Aside: all three blogs have used the term, for various purposes: 7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated.
Who are these to whom the Title refers? Well, the intersection of these sets (of course, best and brightest) has been the bane, many times, of the world since the beginning of time. You see, the un-best, and the un-brightest, have a smaller sphere of influence; in short, their troubles impact a smaller bunch. The best and brightest? We'll go on about how these are defined, but, in general, have not the widest types of havoc been wrought by these (without any doubt)?
Now, to be fair, plenty of the best-and-brightest actually are worthy of our attention and affection.
Okay, just to remind you: of late, the best-and-brightest took their balls home since the game that they defined, and instituted, became so confounded by their wrong choices that they did not know whom to trust (and, not trusting others comes first from not trusting yourself). Yes, the financial failings all trace back to silly games by those who ought to have known better. We'll, of course, characterize this further.
Aside: we still see the problems, and Ben isn't helping. A recent WSJ had several letters that pointed out the problems that will come from Ben's stance of sacking the savers. It's nice that the letters were written and that the WSJ printed these. But, will Ben learn?
So, what makes for the brightest? Too, ought not 'best' be an ex post facto determination? How much ought to have been 'raked' back during the errant times (oh, you know, being paid big bonuses for building a house of cards that failed inevitably)? Why not tie remuneration to long-term results rather than to the short-term rush after rent?
As for the 'brightest' side of things, that, too, is problematic, to wit[,] discussions about g-loading, et al. As we know, a lot about smarts (including to be rich is to be smart) is cultural. It's interesting that a culture free test is visually based. Too, the hardest of tests has no time element; in fact, one takes it home (but, then, if it does measure [in] the upper realms, to whom would one turn for help?).
Somehow, the past couple hundred years has led toward 'darwinian' ideals, on the one hand. On the other have been extreme views on communal life. One thing that we'll bring in is how we need to somehow balance with more insights related to symmetry. Why is it that only the sciences get to play with the concept? Political polarities can be seen as being related to asymmetry (which isn't bad, necessarily).
Per usual, this will continue. We're dealing with foundational issues here, folks. We're in deep doo-doo since the willy-nilly chasing of the best and the brightest after either their own gain or someone's demise (think of of it, not being a winner, just keeping someone else from winning) goes one daily in an increasingly complex fashion (methinks such is to allow the crooks some relief from oversight -- yes, those of you who talk as if dark pools are a rationally based thing of value of we, the people).
Naturally, near-zero will need, and get, more attention. Yesterday, we saw a game, with a winner and a loser. Too, we saw a level playing field. And, there were rules and regulations enforced. A lot more could be said, but here is one thing: both teams got paid to play (one has more bragging rights, essentially). The rape-and-pillage of modern business ought to be within a similarly bounded scheme. Ah, 'how to do that?' is the question.
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.
05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog.
03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.
03/05/2012 -- As said earlier, edits will be marked.
02/11/2012 -- A few editorial changes (marked thusly). Plus, here is an example of a main issue with the ca-pital-sino, namely stock trading without sense. Given to us by whom? The best and brightest! Out of control.