Merton mentioned in his MIT talk that a soveriegn wealth fund (USSWF) for the US might work as the arbiter of the last resort. But, it, too, could provide some framework that is outside the 'juvenile deliquent' view of business (yes, it's current state in evolution is geared toward the short term and to the glorification of the poster boys and rogues at the top - ah, yes, the supposedly best-and-brightest needing tons of fat [via bonuses, etc.] while the populace is not much more than skin draped over bone).
A world driven by business, with no thought to its employees (this will be focus of People Matters) except that they are resources to be used and discarded, is hell, as we've seen. But, a dictatorship is no piece of cake either. However, we're talking the US, which supposedly exemplifies the God-given major role in extending freedom, in all its aspects.
Where is our pie?
Merton talked about the USSWF as something that could hold assets in the long term, providing relief for asset holders in terms of keeping them from the wolves and sharks.
Oh yes, speaking of the latter, why the hell is it that we allow sharks anyway in the business sense? Let's take that further, as it's been said here been said here before: any who gets out of the markets (yes, as defined by Wall Street and Chicago and ...) more than a certain amount (yes, we can define this, folks) is, by necessity, taking it from others, and probably doing more damage to the many than the collective benefit the fat cat is accruing.
Gosh, what type of parent would allow wolves and sharks amongst their progeny? What does that mean? The common economic weal is not unanalogous the family situation just like we all share, and abuse, the same planet.
Remarks:
07/17/2009 -- China's bucket is 2+ trillion. Ours, over here - the analogous thingee - is a growing deficit. You have to hand it to the Marxists who beat us at our own game of casino capitalism.
Modified: 07/11/2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
People matters, again
Some posts have been more hyperbole than needed. But, the past few months have been unparalleled in the demonstration of the affects of stupidity (by the supposedly best-and-brightest) on the rest of us.
Well, it's time to get serious with a re-look at subjects covered to date. Let's start with a redo of People matters (from March 2008).
People may have abstractions imposed on them by the smarties. Hey, that's the way that the world has worked. We may have to succumb to these abstractions (any bias can be explained in this manner, call it tribal mind, if you would - being mathematically based does not make this type of thing any better). But, freedom means having the ability (and choice) to go outside of these impositions.
An example of sophisticated mis-use of us, and our resources, is the poster boys ( and their smarties) screwing us over. It's encouraging to see all the analysis being published looking at causes and culprits.
Some of this is looking at fiduciary duty and its absence from the MBA's mindset (WSJ 04/24/09). Others are looking at reforms that might make sense (WSJ 04/23/09). We also need to look at how capital structures might matter (WSJ 04/21/09).
That last is of note in this context since some views think that there are stronger equivalences (think Modigliani) than is the case except for very abstracted cases (see Remarks about Merton's talk at MIT).
And, this grappling with the abstracted overlay is the same problem people face with issues related to finance as it screws up their lives. And, that is a broad statement, including employer relations with their resources, the money peoples' efforts at extracting dollars out of our pockets, and much more.
There needs to be some position set that allows for the most probable scenarios for those who expect to retire with some dignity. Chasing after the market, and gaming, is not it.
We'll continue on the theme.
Remarks:
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
04/27/2009 -- 'People matters' will mostly deal with the issues that cause fat cat rogues to carry out more than their share (by millions of multiples) while the populace is mostly skin draped over bone. For instance, let's talk about a technology company (of any type) who wraps the employees in very tight constraints as to intellectual property. And then, when they're no longer of use, throws them out like old rags. And, in some cases, even picks their pockets to remove the little accumulations of wealth that they may have acquired over the long years of devoted effort for the firm. Ah, there are many, many of these.
Of course, one of note is a split out from a larger company, where the favored few collected millions of bucks, the east coast fat cats ate their large portion, and much more. In that situation, oodles of workers lost their careers, their pensions, their health care, and more. Ah, and the principle guy is a Christian (oh, we're not to judge?).
Modified: 06/20/2009
Well, it's time to get serious with a re-look at subjects covered to date. Let's start with a redo of People matters (from March 2008).
People may have abstractions imposed on them by the smarties. Hey, that's the way that the world has worked. We may have to succumb to these abstractions (any bias can be explained in this manner, call it tribal mind, if you would - being mathematically based does not make this type of thing any better). But, freedom means having the ability (and choice) to go outside of these impositions.
An example of sophisticated mis-use of us, and our resources, is the poster boys ( and their smarties) screwing us over. It's encouraging to see all the analysis being published looking at causes and culprits.
Some of this is looking at fiduciary duty and its absence from the MBA's mindset (WSJ 04/24/09). Others are looking at reforms that might make sense (WSJ 04/23/09). We also need to look at how capital structures might matter (WSJ 04/21/09).
That last is of note in this context since some views think that there are stronger equivalences (think Modigliani) than is the case except for very abstracted cases (see Remarks about Merton's talk at MIT).
And, this grappling with the abstracted overlay is the same problem people face with issues related to finance as it screws up their lives. And, that is a broad statement, including employer relations with their resources, the money peoples' efforts at extracting dollars out of our pockets, and much more.
There needs to be some position set that allows for the most probable scenarios for those who expect to retire with some dignity. Chasing after the market, and gaming, is not it.
We'll continue on the theme.
Remarks:
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
04/27/2009 -- 'People matters' will mostly deal with the issues that cause fat cat rogues to carry out more than their share (by millions of multiples) while the populace is mostly skin draped over bone. For instance, let's talk about a technology company (of any type) who wraps the employees in very tight constraints as to intellectual property. And then, when they're no longer of use, throws them out like old rags. And, in some cases, even picks their pockets to remove the little accumulations of wealth that they may have acquired over the long years of devoted effort for the firm. Ah, there are many, many of these.
Of course, one of note is a split out from a larger company, where the favored few collected millions of bucks, the east coast fat cats ate their large portion, and much more. In that situation, oodles of workers lost their careers, their pensions, their health care, and more. Ah, and the principle guy is a Christian (oh, we're not to judge?).
Modified: 06/20/2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Minsky anew
Everyone ought to know that a lot of what is claimed to be the value that is represented in the market (NYSE, et al) is a hyped bit of nothing for all but a few. Why? Those who get big pockets happen to sell at the top which syphons money to their pocket from the pockets of scores of others. There is no way that all who own stock can get the topmost value. Why? As selling progresses, the price (basis for value) drops.
It's a simple mathematical principle. Yet, oodles of effort and resource go into keeping the game going. Why? Well, so that the few can continue their bonuses and spendthrift ways at the expense of the most.
Need it be that way? No. Can this gaming be controlled? Yes, we can do this despite Alan's grand claim (supposedly now dropped by the grand master) that we can only clean up the poopy diapers and not squelch those who like the bubbles. It will require will and better thinking.
Any who is only after a fatter pocket is not the best and brightest, folks. That is truism one which ought to be learned by poster boys.
Minsky is important to the control effort. We'll look at that further.
The powers that be, of the past few years, wanted us to believe that value was truth and vice versa. Large companies touted this to their employees. Of course, shareholders are important. Answer this? In this downturn, how many shareholders of umpteen institutions lost a whole bunch? Lots, right? Even Fannie and Freddie investors were slaughtered.
So, truth is more than value; the markets are going to require truth engineering. The task is to demonstrate how.
Remarks:
10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.
09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
04/21/2009 -- The above is partly hyperbole that will be contained henceforth. A clarification is necessary in that equity is capital from the view that would relate share ownership to the workings of the firm. This is pretty clear. What is problematic is the abstractionists' add-ons that lead to leverage and froth. They can argue risk management, but it looks more to be just gaming with the intent to foster casino capitalism. Using Minsky again, and numbering the levels, regularized capitalism would go to 2+ (hedge and a little speculative). After that, and especially in the third level, we get Ponzi by necessity.
Modified: 10/17/2011
It's a simple mathematical principle. Yet, oodles of effort and resource go into keeping the game going. Why? Well, so that the few can continue their bonuses and spendthrift ways at the expense of the most.
Need it be that way? No. Can this gaming be controlled? Yes, we can do this despite Alan's grand claim (supposedly now dropped by the grand master) that we can only clean up the poopy diapers and not squelch those who like the bubbles. It will require will and better thinking.
Any who is only after a fatter pocket is not the best and brightest, folks. That is truism one which ought to be learned by poster boys.
Minsky is important to the control effort. We'll look at that further.
The powers that be, of the past few years, wanted us to believe that value was truth and vice versa. Large companies touted this to their employees. Of course, shareholders are important. Answer this? In this downturn, how many shareholders of umpteen institutions lost a whole bunch? Lots, right? Even Fannie and Freddie investors were slaughtered.
So, truth is more than value; the markets are going to require truth engineering. The task is to demonstrate how.
Remarks:
10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.
09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
04/21/2009 -- The above is partly hyperbole that will be contained henceforth. A clarification is necessary in that equity is capital from the view that would relate share ownership to the workings of the firm. This is pretty clear. What is problematic is the abstractionists' add-ons that lead to leverage and froth. They can argue risk management, but it looks more to be just gaming with the intent to foster casino capitalism. Using Minsky again, and numbering the levels, regularized capitalism would go to 2+ (hedge and a little speculative). After that, and especially in the third level, we get Ponzi by necessity.
Modified: 10/17/2011
Monday, March 30, 2009
Near zero
Or is it near-zero?
This is a place-holder to fill in a hole (much like the earned-value post). It'll be filled in, through time.
For now, here is a brief summary in the finance context. It'll apply everywhere else, too. Now, consider a popular financial (see 2nd bullet) article of faith. That is, that we need to kiss up to those who display risky behaviors. Well, the mess is from these gals and guys who played in our sand (with our beans) as if there were no tomorrow. Sheesh.
Okay, to be technical, and using money, the truth is that noone gets more than a certain amount without extracting a larger multiple (especially, in terms of the relative effect) from the pockets of others. So, what is the proper share, that is sustainable and acceptable? Well, that is open to discussion, but it is definable and doable.
We have the current problems due to many factors, but the gab standard is right up there in the prime area (it's not alone, okay, nor is the set of factors necessarily minute).
Remarks:
06/08/2014 -- Does time tell? We need to look at near-zero's use in this case.
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, in order to know when a game is stupid (always, when others' monies are concerned).
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.
06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.
05/16/2009 -- It's interesting how fairy dusting allows bloated remuneration schemes.
04/27/2009 -- Near zero, especially when the full picture is considered, especially that related to the human impacts. Accounting is deficient; oh, wait, its motives relate more to book cooking (oh, tsk, that's not fair).
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list. Too, near-zero is true; that there is argument for any notion of not zero-sum is bogus. We'll get into that.
Modified: 06/08/2014
This is a place-holder to fill in a hole (much like the earned-value post). It'll be filled in, through time.
For now, here is a brief summary in the finance context. It'll apply everywhere else, too. Now, consider a popular financial (see 2nd bullet) article of faith. That is, that we need to kiss up to those who display risky behaviors. Well, the mess is from these gals and guys who played in our sand (with our beans) as if there were no tomorrow. Sheesh.
Okay, to be technical, and using money, the truth is that noone gets more than a certain amount without extracting a larger multiple (especially, in terms of the relative effect) from the pockets of others. So, what is the proper share, that is sustainable and acceptable? Well, that is open to discussion, but it is definable and doable.
We have the current problems due to many factors, but the gab standard is right up there in the prime area (it's not alone, okay, nor is the set of factors necessarily minute).
Remarks:
06/08/2014 -- Does time tell? We need to look at near-zero's use in this case.
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, in order to know when a game is stupid (always, when others' monies are concerned).
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.
06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.
05/16/2009 -- It's interesting how fairy dusting allows bloated remuneration schemes.
04/27/2009 -- Near zero, especially when the full picture is considered, especially that related to the human impacts. Accounting is deficient; oh, wait, its motives relate more to book cooking (oh, tsk, that's not fair).
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list. Too, near-zero is true; that there is argument for any notion of not zero-sum is bogus. We'll get into that.
Modified: 06/08/2014
Aspects to truth
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)