The Beatles and Dylan

The Beatles? Search for the string anywhere now (Google, et al), and you'll see that many (all sorts) are reminiscing about where they were in 1964 when the guys first appeared on American TV (via Ed Sullivan). Some, including the WSJ, have gone so far as to rate (and recall) songs and LPs that were produced by the group over the less than decade of their time together.

Too, the WSJ told us why the fans screamed (I, for one, never knew why).

---

So, why are The Beatles being associated truth engineering? Good question. Let's look at that, in a brief manner.

---

Prior to Dylan's and the fab four's entry into the public's (albeit the younger set's) awareness, there were many things going on. Vietnam, and its issues, was mostly just coming about, say, around the time before 1964. But, civil rights and free speech were starting to become generally known.

The time, and its energies, ought to be (is usually) associated with the boomers, as they were finishing up high school about then (the first wave's leading edge, let's say). That is, the boomers were on the verge of the adulthood during a time of "dramatic social change."

And, except for their associates who were only a few years old, the boomers considered the rest (mostly over 30) were not to be trusted.

Trust? That is a crucial part of truth. In fact, where can trust be placed now-a-days?

---

The Beatles started innocently enough, though the female fans screamed. For instance, what is more "PG" than I want to hold your hand. Their sound was clean and crisp, somewhat like the Beach Boys had provided. Summer fun, if you would.

Yet, being Brit, the four guys had a whole new world to offer, beyond the self-indulgent scene found with the southern California hype. Actually, one could argue that the BBs were cleaned-up beats (surf bums, et al -- a healthy type of counterculture).

And, the Beatles got a lot of air time so that their songs became associated in ordinary events of people's lives. That is one way to measure their effect. Remember, we are talking long before the MP3 players and playlists. People didn't switch stations when the Beatles came on. Too, the guys kept the songs rolling out, almost hit after hit.

Why were they so popular? Well, we know that they were good musically. They had voices that were easy to listen to. And, they shared the lead in singing. So, their output was pleasant to the ear and soul; people could pick their favorite singer. Too, though, they did have a message: love, and relationships, was a frequent topic; life - work, help, Taxman, ... and, when I'm 64.

Too, they looked at many aspects of human life; say: I'm a loser; Fool on the hill; Nowhere man. There were many songs of this ilk.

But, a whole lot of their songs were cheerful, even bouncy. Rubber Soul, the album, has a bunch of tunes that can set the feet moving. The cheerful list is just too long. In fact, even the more somber tunes had an ending that wasn't morbid.

How many wore out their LPs through listening to the fab four?

---

Now by 1965, things were at a crux as you had the boomers off to, or already at, college and spreading their wings. Anyone recall those things related to in loco parentis? The boomers carried that out. One could point to many current situations that rose to prominence in the public's mind during the times of the boomers.

Getting back to the Beatles, when they were getting many into their movie, Help, and when Rubber Soul was getting air, a song came on the radio for which there was no precedence. For one thing, the singer was not much of one. Too, the song went on for a long time, longer than any had before. It played over 6 minutes. The public ate it up. Of course, we're talking Dylan's tune: Like a rolling stone. A message within a song became the norm.

Of course, to that time, Dylan's recordings were all related to something of note. But, his Rolling Stone tune got him the general attention of the boomers. His work had an influence on the Beatles. We have heard about some of this. But, Revolver was the turning point. Some of the later work pushed the boundaries more than others, as we did see some reflective works later: Let it be.

---

Then, The Beatles were no more. Much has been written about the breakup. The four continued with their musical work. But, the world was without their bright star.

Of course, the whole flower power movement had already been rolling itself up. The counterculture did not cease. In fact, the hippies have been emulated world-wide. Some U.S. States have, of late, legitimized herbaceous products that were so popular in the time of the fab four.

---

So, truth engineering? The main theme would be that music is a crucial part of truth. Actually, tone has all sorts of uses. What musical artists provide are tones that are associated in interesting ways using various means. When this is coupled with lyrics (language and truth is a very important subject), we have power.

Note classical music's (including opera's) continuing attraction each generation.

The Beatles dealt with the popular mind, in terms that were new, probably since they had a very large audience (boomers) and their talents kept their productivity up. But, just as the culture fractured, how could not the Beatles? Dylan was singular; and, he did adapt over the years (not that he knows how nor does anyone else - the fact of that ought to say something about truth and the difficulties in trying to establish such).

No doubt, there have been many studies about the phenomenon, called The Beatles, over the years. We have seen many artists come about who are about as popular (nameless, for now - popular meaning that they got a cohesive grab on the younger set - who are not as large the boomers).

Yet, the fab four's success was different due to the times. The breakup was over 40 years ago. How many boomers do not listen to their work, now? I am pre-boomer, myself, but I remember Ed's show. Too, I had their tunes playing via youtube as I was writing this post. Some have strong Proust-like memories associated with them.

Music and memory? They associate very well. Music and thought? I've often wondered as I see people going about shielded with their own playlist'd worldview (Try to get one of them to relate to something real? Generally, what you get is way less than 1/2 a person. It's not as bad as the text'd space draw, though.).

---

So, remember that I mentioned Dylan, too. We can use him and the fab four to do some analysis. I will have to look, first, to see if there has been earlier work done of the sort that I'm considering. Just as Bob, when they were interviewing him to see from whence his inspiration, could not put his finger on it (did not even think of it - must be nice to have such talent), I don't think that Paul or Ringo could tell us of their insight. Has anyone asked as they did with Bob?

Remarks:   Modified: 02/19/2014

02/19/2014 -- 

Analytics

As we said in an earlier post, Big Daddy Data, everyone is hot after analytics. These are framed computationally, you all know, bringing out little gremlins from the tracings that we leave of ourselves. Okay?

Much ado about nothing, to boot. The commercial analytics are the clearest way to perdition, people.

---

So, the other day, in a conversation, on a Sunday, so that gives me the right to be philosophical (actually, I don't need any permission, motivation, or whatever - it's always there), a conversant makes note that it's interesting how I can relate "analytics" (of course, IT milieu) to philosophy. Now, in the guy's favor, I was broaching upon the topic of truth engineering.

Say what? I thought. Then, I said, you know, philosophy was into analysis way before the latest craze which is the result of oodles of years of work by many people all culminating now with idiots misusing knowledge (say it isn't so - MBAs are the worst of the bunch).

---

Earlier, I wrote about algorithms in the context of apps (a big load of stuff to weed through and potentially a big source of errancy - in terms of opening one self up to manipulation). The term is used loosely now. Of course, if it's in the analytics framework, it does have a mathematical basis.

But, and it's a big butt, tell me analytic'ers, what say you about the quasi-empirical (to be discussed) issues? Well, that will be one focus henceforth. Firstly, bring up the topic in this discussion so that there is recognition of its reality. Then, look at the issues and at how they're important to our computational future.

Lord knows that the term was used continuously since the beginning here (44 of 200 posts) and in other blogs (FED-aerated - 25 of 211, 7oops7 - 38 of 248). Mind you, it was my oversight to not go into it further, just as I assumed too much about near-zero's recognition (still need to address that in depth). At least, these topics are sufficiently complicated to keep me busy for awhile.

Remarks:   Modified: 02/10/2014

01/16/2014 -- The recent Communications of the ACM had several stories on big data. Their claim is that the loads of data collected within the past five years or so is a sufficient set to make claims. Well, actually, the idea is to generate predictions, thereby getting a slap on the back from science. However, all sorts of things come to mind which I'll get into. First of all, that parallel universe of data that comes along with internet trafficking and just plain use tells us what? No matter its size, and the duration in which it is collected, the stuff, by no means, describes a person except for some small aspect of themselves. It does not subsume the being. And, even if someone is wrapped by the collection and analysis of this secondary data, it's not real. But, more on this. ... And, mathematics does come into play, misused (ah, the worldview of the MBAs gone mad).

01/16/2014 -- After starting the above example, complications started to lurk that we could ignore for awhile, but, at some point, these would have to be addressed. Say, after a few items were sold by the one who had them first (arbitrary boundary situation, here), those who bought would look at how they could, perhaps, make more than illusory money by selling at a higher price. The value determination then would become some type of functional problem bringing in difficulties that have been long the domain of the mathematicians (the ultimate abstraction'ists, somewhat, but, analytics would be involved). While looking at pedagogic material that would be of interest, I ran across this web site (Intuitive guide to exponential functions). I have not read this yet, but the fact of the amount of comments that have ensued, plus those who commented, got attention. Too, John von Neumann said that we don't understand mathematics (higher-order types); no, we get used to it. However, there must be an intuitive aspect if we are going to appeal to truth and people's place in its determination. So, that usage resonated with my thinking. Too, though, we have a class'ist split that is happening under our noses. In one sense, it relates to numeracy. But, the more insidious part deals with overlays (computationally enhanced) becoming more real than the reality itself (we'll get into that ad infinitum).

02/10/2014 -- Put a comment at this post: brane-space.blogspot.com of-g-o-d-and-god-concepts.html We said that we would raise meta issues (as in, big T), at some point. It's been two years since we had the first of a sibling collection depart.

Truth engineering, revisited

Note (11/18/2022) -- FB, now Meta, is following predictable tracks. We'll be observing and commenting more closely, from outside the monolith, of course. See Remarks, below. Also, the posts that get references in this work will be cleaned up (normal little typos, stale pointers, etc.). 

---

For the past ten years, or so, I've been struggling with how to describe what I see as the need for "truth engineering" as well as look at the operational aspects. I realized, today, that two recent events add some clarification. Firstly, I've been complaining about what Facebook (saying it's a metaphor, but we'll get into what that means) represents, mostly from the position that it grates on years of experiences and that it is an example of power being in the pusher (God grows His own, people) rather than in the user (not a mis-use of the concept; please consider the growing zombie-hood that we see all around).

Aside: some idiot, even had gray hair, almost hit me, a walker, within my legal rights, by the way (as in, not Jayhawking - er jaywalking), as he was coming out of a parking lot, he then slowly accelerated to the street (now, if I did not know better, I would have thought that he was either timid, a new driver, or impaired), as if driving was not the thing to which he was to pay attention, ..., long story short: the arse had his old nose in a mobile device. As we all know, that type of thing is more commonplace than it out to be.

So, in a sense, the zombie attraction deals with truth, or, at least, a popular notion of it. It? Well, like "what is is?" was prominent on the public's mind for awhile, truth has been our problem forever. And, the computational age has drastically changed the matter. That change and how it unfolds needs attention beyond people lining their pockets (there are all sorts of discussion of that in this blog).

---

Now, back to Zuck, he is allowing ideas to be expressed, groups to use his means for their medium, and helping tie disparate milieus. So, thanks, Mr. Zuckerberg. However, sir, you (and your cohorts, to be named) are missing a big piece (which will be explained in time - and greed is not it).

Now, if one looks at all the arguing about truth, we see emotion and dream of Spock (Trek sense, okay) type of people to lead us from ourselves. Science and engineering? Ah, how many ways have those led us to perdition? However, science is now recognizing that emotion is part of rationality (sorry, guys, you have been as emotional as the little women that you berate). Truth's expression to us is about as murky as are our emotions. But, something like a computational platform (don't restrict this to a physical entity, please) can help bring in objectivity (are you listening, NSA?) that can be a boon (gift of God).

But, it is problematic, too. Oh how many ways have we seen this manifest itself of late. Banes galore.

We'll get back to this.

---

On another note, a very emotional arena deals with guns (er, weapons as my drill sergeant - Korea vet, POW- pounded into my teenage'd head). Some want them. Others only want them in the hands of power and control. The Forefathers? What did they think?

You know, the Puritans, those (some anyway) who stripped women to the waist and dragged them through the streets (but, then, whose ancestors were saints?), took guns away from people who didn't sign up for the Church (we'll get back to that and those) or the loyalty oath (to the King, of course, and his minions here). You also know that guns were used for obtaining food and for protection. In the latter sense, they were necessary for the Minutemen to get things rolling, so to speak.

---

Honor,
reflective rather than
reflexive

Those are only two of many subjects, but I wanted to used this photo (thanks Wendy Yost Elliott - requires FB access) as a basis for a long story. My brother died a couple of years ago. He was buried at a National Cemetery in Kansas. He was one of seven boys, so that left six of us. We were all at the ceremony. Then, for various reasons, we ended up doing our own salute using the weapons (see above - albeit these were of a former time). All six of us were veterans and knew how to handle the things. Too, it seemed appropriated at the time. But, truth engineering might show us different opinions on the matter, all rationally framed. We'll get more into this, but for now, and, for the record, the U.S. Service of each, starting at the left: Marines, Army, Marines, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard. All Vietnam era. The honored had served in the U.S. Navy.

Now, the thing is this: how many families could, or would, be able to, do this? There was a mention of the Puritans (others were there, too) since they were an early group involved in the formation of our great nation. In fact, most New Englanders have this ancestry. These six? From a family that is post Civil War. So, therein we might find a juxtaposition that has some basis for framing truth engineering's need to bridge lines, temporal or otherwise.

---

Aside: Written without the usual number of links which will appear within a day or so. In the meantime, there is search (with labels) for browsing.

Aside: In a discussion of the Chromebook (Toshiba's - we'll do a post on this), some one took exception to their using the Pawn guys to talk about the pros and cons. The statement was that an 80-year old wouldn't know. Well, I've been in advanced computing for a long time (longer than the life of the commenter, no doubt). And, I'm only nine years from 80. And, when I look at Chrome (C++) and Linux (Unix as the motivator) and more, I see things that I've dealt with way before they were known to a broader group (namely, those spawning off apps willy-nilly - in the hopes, probably of finding the killer one). So, I expect, given health continues, that I could talk this stuff at 80. The problem, young folk? Try talking to someone like me (who may have some insights that would apply to you - yeah, Zuck, Google), but, you would have to do it in other than the mode of maximizing the monetary aspects (sheesh, I would drag you down to the truth - actually, in some cases, let me lift your sight). Be that as it may, I'll continue to map out what is essentially a core issue to resolve if we are to continue sustainable'ly (yes, we'll make up words as we go along - ain't English grand for that).

Remarks:   Modified: 11/18/2022

01/08/2014 --  This has a GEK III label since George was one mentor (peer to peer) that I encountered along the way. 

01/11/2014 -- We'll close this and get on to some technical preliminaries. For one, the Twit limit of 140 characters seems to have taken over, even in discussions. When you think of it, that's not all bad when applied to the verbiage produced by some. But, on a more positive note, looking at a discussion where these limits apply, one could think of a poetic metaphor. However, in-length exposition is still needed for clarity and depth. The character-reduced is more a Rorschach prompt where we can fill in the spaces as we see fit. Now, in-length, above, ought to be considered to be like we see with a theorem (or a program, in which all logic is exposed and not encapsulated (which was a big step forward) via abstraction).

02/08/2014 -- The event of the photo was a burial rite, military style, for Clement Thomas Switlik, Jr. who died on 02/09/2012, two months after Hitchens.

02/09/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2012), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

08/03/2015 -- George as inspiration of computing and existentialism.

11/17/2022 -- See Quora, Psychether for a discussion that will use these concepts as point-in-time observations. 

Summary, 2013

This blog got its start in July of 2007, right before its sister blog (7'oops7). As of today, there have been 199 posts with 16 categories.

The image shows the highest-read posts for the Past 30 days and for All time. Compare this list with last year's.

Past 30 days                                                   All time

It's interesting that a 2008 post has been of interest, of late. That same post is 2nd on the All time list. Too, a 2013 post has gone to the top of the All time list.

---

We'll have to get back to the computablity issues this coming year. Someone needs to address things from other than how one can screw the public (legally or otherwise) into handing over their monies. That is, so much of the modern value system deals with excessive accumulations (If you're so smart, ...). Too, the best and brightest have a wider sphere of influence, thereby we ought to have them under more scrutiny than the average joe. So, why is it best and brightest to be greedy and manipulative?

Remarks:   Modified: 12/31/2013

12/31/2013 --  

48 hours of freedom

Just came back from a period of being unplugged (as in, no use of electronic means to talk to the cloud-based chimera - yes, as if things there are more real than what we exist amongst - but, we'll have to go on about that, almost ad infinitum, in order to characterize the issues) for 48 hours.

Now, there are many things to discuss about this. Why was it done? Many other queries come to mind.

Aside: There was one little nibble, but it was on a public computer. I had to go to espn.com to see what the heck happened to the Jawhawks. Did being on the island relax Self too much? On the same day, the 'Cats took Duke's prominence apart (wasn't long after another such lesson was administered - ah, I digress - tis madness, indeed). But, that little thing was only a brief look at a couple of pages.

This unplugging wasn't the first such event. Some claim that one ought to do such on a regular basis. Who agrees?

But, let's tell a story.

About a decade or so ago, those who went around with their noses to a little device were manager types. Okay? I never saw, at the time, any technical person do such. But, then, those who I knew were dealing with more intricate matters. So, the manage types had to be e'mailed-in (and whatever else those early things did) to their peers in order to keep workers at bay and exploited. Also, what panache they exhibited (ah, we were all to kiss the feet or other).

Were they not so grand in their devotion to their job and so commanding in their presence (as in, aura of importance)? However, at the time, too, I never thought much of this activity on the part of these types as it was a good thing, too. How? You see, many bosses would not touch a keyboard. It was beneath them; in fact, many had furniture in their offices that hid such things from visitors. Remember, footprints and profiles were massive in those days.

So, if some little device got them to thinking would that not be a good thing? Wait, turns out to not be true. As, giving tools to managers has resulted in all sorts of perfidy (most of which is mis-action directed against lowly employees who only are trying to feed themselves and their families -- too, globalization's bane would not have been so harsh without the advances in computation - including networks).

Since that time, all sorts of things have come about: social media, interactive gaming, and more. Now, those who have their noses to devices are hooked (yes, we can even talk Google's glasses, augmented reality, and more) many times. Too, that cognitive processing which relates to interfacing with these things is directly opposite that which is truly smart (ah, let the little beasties based upon our manipulation of e-m phenomena rule the roost?). But, we'll go on about that more later.

---

In short, that whole overlay (easily characterized) is diminishing the grandness of reality (or attempting to; it cannot suppress being - another thing/concept supposed inimical to the modern viewpoint). But, how can that be explained? Give us time, as these things are only a decade or so old. That which really needs attention goes way back (it's in our genes and memes).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/23/2015

12/04/2013 -- 3rd try. If, at first, you don't succeed, ... (one side-effect of getting away? losing touch with the processes). Truth via computation will become increasingly important, yet, truth discernment via our traditional (age-old) means will not be replaced. Our computational prowess can be an assistant (perhaps, at times, a source) to our intuition. It will be interesting to see how the two interplay (yes, very much asserting the existence of intuition'al facilities far beyond what we might have considered - all sorts of decisions the past 10s of years have caused a divergence (chasm) that looks to be beyond span) in the future. We've seen a tremendous amount of change the past 10 years, perhaps, by another 10, the issues will be more clear (for one, that computational constraints apply as much to mathematical systems as they do to those of a logical nature).  

12/17/2013 -- History of the devices, the start - Blackberry.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

Big-data daddy

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

--

Big data? Yes, it's all one hears nowadays. If IBM has it in their ad stream, then you know it's about making money. What's next?

No one knows. But, it's nice having look backs that are insightful. Too bad that we don't have 20-20 hindsight (is foresight possible?).

An Atlantic article was a nice diversion from all those big-data dopes who push the smart (supposedly) devices that are really enmeshing agents. Dumb'd down, one might even claim (but, that's for another time). Hofstadter is from a former era. He's not the past, as his questions, and his work, are still relevant. The Atlantic had someone write about him who has a good feel for the issues.


So, reading this article is definitely worth the time.

   James Somer, November 2013,
                 The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think

Atlantic, Nov 2013

Mentioning IBM was apropos: Deep Blue and Watson? Both of these got public attention, but they're dumber than a new-born baby, even one who might later be rated a less than average. Why say that? For several reasons. But, let's just say that both of these used brute force and the bullying of the data.

Aside: oh, don't some people act similarly?

You see, the idiots running after big data's worth (essentially, pushing toward the mean - with the large numbers involved) might appear to be obviously smart (yes, as in, the bigger the pockets, the smarter someone is - ignores ill-begotten gains, plus does not recognize the pervasive putrid-ness of near-zero realities). The techniques related to this type of work has been entrapping mankind in ways that do not portend well for the future. Of course, not all of mankind, as some have seemed to risen above the fray (which we could characterize several ways).

Like the article says, the approach of using large amounts of data might bring forth little nibbles of knowledge, but trying to get to truth? Won't work (we can, and will, describe how it ought to work).

---

These topics have all been discussed in this blog, at some time or another. Links may appear, at some point, here to those older posts. Not guaranteed, though. Perhaps, another approach is necessary.

In the meantime, it's nice to be reminded of Hofstadter's ilk (yes, those who are not chasing after that illusive buck (hugh accumulation) based truth set).

---

Same issue has another article of note.

       All Can Be Lost: 
            The Risk of Putting Our Knowledge in the Hands of Machines

It's nice that we can get assists from our tools. And, it our way to keep making better tools. Yet, to make the tool the focus is morally wrong (yes, golden sacks use the concept in terms of finance, so that gives me leeway); it doesn't take long, when looking around, to see the very deleterious results from the actions/decisions of the past couple of decades.

Aside: Hoftstadter's book, GEB, considers the importance of Godel's work. We've already addressed that, in part, under the guise of discussing computability, but many are not yet inclined to consider the ramifications (why? chasing after buck-based chimeras is too much fun).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

11/11/2013 -- Yes, the Fed's data-driven illusion is on the table for discussion. 

12/31/2013 -- A popular post. 

03/02/2014 -- Analytics follow. Yet, we need qualitative analysis more (my put).

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

Best and brightest of what?

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

--

We'll be expanding upon this further, as we go along. The context deals with the Streets. Can the Wall ever use integrity without us laughing? Is Main really reliant upon what are the best and brightest of the Wall?

Can they be best and brightest if they don't know virtue from vice? Yes, let's talk that.

See related posts: Fed-aerated and 7oops7.

---

For now, we're pulling from Facebook a comment about a post at Kid Dynamic's blog. Notice that the post deals with cancelling trades, as in golden sacks was let off while another firm had to eat dirt (a lot of it). KD responded to comment to his post, as follows: ... as for predatory behavior: markets are predatory. they're not about charity - every trade I do is with the goal of making money by being smarter than the guy on the other side. that's how it works.. that's the OBJECT..

My comments was, as follows:

We know that golden sacks was let off the hook (as in, trades that they did in error were cancelled - yes, kid gloves for these ones). We also know that an earlier incident resulted in another firm eating a big loss. So, here we see a post and discussion of these two.

Too, we know that things like high-frequency gaming, dark pools, and much more go toward a daily extraction into special (oh, so special) pockets to the detriment of the many. In other words, financial engineering, and other things (computational methods), have made things a shambles, despite the occasional shining of the chimera.

Kid writes about all of this stuff. In one comment, Kid (himself) says: "as for predatory behavior: markets are predatory. they're not about charity - every trade I do is with the goal of making money by being smarter than the guy on the other side. that's how it works.. that's the OBJECT..." Yes, 'tis a direct quote, and, right there, the guy brings out the core issue.

He does characterize the thing properly (as have many others of similar views). I ask, from whence this viewpoint (by necessity, jungle, dwarinian flavoring?) which does not a sustainable economy make? We'll get into that. Does it not seem that such types ought to be wrapped in a strong cloak and provided with a playground (sandbox) with which to work out their little immature fantasies?

That is, these ones ought not be the focus for how things will unfold in the future. Where did we get the notion that the talking heads and their graphical displays and all of the other technical marvels which tell us about the activity of a few (comparatively and to wit, DJIA, et al) ought to set the tone for our daily lives? 

---

That whole notion of predatory necessity is something to address. Look. There was a time that the Vikings, at will, came down and trashed (burned, pillaged, stole) England, time and again. The poor monks could not handle the vicious cultural thing. Thank God for Alfred the Great. But, are the Vikings behaving thusly now? Well, excluding the fact that we could find some types of association on a close look, most descendants of the raiders are nicely civilized (of course, Norsemen had their culture - I'm 99% northern European, by the way).

Just because the wild web, advances in mathematics, and computing prowess both allow the proposition and disposition (used to be left to God) does not make it, by necessity, that we, and our unstable financial realities, revert back to 1000 years ago or so (even if Crusaders seem to be still in the offing).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/06/2015

10/04/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

10/27/2013 --Ben has sacked the savers for years now, slapping them silly. Why? A WSJ article looked at high-class pawnshops a couple of days ago. These fill the need for people who need money but cannot get it from the banks (stupidity there, too). So, they use collateral for a loan and pay high interest. How high? Some pay over 200%, per year. What is Ben paying or having banks pay their savers (customers)? Way less than 1%. That is the best example of being out of whack with economic realities that one could ask for. Yet, does the Fed see? Why is the interest low? To push savers toward higher risk? To appease the gaming crowd (most likely this, as these are big-pocketed folks)? To help people afford housing (on someone else's back?)? ... Janet's take on this is unknown, but she has to know that they're looking like idiots. You know what? Most of those pawn loans are paid, even with the high interest. And, still, Ben slaps the savers (King Alan mentioned saving, of late). We ought to ask the Fed, what happened to prudence or does it like to reward profligacy?

12/31/2013 -- A popular post.

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated).