Free and fee

This post, as said last time , was going to look at doers and speculators (next post), but let's delay that to look at the subject of free or not. As with all subjects related to t-issues, there is a lot that can be said.

However, we ought to look at how close free is to fee (both are old english), namely one letter. But, let's just limit things to that observation, for now.

Basically, we have those who claim that 'free' is what we're after in several regards, such as market, trade, and what have you. Well, many say that thing that we're looking for with 'free' is an illusion that needs to be tempered and to be seen as the ideal that it is.

But, wait, one can use doers (and not) in this context. In actuality, doers always use energy and resources, even though it may be that many doers seem to make things appear to be effortless. Actually, that magical touch is one characteristic of excellence. Yet, no amount of easy accomplishment happens without some expenditure.

And, fee is only being used facetiously, as fees, hidden or otherwise, are always there. We all know, though (and learn), to watch that those 'greased slides' referred to in another post don't move monies from our pockets; that is, who wants to be included among the hapless? What is the adage: once burned, twice shy?

Another type of basis for these things could easily bring in better means to look at what happens in economical terms; as an example, perhaps energy processing, as a metaphor, would be stronger than has been allowed.

So, we'll need to look further at doers, as promised; too, a better characterization of non-doer (oh, perhaps free may apply here, as in something for nothing) might be in order.

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.

05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.

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

12/18/2008 -- Fairy dusting continues with made-off results. But, we can construct with robust methods, including leveraging.

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!!!!

Modified: 03/25/2013

Economic groundwork

In order to establish where things may have gone awry and why it will be necessary to look at what has gone on and from when. That is, there have been claims here of a gaming-centric ontology going bad; well, let's see what that might mean.

So, at the bottom, let's suppose that we can look at two classes of people, doers and speculators (next post). Now, the doers are those who keep the world going with their efforts; for many of these, life is a drudge with very little payback; for others who are the real cream of life (by aptitude, attitude and application), their talents get used however without sufficient reward; we could characterize this useful set (the old adage of the ant works) for a long time and with a whole bunch of words (but let's not, yet).

Those other type abounds, too, yet, the world has continued despite their machinations (speaking of the old adage, we're talking the grasshopper). You know, financiers might fall within this realm. Back at some point, one thought of financing as being involved in production or transportation or something else real. But, guess what. Around 1973, the fact that the mathematics was understood (having been created by doers, mind you) and that there were sufficient advances in the computational led to what was done at the CBOE and to provide the means to enable financial gaming to a maximum extent.

What happened? Well, option processing, essentially. Options are only one of several types of derivatives. Yet, they are a good example to analyze their problems to attempt to lay out a better framework for financial economics that would somehow inhibit forthiness and other problems.

Too, a proper viewpoint might help balance that mindset that glorifies riches (gosh, even a premier Ivy League school which started for the glorification of God [early motto: For Christ and the Church] is a player and raker) and allows the pockets of the hapless to be picked with impunity.

The exercising of an 'option' is a type of leverage; we will need to enumerate types of leverage, such as silly game 1, silly game 2, etc.

The whole notion is that economics (financial and otherwise) can get divorced from reality. Fortunately, engineering does not have this problem so much. But, when we apply engineering to finance, watch out! As Buckley, stop and think. How do we get back some realness for several reasons (such as, allowing the boomers to have a reasonable retirement)?

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.

05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.

12/18/2008 -- Things were going along so fast (the meltdown, made-off, ...) that the basic message got lost. We'll start again with a new look at leveraging.

09/14/2008 -- Minsky's hierarchy is very much apropos, here, among other things. Probably, anything beyond hedging (which is respectful, if done right) and part of speculation (perhaps, halfway along some spectrum that could very well be defined) would be consider suspect and definitely ponzi-like.

Alan's and Ben's (you guys need to rethink your position) position that we cannot see crap when it is happening (oh no, says Alan, we can only clean up after the fact) is very much indicative of how blind is their sight. The proper tools are there, folks.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Money, money, money

Yes, we can thank ABBA for the title; as well, don't you think that money by any other name is just as troublesome?

As we start to look at money, what it does to people, how it leads to silliness, and all sort of other things, we ought to see that there has been a lot of discussion from many angles on this subject.

That finance takes its lead from macroeconomics which takes its lead from mathematics will be at the fore. Perhaps, it's time to re-look at the whole mess. The trouble is that the world cannot stop while we try to understand and re-adjust.

So, we know that the Monday to Friday games have already started for this week; sympathies to those who will lose; a message to those who will win that little and big 't' issues remain to be considered.

• - Von Mises did a good job looking at the types and functions of money. What was referred to before as the role of money will need some attention.
  
• - Money is the basis of the price system, but there have been many other types of models proposed which can be classified as heterodox (there is still an issue of the computational support requirement). What was referred to before as intrinsic value needs attention as well.
  
• - In this discussion, we'll be bringing in some t-issues; that wealth is not measured well in the price system will be one topic.
  
• - Given that we have paper and coins and more, perhaps there is some basis that could be applied other than any used so far. What was referred to before as the gab standard is apropos and will be looked at further.

Finally, we'll be getting into how 'being' relates to what we know of as money.

Remarks:

03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.

02/24/2011 -- Gravy trains, et al.

09/08/2009 -- Heterodox covers several things, but here the suggestion leans towards the energy-based approach to money and value.

08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.

01/26/2009 -- We got way-laid, too many things unfolding that the attention was riveted.

Modified: 03/15/2011

Money and Being

We're going to go back and look at money, from a foundational sense. That is, money plays roles far beyond what the modern abstraction-ist view can allow in their model. The roles cover a gamut, including a major one at the core of things.

And, the modern view fails due to several things, such as bad use of mathematics, for one thing. What we see as a result is a tipsy affair where money (in one its aspects, namely the wealth accumulation variety) rolls into fewer and fewer pockets, that loom in tremendous size. On the other side, the hapless set, which is of larger cardinality than it ought to be, finds its pockets being picked regularly, in many cases via questionable practices.

So, rather than just rant and spout off, let's start the long process toward a new view that may help clarify some issues. Like what? Well, why 'moral hazard-ness' is discernible even if no-one has the guts to state it. And, we can have a better way for all folk, not just the favored few.

Remarks:

04/04/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos. Need to look at some background.

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

08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.

Modified: 04/04/2011

Gaming example

One example of the types of financial gaming that have evolved with the relaxation of rules is the naked short. Supposedly, this type of maneuver was illegal except for a few favored types. Earlier, the SEC put some restrictions to protect Mac and Mae; they were extended somewhat; some wonder why these restrictions don't apply more generally.

So, we'll have to take a look at why 'shorts' are even allowed in the first place; then, let's ponder why any would be allowed to be as 'naked' as the jaybird.

Some claim that this has been a technique used by some hedge funds which are notably opaque in their desire to protect their playing field while the tricks are being played. The subject of the hedge fund is quite timely and can bear a lot of scrutiny. Of course, all the information used will be that which is already in the public domain. It's just that there is a grating relationship between truth engineering and those positions that the hedge fund represents; note that the grating isn't unpleasant as we learn from such things.

But, there are more techniques than the short involved here. Risk management will be another major topic to pursue; that it applies, as well, to the project management side of things is noteworthy.

Earlier, that Minsky's model can be used in both domains (finance and engineering - note the medical metaphor) was touched upon briefly.

MIscellany

As alluded to in another post, blogs are a lot of work. Of course, one could just rant in a stream-of-consciousness mode. Would that be interesting?

You see, there are all the methods available for organizing, linking, and such. Besides, the medium seems to be a fair publishing scheme.

So, some work will be done here shortly to start the second year positively.

- register with a spider (Technorati Profile)
- link to some related blogs (Calculated Risk)
- find examples (another) of the gaming gone bad
- start to look at what money is and why we need it
- ...

Modified: 07/31/2008

Process and Protocol

Lately, the posts have dealt with a couple of types (engineering and financial), but there was some discussion earlier of the medical types.

Much of the success to date, assuming that what we call by 'success' really is such (bunches of discussion of wholistic (intended) issues need examination [such as, one pocket being lined to the max while oodles of others starve cannot be called success except facetiously]; too, environmental degradation needs to be brought into equations that are going to spout about success), deals with finding best practices. It's the notion that process rules.

One consequence of that is that people are made into commodities (even securitized, thereby degraded). Well, from some warped views, people are only pawns anyway, so what's the issue?

Related to process will be the protocol dealing both with the formation and execution of rules and with interchange with the environment (i/o, if you would).

So, process rules in this day. The individual is shorted, except for the few who use the modern situations, opportunistically, to line their pockets to the max.

We see that now even in the medical realm, a process has taken hold.

Yet, let's divert a minute and use a baseball metaphor briefly. What chances are there that some process can take any individual, put them at the plate, let them run the protocol, and then give us someone like the Babe? Fairly close to zilch, wouldn't you say?

So, the basic question is: what predominates, the protocol or the person? Before you answer, please note that the disparities that we see economically are partly do to how this question is answered. Too, some types of deviations caused by the failures of protocol are ignored, that is, are considered non-value (oh, please, let's talk value) added.

Thankfully for many, we see that the person side is important. I wouldn't want even the best nurse practitioner following some protocol and doing surgery. Not on me, unless it's minor, and I can both observe and participate (think of those who have had the luxury of doing their own appendectomy).

Lean, if there is a failing to this (there are more, that are political and social), is protocol-oriented. That the concepts from this thing are applied (mis-applied) ought to give us some pause. The problem is that the current cultural framework hasn't allowed the proper discussion. Well, time will afford the opportunity.

Remarks:

09/04/2009 -- Markets work, since they handle undecidable issues bottom up. That approach will always outperform the top down, along almost all axes. Too, there are people who worry about how we can help the human/labor/consumer found the economy fairly.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

Modified: 08/24/2011