There are all sorts of uses for 'train' as a metaphor, the little train that could being one example.
One use denotes the current choice for an individual investor. That is, do we get into, or stay out of, equities, given that the markets are up (as evidenced with a DOW over 10,000)?
Well, in this case, one has to ask, is there such a train? Or, are we where the suckers finally bite just before another crash?
Well, it's hard to say. Some argue that the fundamentals point to the current rally as being a bearish type. That is, not much behind it of a substantial nature. One fact that pops up now and then is that those in the know are selling now whereas back in March they were buying.
This is a typical choice point for Main Street folk as the Wall Street folk show off their gains (some of which are ill-begotten) and make claims for the future.
The story needs to be told is that no one has to board this play train, assuming that it exists. What we have is basically a chimera built upon the sand of casino capitalism. Oh sure, some will continue to benefit; those are the ones who control the game and who are guaranteed their take. Many more will lose.
If we go back to the original principle for using the equity form of capital, we can see that the gaming has been allowed that is unnecessary. There are methods of investing that do not partake of the type of mania that is being sold.
Where this dilemma relates to oops is this, those who come in late, like now, will lose their shirts, most likely. There is no reason to buy in; not doing so will not be anything to rue later.
So, how to describe the issues so that the choices are clear? That is one task.
Remarks:
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. The particular train being touted now, the play train, is only for those in the game, and we see how they are rolling in the dough (and, bonus time is approaching).
Modified: 11/08/2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Gray areas
The Prizes continue to be given. The Economics winners have an interesting bit of work behind them.
One of these, Mr. Williamson, has expanded upon a couple of ideas in his work: "The first is that a contractual agreement can never be complete; there are always contingencies that haven't been accounted for. The other is that people act opportunistically within the gray area of contracts to make sure they benefit the most, and that can lead to problems".
Oh, really, now? Somehow, common sense has taken leave of us, it seems. Ah, those sirens of abstraction, mathematics (flim-flam), computation, and pseudo-nerdism just seem to have gotten a very good grip on our senses. Tsk, Tsk.
What we could say is, just like with ethics, some rule needs to kick in when the area is gray. Well, as said before, that old 'golden' one was fine; note, 'golden' in this sense is entirely different than in the following usage: golden sacks.
Of course, we could also go into t-issues whose hold on the common sense seems to have wavered through various dynamics.
We'll say it again. The lesson applies to finance where we ought to run the thing with a non-profit focus, that is, anti-opportunism. By the way, I'll even volunteer.
Oh, by the way, what helps with the gray area in a company, besides ethics? Ah, culture. They ought to know that.
One of these, Mr. Williamson, has expanded upon a couple of ideas in his work: "The first is that a contractual agreement can never be complete; there are always contingencies that haven't been accounted for. The other is that people act opportunistically within the gray area of contracts to make sure they benefit the most, and that can lead to problems".
Oh, really, now? Somehow, common sense has taken leave of us, it seems. Ah, those sirens of abstraction, mathematics (flim-flam), computation, and pseudo-nerdism just seem to have gotten a very good grip on our senses. Tsk, Tsk.
What we could say is, just like with ethics, some rule needs to kick in when the area is gray. Well, as said before, that old 'golden' one was fine; note, 'golden' in this sense is entirely different than in the following usage: golden sacks.
Of course, we could also go into t-issues whose hold on the common sense seems to have wavered through various dynamics.
We'll say it again. The lesson applies to finance where we ought to run the thing with a non-profit focus, that is, anti-opportunism. By the way, I'll even volunteer.
Oh, by the way, what helps with the gray area in a company, besides ethics? Ah, culture. They ought to know that.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Trusted employees
Yes, business can do essentially stupid things very well. They can completely mishandle their workers, in many cases, and then wonder why things may not work as they should. We don't have to point to any company in particular, but those who look to get their knowledge off the shelf or to out-house expertise deserve what they get.
Now, again, no one company or party needs to take exception to this message here, but the stupidity will continue until a few lessons are learned. One of these lessons is a central theme here in these blogs.
That is, the thing called earned value which is 1/2 of a pair.
Believe it or not, those two in the pair of fair, and earned, value relate.
Now consider, earned value is supposed to let you know about progress in a correct and meaningful manner. We have all seen what happens when the disciplines involved let us down (thanks a lot, risk handlers and applied mathematicians).
Another one is control engineering, let's use it as a metaphor for discussing this thing and its issues.
First, let's look ahead and point to an important factor necessary for solution to the problems: the autodidact.
In any company, there are those who get things done even when they are mistreated or unrecognized. Well, local management can do a good job of keeping these people happy; it's those in the ivory towers, and personal jets, who have an entirely erroneous grasp of the situation.
Also, those who know this theme will appreciate this post; unfortunately, those without a clue are so dense as to not understand. Yes, some of the dense are superstar CEOs and what have you. Others seem to just tag along in order to get their names in the paper.
This blog, and its kin, on the other hand, want to address issues of substance, hopefully to help us determine workable solutions.
A recent edition of the IEEE Control Systems Society's periodical had a little quote that applies here: the level of accuracy that can consistently be achieved with any estimation strategy depends on the sensor configuration.
Now, granted that the framework in the paper was controlling an autonomous vehicle using model, and sensor, information plus the appropriate processing. Yet, it seems that this type of control is a paragon for any wide-spread process that is computationally framed and supported. The important thing here is what 'sensor' might mean in this example.
Well, the most important connotation would be the human who is integral to keeping the database updated by evaluating progress using hard-won expertise. And, that, Mr and Ms heads of companies, is not ever going to be off-the-shelf or out-housed. Some of the facility might be offloaded to the subcontractor, as Lean has shown. Yet, a very important part cannot be.
Ah, can this be done? Yes, we will have to adequately handle what are people matters. Who said that is would be easy?
Remarks:
10/19/2009 -- Gray areas are where your people make the difference, bosses. You break the hearts of your best assets and wonder why things don't work.
10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.
10/15/2009 -- We've just touched the surface here, folks. Of course, we need educated, and certified, folks. Medicine can not work without it. But, does your Dr run your life? The analog here is the company that outhouses and then wants to just sit back and let things happen while rolling in the glory and the dough. So, you know, things happen (or don't), and you get big delays, shoddy products, and the like. Another permutation here is the goal to use just general engineers, which is really trying to identify autodidactic traits. Looking for an electrical guy to act as a mechanical guy would take some additional learning on his part. But, the approach is not just about those with the talent sufficient to cover many fields; rather, it is the expectation that some mathematical, and computational, frameworks can succumb knowledge requirements sufficiently to then remove those viewpoints related to specifics of disciplines. Only a manager could think that, would be one response. We'll continue with the theme.
Modified: 10/19/2009
Now, again, no one company or party needs to take exception to this message here, but the stupidity will continue until a few lessons are learned. One of these lessons is a central theme here in these blogs.
That is, the thing called earned value which is 1/2 of a pair.
Believe it or not, those two in the pair of fair, and earned, value relate.
Now consider, earned value is supposed to let you know about progress in a correct and meaningful manner. We have all seen what happens when the disciplines involved let us down (thanks a lot, risk handlers and applied mathematicians).
Another one is control engineering, let's use it as a metaphor for discussing this thing and its issues.
First, let's look ahead and point to an important factor necessary for solution to the problems: the autodidact.
In any company, there are those who get things done even when they are mistreated or unrecognized. Well, local management can do a good job of keeping these people happy; it's those in the ivory towers, and personal jets, who have an entirely erroneous grasp of the situation.
Also, those who know this theme will appreciate this post; unfortunately, those without a clue are so dense as to not understand. Yes, some of the dense are superstar CEOs and what have you. Others seem to just tag along in order to get their names in the paper.
This blog, and its kin, on the other hand, want to address issues of substance, hopefully to help us determine workable solutions.
A recent edition of the IEEE Control Systems Society's periodical had a little quote that applies here: the level of accuracy that can consistently be achieved with any estimation strategy depends on the sensor configuration.
Now, granted that the framework in the paper was controlling an autonomous vehicle using model, and sensor, information plus the appropriate processing. Yet, it seems that this type of control is a paragon for any wide-spread process that is computationally framed and supported. The important thing here is what 'sensor' might mean in this example.
Well, the most important connotation would be the human who is integral to keeping the database updated by evaluating progress using hard-won expertise. And, that, Mr and Ms heads of companies, is not ever going to be off-the-shelf or out-housed. Some of the facility might be offloaded to the subcontractor, as Lean has shown. Yet, a very important part cannot be.
Ah, can this be done? Yes, we will have to adequately handle what are people matters. Who said that is would be easy?
Remarks:
10/19/2009 -- Gray areas are where your people make the difference, bosses. You break the hearts of your best assets and wonder why things don't work.
10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.
10/15/2009 -- We've just touched the surface here, folks. Of course, we need educated, and certified, folks. Medicine can not work without it. But, does your Dr run your life? The analog here is the company that outhouses and then wants to just sit back and let things happen while rolling in the glory and the dough. So, you know, things happen (or don't), and you get big delays, shoddy products, and the like. Another permutation here is the goal to use just general engineers, which is really trying to identify autodidactic traits. Looking for an electrical guy to act as a mechanical guy would take some additional learning on his part. But, the approach is not just about those with the talent sufficient to cover many fields; rather, it is the expectation that some mathematical, and computational, frameworks can succumb knowledge requirements sufficiently to then remove those viewpoints related to specifics of disciplines. Only a manager could think that, would be one response. We'll continue with the theme.
Modified: 10/19/2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Who is to know?
As we see with most things, in finances, opinions abound around a spectrum. The trouble is that money is at the core of our existence, with everyone expected to earn their way. Except, some do get from the folks. Most don't.
Besides, mama and papa may have, but bless the child that got its own (paraphrase). Yet, we do expect those who are the, supposed, financial experts to have some notion of fiduciary responsibility.
One bit of controversy deals with non zero and bonds-equity (order here can be used to imply an opinion). The recent mania about the upswing in equities has the media touting that everyone ought to get on the bandwagon.
Always timely, a WSJ op-ed (Don't Get Hit by Crash at Finish Line) gives an appropriate message to the theme.
At a certain age, financial fall outs are more catastrophic than not. Oops is not just strong enough to describe the visceral effect.
Hence, for those who want to play with risk, a sandbox is very much appropriate.
So, in regard to one's money and risk appetite, the individual has the choice but needs to know. Here is the problem: do you really think that the spin, and clamor, of the present financial reporting mechanisms works to the little guys' benefit? Hah! If you answered yes, think again.
Besides, mama and papa may have, but bless the child that got its own (paraphrase). Yet, we do expect those who are the, supposed, financial experts to have some notion of fiduciary responsibility.
One bit of controversy deals with non zero and bonds-equity (order here can be used to imply an opinion). The recent mania about the upswing in equities has the media touting that everyone ought to get on the bandwagon.
Always timely, a WSJ op-ed (Don't Get Hit by Crash at Finish Line) gives an appropriate message to the theme.
At a certain age, financial fall outs are more catastrophic than not. Oops is not just strong enough to describe the visceral effect.
Hence, for those who want to play with risk, a sandbox is very much appropriate.
So, in regard to one's money and risk appetite, the individual has the choice but needs to know. Here is the problem: do you really think that the spin, and clamor, of the present financial reporting mechanisms works to the little guys' benefit? Hah! If you answered yes, think again.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Establishing value
What? Yes, think of 'value' as something to describe further. For now, let's just consider a couple of types which have been covered here: fair value and earned value.
Actually, given the preference of the blogger, that order ought to be reversed. The second deals with doing real things; the former tries to pin some value on results, albeit, nowadays, there is more a virtual (meaning, of course, not real - can't fly the stuff, can't eat it, can't do a lot of things, except exalt over others if you have a bunch, okay?) and gaming sense.
So, of late, everyone wonders about the underlying ponzi-ness of the economy that we've built ourselves out of the gab-standard sand (yeah, Ben, unwind your idiotic position -- hiding toxic wastes is not smart). It's a good question to ask.
Note: Fact is, if more than the golden sack'rs could benefit, then things could be a little nicer for everyone. Big Ben, are you listening?
Modified: 10/12/2009
Actually, given the preference of the blogger, that order ought to be reversed. The second deals with doing real things; the former tries to pin some value on results, albeit, nowadays, there is more a virtual (meaning, of course, not real - can't fly the stuff, can't eat it, can't do a lot of things, except exalt over others if you have a bunch, okay?) and gaming sense.
So, of late, everyone wonders about the underlying ponzi-ness of the economy that we've built ourselves out of the gab-standard sand (yeah, Ben, unwind your idiotic position -- hiding toxic wastes is not smart). It's a good question to ask.
Note: Fact is, if more than the golden sack'rs could benefit, then things could be a little nicer for everyone. Big Ben, are you listening?
Modified: 10/12/2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Win and lose
It's been said that some want privatization of profit and socialization of loss. That is, the gains go into the pockets while the payouts require a handout. We've seen a lot of this the past year.
However, we also see that the current rally makes, for some, an argument that we need to get into the gaming in order to have a future. A recent article out of Silicon Valley had such a message (find link) essentially saying that stocks were necessary.
Well, that story is not quite right, however we need better support to show why. We'll work on getting that.
But, knowing about Harvard and Yale can help, as they both have lost this past year. And, their earlier success made other follow suite. We'll look for more analysis there.
In the meantime, here is a summary of references in this blog to those paragons of everything.
Note: Of course, how public is all this? But, wasn't this an example of some best-and-brightest making oodles? Didn't one even leave to start some other endeavor? Claw back comes to mind. When will that ever be? Too, though, over the years of the big returns, these organizations were spending a lot besides building their nest egg. So, to see the real lost, it's not the case where we look at only one year; actually, there needs to be some balance across a lot of time. Yet, even though that would reduce some of the notions about the losses this year, the fact remains that you win and you lose. The maturity is to not lose more than what you've gained. That is true growth. But, experimentation ought to be lab-based.
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?).
09/13/2009 -- Need to pause for a bit, to look at Bookstaber's work.
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
Modified: 10/11/2009
However, we also see that the current rally makes, for some, an argument that we need to get into the gaming in order to have a future. A recent article out of Silicon Valley had such a message (find link) essentially saying that stocks were necessary.
Well, that story is not quite right, however we need better support to show why. We'll work on getting that.
But, knowing about Harvard and Yale can help, as they both have lost this past year. And, their earlier success made other follow suite. We'll look for more analysis there.
In the meantime, here is a summary of references in this blog to those paragons of everything.
- Oops and more oops (Sep 08) -- A Remarks to this post mentioned how Harvard's success, and its being highly touted, caused jealous bones to try to duplicate. However, that is human nature. But, you would think that those running organizations, like CALPERS, would have a better foundation. Oh, why would I say that since there is no good foundation?
- Lessons to be learned (Jan 09) -- By this time, Harvard was waking up to the problem and crying poor. Well, they did recognize the issues early. Can't fault them for that?
- Hedge funds (Jan 09) -- By this time, we knew a little more about Madoff's shenanigans. He was still free, though. But, the issue is that any return beyond something reasonable is by necessity the result of things that stink, categorically. Why? Near zero! One would think that the brains of Harvard, et al, could figure out a way to help lead things to other than perdition.
Note: Of course, how public is all this? But, wasn't this an example of some best-and-brightest making oodles? Didn't one even leave to start some other endeavor? Claw back comes to mind. When will that ever be? Too, though, over the years of the big returns, these organizations were spending a lot besides building their nest egg. So, to see the real lost, it's not the case where we look at only one year; actually, there needs to be some balance across a lot of time. Yet, even though that would reduce some of the notions about the losses this year, the fact remains that you win and you lose. The maturity is to not lose more than what you've gained. That is true growth. But, experimentation ought to be lab-based.
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?).
09/13/2009 -- Need to pause for a bit, to look at Bookstaber's work.
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
Modified: 10/11/2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Econoblog II
Well, we've done the econoblog, FEDaerated, for awhile. Actually, we're starting the second month.
One thing is clear. In Economics, we have 'dismal' since we have very complicated systems that include humans. In Engineering, on the other hand, it's a little better. Why? Well, for one thing, engineering has nature as a lab, and it can (or try to) bend humans (or make them a collection of idiots - oh, by the way, isn't that the role of the fat cat CEO?) to meet the system, and machine.
In economics, we have people running off, like Ben, with decisions whose ramifications are unknown at this time. Oh, yes, call that undecidable. Get it? Thanks, Vienna school.
And, Engineering needs to wake up to the fact that the computer exacerbates the problems, except that one can look for certain types of stability in numeric processes, even those with PDE equivocations.
So, one finds major projects having problems. Their blaming things on the program management is only half-right.
Perhaps, it turns out, the dismal science may be of use, in a micro sense. After all, even heavily numeric processes require decisions. Message to the managers: these glorified computational resources need major adjustments to assumptions in the beginning, then they need to use heuristics for control during processing, and the after-the-fact analysis is definitely something that requires expert opinion.
One thing that the alluded-to program did wrong? Feed computer model data back in as if it were equivalent to a test in nature, or so it looks from the outside. Tsk, Tsk.
So, managers, if your techies tell you other than the following, they're leading you astray: there is no magic, no overarching theory, and definitely no wizard with the clue.
That is, manager, your techies are as clueless as is yourself.
Having said all that, there are things that lead to success. We all know about this and see it all the time. What was one comment? (quick, quiet, and early)
Quasi-empiricism needs to be added to the focus, to constrain the potential for hubris.
Note: One thing to discuss will be that we're dealing with a 'possible world' situation where these worlds are not disjoint. That is, you have fan-in and fan-out as things unfold along the line of time. And, we get a huge increases in potential due to computational models and their ever-growing-ness. This is an NP situation as we saw with de Kleer's ATMS (1986). But, the necessity for handling these matters can be easily shown, therefore the continuing interests in coping mechanisms.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
Modified: 09/09/2009
One thing is clear. In Economics, we have 'dismal' since we have very complicated systems that include humans. In Engineering, on the other hand, it's a little better. Why? Well, for one thing, engineering has nature as a lab, and it can (or try to) bend humans (or make them a collection of idiots - oh, by the way, isn't that the role of the fat cat CEO?) to meet the system, and machine.
In economics, we have people running off, like Ben, with decisions whose ramifications are unknown at this time. Oh, yes, call that undecidable. Get it? Thanks, Vienna school.
And, Engineering needs to wake up to the fact that the computer exacerbates the problems, except that one can look for certain types of stability in numeric processes, even those with PDE equivocations.
So, one finds major projects having problems. Their blaming things on the program management is only half-right.
Perhaps, it turns out, the dismal science may be of use, in a micro sense. After all, even heavily numeric processes require decisions. Message to the managers: these glorified computational resources need major adjustments to assumptions in the beginning, then they need to use heuristics for control during processing, and the after-the-fact analysis is definitely something that requires expert opinion.
One thing that the alluded-to program did wrong? Feed computer model data back in as if it were equivalent to a test in nature, or so it looks from the outside. Tsk, Tsk.
So, managers, if your techies tell you other than the following, they're leading you astray: there is no magic, no overarching theory, and definitely no wizard with the clue.
That is, manager, your techies are as clueless as is yourself.
Having said all that, there are things that lead to success. We all know about this and see it all the time. What was one comment? (quick, quiet, and early)
Quasi-empiricism needs to be added to the focus, to constrain the potential for hubris.
Note: One thing to discuss will be that we're dealing with a 'possible world' situation where these worlds are not disjoint. That is, you have fan-in and fan-out as things unfold along the line of time. And, we get a huge increases in potential due to computational models and their ever-growing-ness. This is an NP situation as we saw with de Kleer's ATMS (1986). But, the necessity for handling these matters can be easily shown, therefore the continuing interests in coping mechanisms.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
Modified: 09/09/2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Outhouse'd
Oh, I meant outsourced. But, this means, of course, nothing in particular here except the predilection of life to provide us plenty of oops material usually piled high and deep.
Yes, posts went on before how outsourcing is a lot like leveraging. It's okay to a point, then it goes out of control. Looking for magical endings is one way to characterize that sort of thing.
Well, there are many factors involved which we'll touch upon, in time. For now, just consider that many have run after promises from computer companies about the powers for systems to revolutionize both process and product engineering. Yes, indeed, folks.
On the process side, we'll always have people as the most important thing. Ah, management would love to have it robotic and database driven, though earned value remains as an issue. I have a suggestion here; lets put their glorified roles into automation, since their efforts would never deliver. No, red-faced sputterings and slurring about those under them is the usual.
On the product side, real world experiments cannot, yet, be forgotten in some grand scheme that sees more in modeling, simulating, and visualizing than what is there.
What's the answer? Ah, we'll get there.
When? Well, I'm not racing against the anyone's clock (though, it's to be within PTIME, I hope).
Remarks:
11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).
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.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more, on both the process and products side of things.
09/02/2009 -- Lets 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.
09/02/2009 -- Computers make people dumber, yes indeed. That applies to engineering as much as it does to finance. Oh wait, is not that true about management to boot? One rises to levels of beyond ones capability (Peter's principle). Then, everyone under those needs to, then, dumb themselves down.
09/01/2009 -- Is it a limb and what type? It's probably too much to expect that undecidability will get recognized in the business world's fixation on hubris as the proper attitude.
08/31/2009 -- Scott is riding off to the sunset. But, how long will it take for Jim A to regain respect back?
Modified: 11/06/2009
Yes, posts went on before how outsourcing is a lot like leveraging. It's okay to a point, then it goes out of control. Looking for magical endings is one way to characterize that sort of thing.
Well, there are many factors involved which we'll touch upon, in time. For now, just consider that many have run after promises from computer companies about the powers for systems to revolutionize both process and product engineering. Yes, indeed, folks.
On the process side, we'll always have people as the most important thing. Ah, management would love to have it robotic and database driven, though earned value remains as an issue. I have a suggestion here; lets put their glorified roles into automation, since their efforts would never deliver. No, red-faced sputterings and slurring about those under them is the usual.
On the product side, real world experiments cannot, yet, be forgotten in some grand scheme that sees more in modeling, simulating, and visualizing than what is there.
What's the answer? Ah, we'll get there.
When? Well, I'm not racing against the anyone's clock (though, it's to be within PTIME, I hope).
Remarks:
11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).
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.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more, on both the process and products side of things.
09/02/2009 -- Lets 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.
09/02/2009 -- Computers make people dumber, yes indeed. That applies to engineering as much as it does to finance. Oh wait, is not that true about management to boot? One rises to levels of beyond ones capability (Peter's principle). Then, everyone under those needs to, then, dumb themselves down.
09/01/2009 -- Is it a limb and what type? It's probably too much to expect that undecidability will get recognized in the business world's fixation on hubris as the proper attitude.
08/31/2009 -- Scott is riding off to the sunset. But, how long will it take for Jim A to regain respect back?
Modified: 11/06/2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Fair value
Yeah, this concept can get dusted with the fairy's charms like anything financial. As a reminder, we need to keep in mind the change that happened recently (see discussion on 3/13/2009 - there is much more to this to discuss) is showing several results, including billions in payouts to the supposed best-and-brightest, class act that they are. That is, as the Congressman says, the rules of the game were changed in the middle of the game for the clambering horde who wants to continue their ways.
The first touch on this subject here was in the context of measuring progress, which is an issue of earned value. That the engineering use refers to something real does not invalidate the suggested similarity. You see, if we were dealing with other than a fiat situation with money, we would have something that we could get our arms around.
Too, we could have more accountability. That is, the current approach seems to look at who takes the biggest part of the pie as a bonus as it's chief measuring stick. How did this come to be? Banking and finance are really just utility functions. Silly game, indeed.
Now, as we are reminded by the accountants, 'market' and marking can has its issues, to boot. We don't have recourse to a 100% fail-safe system, yet we could stabilize better by removing, or minimizing, the gaming element. Yeah, like adults trying to keep the world safe and livable.
One question: why do we let the media's glorification of these imbeciles rule our daily use of the airwaves?
So, it is time to get serious. See FEDaerated which, as promised, will deal with things economic. We'll still venture upon that theme here, as it's integral to good engineering. The difference? FEDaerated will be more serious in nature.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, for assessing valuing methods.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
08/11/2009 -- This post was incomplete. We didn't talk markets to which we are to mark. So, we'll need to look at that further. Also, we'll have to go more into intrinsic value.
Modified: 09/09/2009
The first touch on this subject here was in the context of measuring progress, which is an issue of earned value. That the engineering use refers to something real does not invalidate the suggested similarity. You see, if we were dealing with other than a fiat situation with money, we would have something that we could get our arms around.
Too, we could have more accountability. That is, the current approach seems to look at who takes the biggest part of the pie as a bonus as it's chief measuring stick. How did this come to be? Banking and finance are really just utility functions. Silly game, indeed.
Now, as we are reminded by the accountants, 'market' and marking can has its issues, to boot. We don't have recourse to a 100% fail-safe system, yet we could stabilize better by removing, or minimizing, the gaming element. Yeah, like adults trying to keep the world safe and livable.
One question: why do we let the media's glorification of these imbeciles rule our daily use of the airwaves?
So, it is time to get serious. See FEDaerated which, as promised, will deal with things economic. We'll still venture upon that theme here, as it's integral to good engineering. The difference? FEDaerated will be more serious in nature.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, for assessing valuing methods.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
08/11/2009 -- This post was incomplete. We didn't talk markets to which we are to mark. So, we'll need to look at that further. Also, we'll have to go more into intrinsic value.
Modified: 09/09/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
