Today, this week, had a nice retrospective on Franklin.
Modified: 04/21/2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Silly and more
Several posts have mentioned the new day. To take those as indicative of the position of the blog would be erroneous. Nor do they imply, necessarily, the vote back in November.
Rather, it's a new reality that we'll be dealing with. And, the twists make it interesting.
Fortunately, the new day is sufficiently different from the past eight years, and from that started by Reagan, that we'll get plenty of new data. Will this help resolve the issues of the dismal science? No. We will learn a thing or two. Some high-flyers will come down a notch or two.
It will help us to remember that the games are silly, have been for some time, and would have continued to be such with McCain. Would Madoff have been uncovered or would he still be pilfering?
Trouble is that we have oodles of resources now that keep the game and its visibility up. To wit, CNBC, WSJ, and a bunch more. There are talking heads, in multi-packs, all through the day with all sorts of numbers, graphs, gaffs, and opinions.
The WSJ has almost been showing a split personality as they allow many sides to be argued. It all makes the head spin to keep up with the factions.
Do these add any value (in the real sense, folks) to the market's basic task or efficiency?
At least, gross accumulation is not seen as any epitome now, for awhile, at least. How to show that we're talking near-zero? Though, plenty have argued otherwise.
Remarks:
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Rather, it's a new reality that we'll be dealing with. And, the twists make it interesting.
Fortunately, the new day is sufficiently different from the past eight years, and from that started by Reagan, that we'll get plenty of new data. Will this help resolve the issues of the dismal science? No. We will learn a thing or two. Some high-flyers will come down a notch or two.
It will help us to remember that the games are silly, have been for some time, and would have continued to be such with McCain. Would Madoff have been uncovered or would he still be pilfering?
Trouble is that we have oodles of resources now that keep the game and its visibility up. To wit, CNBC, WSJ, and a bunch more. There are talking heads, in multi-packs, all through the day with all sorts of numbers, graphs, gaffs, and opinions.
The WSJ has almost been showing a split personality as they allow many sides to be argued. It all makes the head spin to keep up with the factions.
Do these add any value (in the real sense, folks) to the market's basic task or efficiency?
At least, gross accumulation is not seen as any epitome now, for awhile, at least. How to show that we're talking near-zero? Though, plenty have argued otherwise.
Remarks:
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Beans and Truth
Yes, 'beans' as in accounting. It's interesting in hearing an engineer's take on the discipline. Engineers do real stuff; bean counters deal with things that are less so. Oh? How is that latter true?
Well, consider that the mess is related to accounting and rules. Some claim that the big drop in equity value (across all markets) is exacerbated by the 'mark to market' rule's bad influence. They wish. Too, the cause for related issues, like cooking the books, lie directly in the laps of accounting.
We've seen crooks come out of the corner; not, that there aren't many yet uncovered, but the modern accounting practices allow this. How?
There was a recent CYA by a SEC guy in the WSJ about their audits of Madoff. It seems that when the audit trail led to rotten smells, all Madoff had to do to throw the hounds off was mention OTC (yes, that open pit of casino capitalism) and foreign markets. That Madoff could, allegedly, create fictitious trails (Marx must love this!) for so long speaks a bunch about accounting's ills.
Accounting, in its current vogue, started with hand techniques, ages ago. Perhaps, the new day might be a time to recommend that, just like money, accounting can be put on a framework that would be as sound as physics. How's this?
Computation, for one, would be essential. Then, voting schemes that mimic markets and other mechanisms (to be defined, but getting away from the gab standard for instance) are a start.
Remarks:
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
Modified: 05/25/2011
Well, consider that the mess is related to accounting and rules. Some claim that the big drop in equity value (across all markets) is exacerbated by the 'mark to market' rule's bad influence. They wish. Too, the cause for related issues, like cooking the books, lie directly in the laps of accounting.
We've seen crooks come out of the corner; not, that there aren't many yet uncovered, but the modern accounting practices allow this. How?
There was a recent CYA by a SEC guy in the WSJ about their audits of Madoff. It seems that when the audit trail led to rotten smells, all Madoff had to do to throw the hounds off was mention OTC (yes, that open pit of casino capitalism) and foreign markets. That Madoff could, allegedly, create fictitious trails (Marx must love this!) for so long speaks a bunch about accounting's ills.
Accounting, in its current vogue, started with hand techniques, ages ago. Perhaps, the new day might be a time to recommend that, just like money, accounting can be put on a framework that would be as sound as physics. How's this?
Computation, for one, would be essential. Then, voting schemes that mimic markets and other mechanisms (to be defined, but getting away from the gab standard for instance) are a start.
Remarks:
05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
Modified: 05/25/2011
Friday, February 27, 2009
Ultimate game
In the gaming that is finance, we have several viewpoints to ponder as we look at the decline of dreams. Who is to know where things are going? Ben, of the Fed, talks his game. Dr. Doom touts nationalization. William M. Isaac says no way (WSJ, "Bank Nationalization Isn't the Answer").
One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?
The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.
As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?
Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.
Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.
The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.
Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
Modified: 01/27/2010
One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?
The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.
As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?
Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.
Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.
The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.
Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
Modified: 01/27/2010
Friday, February 13, 2009
T Issue
Big 't' truth issues have not found much use in the western way of economics what with the gaming influence and push for greed. Not that greed isn't a human trait found everywhere. However, there might be some benefit from our looking at the Islamic take on economics and being cognizant of the associated worldview.
M Ledeen (WSJ Opinion, 2/9/09) talks about Iran's recent satellite launch in the context of the Mahdi's return which, for Christians, is analogous to Christ's return. Iran can be of central concern to our discussions here.
That Economics has a larger role will be consider here, even if it's from small 't' view. From time to time, we will bring in the larger scopes.
Remarks:
01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.
06/20/2009 -- The Economist reports on an attempt to build a "truly global Islamic bank."
04/29/2009 -- For more on the Mahdi and Ahmadinejad, see the New Yorker (Can Iran Change?).
Modified: 01/22/2013
M Ledeen (WSJ Opinion, 2/9/09) talks about Iran's recent satellite launch in the context of the Mahdi's return which, for Christians, is analogous to Christ's return. Iran can be of central concern to our discussions here.
That Economics has a larger role will be consider here, even if it's from small 't' view. From time to time, we will bring in the larger scopes.
Remarks:
01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.
06/20/2009 -- The Economist reports on an attempt to build a "truly global Islamic bank."
04/29/2009 -- For more on the Mahdi and Ahmadinejad, see the New Yorker (Can Iran Change?).
Modified: 01/22/2013
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Keynes and Hayek
The 02/04/09 WSJ had an oped ("Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek") about these two whose ideas are centrally used in the debates about economics. A couple of prime factors that are new are the mess and the climate change. The mess is causing we US taxpayers grief as folks like big Ben run off experimenting without any real theoretic basis (does it even exist, as phrased by the western mind?).
The current situation is open, what with the stimulus focus, hedge fund scrutiny, and much more. So, Obama tells the CEOs (money addictive people that they are) to restrain themselves. Oh yes, it's after the horse is out of the barn; they've already lined their pockets with taxpayer money.
One hopes that we can learn from cleaning up all this crap (brought on, mostly, by the best-and-brightest -- ah, yes, these who are divinely favored) and that the hapless obtain some relief.
This might be one area to expand definition and discussion of truth engines.
The current situation is open, what with the stimulus focus, hedge fund scrutiny, and much more. So, Obama tells the CEOs (money addictive people that they are) to restrain themselves. Oh yes, it's after the horse is out of the barn; they've already lined their pockets with taxpayer money.
One hopes that we can learn from cleaning up all this crap (brought on, mostly, by the best-and-brightest -- ah, yes, these who are divinely favored) and that the hapless obtain some relief.
This might be one area to expand definition and discussion of truth engines.
Remarks:
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.
Modified: 11/21/2010
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Truth engines
The banner reflects this concept now. That truth engineering is going to show its necessity is a given and a task. That engineering implies an 'engine' will be a central theme. The idea is to get beyond the anecdotal to an operational stance that has predictive power. That's a big undertaking, one might counter. Yes, but it's essential.
That finance is in a shambles will allow reasonable foundational discussions that can be both concrete and theoretic (say, untangling the opaque web hedge fund).
As mentioned, some truth engines are given via the natural world in which we live, and others are given via our magnificent selves (see people as a type, Remarks) as exhibited by our current evolutionary state. Within that framework, we have had enough experience over time to be fairly effective in surviving and progressing, though that we know that success is not a given. No, many things are beyond our direct control (and knowledge). And, one can argue about luck and fortune, as we have seen with the interminable discussions over the eons.
So, what is new? Well, mathematics, for one, as it is taught on a much larger scale now than ever. But, too, the computer (the term used generally to cover all aspects, see ACM, IEEE, and much more) has changed the scene. As Chaitin says, "Now everything has gone topsy-turvy. It's gone topsy-turvy, not because of any philosophical argument, not because of Gödel's results or Turing's results or my own incompleteness results. It's gone topsy-turvy for a very simple reason---the computer! ".
Some have exploited the situation, as we see with finance. But, plenty of other examples abound.
New disciplines have evolved, such as risk management.
Each generation deals with newer types and configurations of truth engines. However, there are threads that have been there, and growing, throughout time, and history, that we can use. In fact, we do not even have to go to big 'T' truth issues to consider these.
Are we talking more than situational logic here? Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that multi-logics are required; no, in that we all know that things are not new under the sun and in that iterative improvements through time and generations has been our forte (the meme and more).
That last aside was biologically motivated. That computationally-derived truth engines will (need to) have biological analogs, and spawn metaphors, will become more apparent through time.
This post is introductory; expect that coming posts will continue to expand upon this theme.
Remarks:
03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
That finance is in a shambles will allow reasonable foundational discussions that can be both concrete and theoretic (say, untangling the opaque web hedge fund).
As mentioned, some truth engines are given via the natural world in which we live, and others are given via our magnificent selves (see people as a type, Remarks) as exhibited by our current evolutionary state. Within that framework, we have had enough experience over time to be fairly effective in surviving and progressing, though that we know that success is not a given. No, many things are beyond our direct control (and knowledge). And, one can argue about luck and fortune, as we have seen with the interminable discussions over the eons.
So, what is new? Well, mathematics, for one, as it is taught on a much larger scale now than ever. But, too, the computer (the term used generally to cover all aspects, see ACM, IEEE, and much more) has changed the scene. As Chaitin says, "Now everything has gone topsy-turvy. It's gone topsy-turvy, not because of any philosophical argument, not because of Gödel's results or Turing's results or my own incompleteness results. It's gone topsy-turvy for a very simple reason---the computer! ".
Some have exploited the situation, as we see with finance. But, plenty of other examples abound.
New disciplines have evolved, such as risk management.
Each generation deals with newer types and configurations of truth engines. However, there are threads that have been there, and growing, throughout time, and history, that we can use. In fact, we do not even have to go to big 'T' truth issues to consider these.
Are we talking more than situational logic here? Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that multi-logics are required; no, in that we all know that things are not new under the sun and in that iterative improvements through time and generations has been our forte (the meme and more).
That last aside was biologically motivated. That computationally-derived truth engines will (need to) have biological analogs, and spawn metaphors, will become more apparent through time.
This post is introductory; expect that coming posts will continue to expand upon this theme.
Remarks:
03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
06/18/2009 -- We are collecting types of truth engines. People are a type.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
05/22/2009 -- Let's consider the legal types.
05/06/2009 -- Given the multi-disciplinary flavor of this study, a list of related work is always apropos. Risk management was mentioned. We can add handling uncertainty smartly. 'spooky science' (see WSJ weekly reflection) will play a role, too.
Modified: 03/23/2013
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
05/22/2009 -- Let's consider the legal types.
05/06/2009 -- Given the multi-disciplinary flavor of this study, a list of related work is always apropos. Risk management was mentioned. We can add handling uncertainty smartly. 'spooky science' (see WSJ weekly reflection) will play a role, too.
Modified: 03/23/2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)