Silly games

Earlier, crooked games was used for the thing called finance and business. What you have are the Madoffs and others who pilfer outside of legal boundaries; then, there is a larger amount of effort going into keeping the game going so that legal pilfering can occur.

Say, like we see with the AIG bonuses (except, multiplied countless times) which don't make sense since the company could have been bankrupt without taxpayer help. From whence, then, would have come the payout.

Then, you got those arguing for unregulated manipulations via derivatives and other types of mechanics. That is, their casino capitalism is in favor of their pocket bulging extracts. Give us a break.

That is, there are many players, some are on the floors of all those market sites, such as The Street, CBOE, and the like. Too many, don't you think?

But, the silliness goes further.

Ben talks; Pandit talks; someone else talks; what do we get? Little blips in the indexes, and people go crazy. Money pours into the game. Ah, the poor retiree; what gives with all these financially errant fund managers?

We're in the situation where the loss is 10-12 years deep. Many have had their lives ruined.

Yet, the gaming continues. The headline says that Obama wants more control over fianance. Well, kudos to him if he can get it. Some feel that we can't regulate the best-and-brightest. No, let's just let all of us reasonable people go down with the ship because of their failings.

But, why the use of 'silly' in the title? Well, certain illegal activities require real brain power. We all appreciate that, yet what a waste. Being led around zombie-like by the comings and goings of the financial market is just that, silly.

The fact that we'll have to address? It's near-zero sum, folks. Any who makes some gain takes it from others. And, as we have seen many times, the few take from the many.

Does it have to be that way? No.

Remarks:

05/28/2015 -- Perhaps, we'll get back to this (does it or doesn't it?) before the downturn comes about. Too, near zero needs attention.

01/15/2015 -- One of the most-read, of late, as things do look unsettling. Did we learn anything?

10/16/2014 -- We are now five-plus years past the time of this posts. A lot has changed; more has not (will it ever?). We are now to the point where the years of largess, and seat-of-the-pants flying by the Fed, will come home to roost. Now, just because there have been a string of down days does not mean that we have hit the point where descent trumps ascent (in other words, no timing of the market can be implied here). But, the WSJ has an article about one high frequency group. They talk their benefits provided, namely, liquidity, efficiency, etc. However, the whole bit behind the ca-pital-sino needs serious examination. And, silliness keeps coming to mind. ... And, we are not being anti-computation. However, if we are going to use advanced computing, let's do something real: like, track all sales (daily and longitudinally) - yes, openness. Why? Remove the cheshire multiple, for one. Remove the cream scrapers and pocket pickers from the game. ...  So much to discuss.

08/01/2013 -- We're relook at this as we consider the good side (as if there is one) of financial engineering.

02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.

10/13/2011 -- This needs to be updated due to an emerging phenomenon: OWS.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

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

11/02/2010 -- Two years later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

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?).

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

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

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.

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.

06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.

05/18/2009 -- Oh yes, got us in a mess and still wants the bonus.

03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.

03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.

Modified: 05/18/2015

Best and brightest of what?

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

--

Basis for the below? See the post on Fed-aerated.

---

Earlier (say 2008), I became aware of the pending downturn. Well, I was late waking up; but, hey, down to the end, Ben was saying that things were okay.

From whence came the idiocy (I even characterized, at the time, it as silly games) behind the financial turmoil? You see, I had spent my time working engineering technology, as in, things related to products (full life cycle, as well, I was working real algorithms). I remember hearing discussion about an influx in engineering, even computer science, sometime around the release of TCP/IP by DOD. But, then, later, there was talk of people going into finance.

"Why was this?" was the thought, then. However, it didn't attract my attention beyond the awareness. There were too many other things to look at. Besides, about this time, the tech downturn had hit, creating havoc for many people. Some friends lost bundles. In the case of one guy: he lost an inordinate amount in the crashes; subsequent changes to the company that we were with (motivated by the thinking of the likes of golden sacks) broke his heart (literally - turns out that golden sacks, and those of that ilk, got their rewards, but other investors took a bath - still, that didn't get my attention, since I knew better than to let the likes of the ca-pital-sino drain me dry); he's been dead now for several years (nevertheless, he never enjoyed the well-earned rewards - sheesh, Duffy - see the Fed-aerated post -- ever talk to real people?).

So, after all of that, my attention was not drawn until after I had retired. Yet, it took a couple of years. You see, I was enjoying the rewards. Too, due to the same circumstances that broke the back of many (see above), I had to take the retirement choice. Oh, there were offers, many of which were enticing. In fact, post the retirement, since it was early, I toyed with various roles. I even put my foot in the door, but, then, I decided to not opt that way (it's a long story that will be told - you see, employment with a corporation is only one step above serfdom for many - and, I'm saying that as a highly paid employee).

WSJ op-ed

I started this blog when a company rolled out something that has been compared to the potemkin event (Russia, yes). The questions of engineering with respect to planning and knowing status are formidable. Having improved software, and systems, does not alleviate the need to be careful and watchful. That whole set of points will continue to be topics of concern.

But, after thinking of why engineering goes so far awry (when management interferes, I might add), the financial thing started to impinge on my awareness. For one, I kept hearing of actions that were known to be problematic (and still are, such as? the whole idea of borrowing (without collateral - or, as these idiots did, with collateral that is already spoken for many time over) in order to play the ca-pital-sino that went out (as in, ruled out from what I learned decades ago) and was not allowed - hah!). Too, the talking heads were on all sides. Ben, as said above, was doing his coo-coo-ing (essentially, telling those who play with our economy (financially) that he'll support them - they're too big to fail).

My reaction was, say what? Toxic (Jerk or not, Sep 18, 2013) does not begin to describe the state of things  (best and brightest gone wild) ; a lot of this has not unwound due to Ben's interference. As said, the bankers froze their activity. Why? Well, they were crooks, they knew. So, how could they trust the others, who were most likely crooks, too? We went for years with things frozen; Ben kept upping his support (more and more things way beyond training wheels - gosh, thanks, guy).

So, fast forward to now. Seeing the Duffy bit brings forth a dichotomous state for me. It is nice, on the one hand, to see someone of the Wall Street ilk use the words and express the concepts related to being mature. Integrity? Wall Street? And, trust? Would it not be nice if this were to turn out to be a sincerely (know the concept?) offered viewpoint? Yet, on the other hand, haven't we heard this all before? Happy talk, and such? In fact, talk has been cheap the past 5 years. Once it appeared that the ca-pital-sino was going to push upward to new heights, would not a reasonable mindset draw the parallel with Ben's largess?

As say before, the likes of Harvard, in a very public manner, folks, needs to lead that realm toward a more sustainable future. Will the WASPers, augmented with the newer entrants who were not allowed before, ever step up to the role? That is my challenge to them. Let's go back to Winthrop, and such, and re-look at the issues. Given Harvard's mix of students, perhaps, even those of other cultures (and nations) would enjoy such an exercise.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/06/2015

10/03/2013 -- 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 not know that he has cowboy'ed (explainable) us into a corner?

10/27/2013 -- See Remarks, this day, at Best and Brightest of what? Yes, high-class pawns; why? Banks are not being banks as we would think of them. No, they're playgrounds for the like of the Jamies of the world. Now that they've had their crookery discovered, they're like the reformed whatever (holier than thou-ism) and are too stringent with the money. Actually, why would they lend (too mundane) when the ca-pital-sino is there for their take (raking off the top-ism)? King Alan now touts savings (in part); wonder what he thinks of Ben's breaking the buck (yes, where someone gets less than a dollar for saving 100 bucks and letting the crooks - as in, bankers -- keep it safe, supposedly); what of Ben's thought processes that lead him to continue to slap the savers silly (silly guy - is Janet any better?).

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.

06/12/2014 -- One way to look at these things: cognitive elitism.

01/06/2015 -- Renewal of TE, see Context line.

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

Fraud power I

Fraud power? Yes!!! This, from a former SEC head; he's looking at derivatives and other modern instruments and shaking his head, as has 7'oops7er. We'll go more into all this through time while we look at finance and products.

Let's pause and look at some coming titles:

• - Fraud power - ah, we can look at how finance, as says Minsky, always goes astray. We can start from the problems with the gab standard and work our way up to those who have pilfered more than their share. Rhetoric and market would be synonymous, except it does always come down to money (the taxpayers as contributors). Ah, but as engineers know, you cannot fool mother nature.
• - Captains of industry - yes, we could split all captains into types: military, political, industry, medical, charity, ..., church, ... Well, of late, some politicians (who may have been business leads) have argued that 'captains of industry' (the CEO as the new king) are who ought to run the country. What? They have no morals in their equation; at least, the political realm is not moral-less yet. Industry hasn't even solved its ethical problems yet. Things like the current strike can be tied (even if some think these are loose ties) to ethics. We'll get to that later. Military leads, at least, have some national ethics, as would the political leads. That some church leaders lead lives of material sickness (as in over indulgence in abundance) is not the norm.
• - Globalization - huh? Does not everyone know that being differentiated is one attribute of the mature? Thanks to Jung's fine analysis. So, what's this about dropping national borders in the interest of lining pockets? The 'pure' theory of international trade is just that (intellectual flimflam).
• - Best and brightest - oh yes, if you guys who want to exercise your 'fraud power' would put your mind on a better problem, perhaps the world would improve. Say, how about studying why each generation seems to bring forward more 'fraudulent' methods (enabled by the progress of technology)?
• - Silly games - some of the current problem can be traced to mortgage issues; yet, that is only part of the story. As, the whole notion of 'intrinsic' value has been pushed into the mud of the 'fraudulent' muck. We have, and will continue to, address that.
• - New model - when you look at the disparity between the views of management (who, you know, are divinely ordained) and labor (mere commodities, slavishly utilized and then trashed), you wonder what we might have learned by this 21st century. Well, Boeing has experimented with new ways, namely the technical fellowship, that can help bridge the gap. Where are they and their insights? Oh, buried under management's cloak?

Well, the work load is set; hopefully, time will allow fruition (no, not a slam against that fine plane that will one day fly).

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Changed the title. See updated post.

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

06/15/2009 -- Globalization, and capitalism, now a dirty word, according to one in private equity.

12/13/2008 -- Well, another fraud type is the real ponzi. Who would have thought? What other shoes?

12/02/2008 -- The main topics include financial engineering, globalization as colonialism, panaceas such as outsourcing, and much more.

Modified: 01/15/2012

The best and the brightest

As a prelude, this post is precipitated motivated by a comment to the Fraud Power II post of 01/14/2012. I realized that there has been no discussion of this topic for awhile (05/08/2009). It needs to be addressed, again.

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.

Remarks:

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. 

Modified: 09/19/2013

Fraud Power II

Over three years ago, Sept 2008, we first wrote about the Fraud Power that is inherent in finance due to its acceptance of gaming as its basis. At that time, the focus of the blog was slowly shifting to be looking at both engineering and finance.

The original focus was 'oops (and related) as we see happen with creative efforts and the drive for new products of quality that provide value. That is, if you try to do something, you stand a chance to fail. For some, such expectations can lead to doing nothing. However, most reasonable people take actions with the hope for success. And, engineers learn the ways.

---

There was (and still is) a whole lot to discuss on that subject from the engineering view. However, engineers go up against nature and can converge to good solutions over time when using the proper resources. In a sense, engineers work on real things (stuff, if you would). Generally, it is management that screws up engineering by bringing in factors that are not real, in many senses. Oh yes, accounting might try to put numbers in order, yet has it not become well-known that many try to book cook (despite regulations, auditing, etc. -- by the way, the main issue is determining value)

---

So, as a way to go forward a little, let's re-look at some of the bullets of that older post and update the information with what we have learned.

• * Fraud power -- Finance does not work with real things. Do you think that you could go to the Fed's vaults and actually get your hand on something tangible? Oh, I know, we pass around paper and coin. You do know that such is a small part of the total under the control of the Fed (too, Ben has diluted the value quite a bit the past few years, sacking the saver, using his buddies like Jamie). Now, if finance was directed (first and second derivative) to only doing something real, some of the problems would disappear. Minsky's arguments were along that line. Speculation, in essence, is not needed, in many cases.
• Yet, finance has gone after this type of thing as if it were necessary. In short, finance for the sake of finance, as if we could eat money, wear it, sleep on it, etc. Get the drift? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. The troubles in Europe may bring forth some insight, as we are in much bigger debt than we think (we sit fat due to the dollar being the prime means of establishing value). 
• Over the past three years, there have emerged new laws; the OWS came about and is letting us know that people can make their displeasure known; in fact, three years ago, it was as if the fat cats ruled (next bullet). Yet, people like Jamie argue for us to get back to their insane leveraging (which led to silly games). 
• So, are we any better off? No, the chimera runs every business day. Oodles continue to be raked off. At least, some are talking about how extraction is on the fat cat side (nope, has nothing to do with the 'entitlement' issues that the libertarians like to bring up). There has been a lot of talk; the questions related to actually cleaning things up lag severely. 

• *  Captains of industry -- The new kings reign over virtual realms that have no solid basis within any geographic, or political, sense. How do we change that? Well, a Magna Charta for these ones which will be enforceable (actually, these folks are worse than old King John). Much to look at here, in time. And, it would be different for the finance, versus those dealing with real stuff, industry. 

• *  Best and brightest -- If one goes back to the mid-90s, one would see that computer science had an upswing in interest. However, that was before the more mature web, so things must have seemed very boring in compsci. So, the flux went toward finance. I wondered about the motivations, from time to time, until the crap hit the fan. Then, I wondered how was the idiocy left go on for so long. With the downturn, many in the finance world lost jobs. Now, many of those still in the game are making more than they ought. Too, we're hearing complaints about constraints on bonuses, from time to time. 

• Just lately, there was a report that compsci is of interest again. Why? Those with that type of mindset, and knowledge set, are being offered jobs. Of course, my wonder now is what we'll see in 10 years that is completely messed up. Oh, could the web be any more screwed up? Well, yes (a whole other subject to address, at some point). 
• One thing that we know is that there is a shortage of jobs. In some cases, they've been pushed off shore. Why? It's easier to screw someone who is distant than the guy down the street. Too, some things, in this country, are still bound with moral characteristics. Elsewhere, not so much. We all know that training is key, in many senses. But, too, that labor is of value and needs respect has to get some consideration. Yes, those who are numerant have overlaid upon the rest of the populace a smelly cloud (noxious to it core). Why? We'll get more into that, but it has to do with misuse of technology. 

Now, the blog deals with oops. As discussions progress in the other blogs, there will be posts here when necessary (as in, it's pertinent, there is a need to look at the oops issues). 

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

05/29/2012 -- Jamie's bank in the news, again.

02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.

02/04/2012 -- A little mathematics can be dangerous. Andrey is an example of being mis-used. 

Modified: 08/01/2013

Gab standard II

The original post was dated June 10, 2008. Gosh, over 6 1/2 years ago. Since then, financial discussions have mostly been under the context of FEDaerated (fiat money) in a continuing fashion as problem abound. And, we all of rational mind are waiting for the bubble to burst. The FED's roles dealing with fiat money have exacerbated the problems as seen from the reality of the street (as in, Main and others not called Wall).

One problem is that there is a chimera that comes about, in part, due to charades. Yes, Wall likes to make sure that the game is in their favor. And, a good example of that type of thing could be the dark pools and like ilk. There are others (and, if we could lift the skirt or open the kimono, we would see many, many more).

---

I noticed, today, that some of the older posts are being read - see the image - which could indicate several things. All of these were from back before the spurt of mania that came from the FED's largess. And, that spurt mainly is equity oriented; savers have been flayed to an inch of their lives (how much longer can they hold on?).

Be that as it may, no one seems to be pushing a normative view. Why? So, we intend to do that. One approach will be to pick up these old posts and bring them up to date. That, of course, will take work and time. But, then, we have already said that we're under no time constraint.

---

The original post looked at the concept of stable money. You know, figuring that out is not easy. In fact, some approach, such as bitcoin, might be the solution. However, it would be a generally adopted scheme and not privately owned (ah, lots to discuss there).

Now, for a real gas, one of the WSJ articles was talking about the weak dollar. What we know has happened, of late, is that the dollar is strengthening, perhaps too much. One thing for sure is that manipulations like done with the FED's type of operations are oriented to the benefit of the country doing the machinations. Others have to react as best they can.

What kind of strategy is that (asking normatively, okay?) for a sustainable economy?

---

Before quitting, notice that another of the posts is "Silly games" and refer to the dark pools above. Then, "Why finance?" mentions leeches; yes, still very much apropos.

Remarks: Modified: 01/15/2015

01/15/2015 --  

Class acts IV

Gosh, this will take an undirected turn which is not unexpected when underdetermination is considered. Consider that we can make the 'boomers' to be the example this time (see II and III). Yes, they who turned 60 not too long ago.

Well, there are too many people to mention, but we can start to list a few.

• -- Milken. Did he really believe that risk could be wished away (see item #3, what say you, silly games)?
• -- Stein. Relates to Milken in an interesting way. Haven't read the book. May do so.
• -- A whole nameless cadre (Mike, this is here to juxtapose your take) who worked hard, helped within their community, raised their family, looked forward to the future and who were then screwed over by their government (laxity, belief - almost to the point of foolishness - in 'the' market (hah!), pure greed, ...), business (mostly stinky from the get go), and the fat cats (ah, not included with business?). To these is dedicated in part the efforts at depicting how a supposedly well-educated and smart generation went awry.
  
• -- Yes, the hippies of whom we can choose many an example, ..., at some later point.
  
• -- Those who took more than probably warranted.
  
• -- ...
• -- Those who apologized? Or those who did not (WSJ, 9/19/2009, "This Boomer Isn't Going To Apologize")?
• -- Any who did not let the pollution of money to undermine their excellence as human beings: Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling. It's amazing that President Obama spent time in Chicago (lots of it) and did not fall into the ways of the CBOE (Buffet is now siren'ed it seems).
  

We could add a few more of those who represent something about the generation but will not for the everyone's sake.

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

10/22/2010 -- We need more like Perelman in order to have a fair economy.

Modified: 04/03/2011

Lords and Serfs

Like in the old feudal times, we have those who work to exhaustion, do so while they can, and then have what they might have saved stolen. These are the Serfs. Now, on the other side, are those who accumulate massive amounts of stuff, display much of this in ostentatious manners, and then ensure that their intake is sustainable by pilfering in various ways. These are the Lords.

Now, it's not so simple as a two-set affair. As, we have various mixtures. The meritocracy (link here) that we've come to love tries to help some rise out of their Serf-ness. At the same time, most of the rules and actions on the part of a third party (our beloved government (say, the FED and Treasury)) mostly bails out the Lords ('fat cats'). Some say that this is so due to the government being susceptible to the lures of money dangled before the nose (Message to those in the lead. Let us get back to limited terms, gentleman and lady public servants, and this: finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope (no need for the silly games) and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money. Yes, it can be so.).

Yes, business likes to use metaphors that involve beating people, in all senses. For instances, sharks eat people's lunches and more (dead peasant). There are too many examples to go into.

In short, the Lords of business like to beat on the Serfs who have to work for them. Well, one would think that the third party, government, would help balance out the thing (level field). But, look at the recent playings. Who got bailed out? The fat cats. Okay, it may be that the Lords have had the press in their pockets and such.

Thankfully, the internet is opening up the discursive means (econoblogs) to a broader populace. Unfortunately, what we see might indicate why Serfs are sometimes their own worse enemies. But, efforts need to continue in lifting out the potential of the web.

Now, one implication of all this is that the best-and-brightest, apprentices for Lordship supposedly, are those who ought to ascend. Well, some who go up are the dumbest. Too, there are many in the Serf camp who brain-wise can outweigh any of the Lords.

Many Lords are bullies. Of course, Lords can be found on the union side, to boot. It's just that no union person can accumulate like the Lord of business. Even mis-appropriations on the union side pale in contrast to those we've seen doing the perp walk (posing for their mug shot). Many more sail by since any who might have a misgiving about their smell (whosenoseknows) are beaten down or threatened or the powers that be are just not paying attention to the right people.

Lords dazzle.

Oh wait, I'm descending into a game of the idiots. Let's lift ourselves out of the mire. Why does business mostly seem like pigs in the slop?

Where is there the analog of beauty in nature? Tell me, please. I have an idea. And, the future belongs to that side. The mire side is of the dinosaurs, believe me.

Now, why is this? Well, we'll go into that in depth. Expect that there will be an econoblog soon attached to this blog, and its related kin, that will look at the specific matters in a fresh way.

Of course, there may be insights which could help improve various business aspects as the majority of my time has been pondering microeconomic issues. Yet, it's in the macro side where those in charge focus. And, many have their heads in the wrong place? (quasi-empiricism)

Partly, we can blame the sirens of mathematics, science, and technology (underdetermination) for screwing things up.

Recent events show that even engineering can find paths to perdition just as we've seen happen in finance. After all, many of the decisions are very much economic in part.

Now, for success does a serf have to emulate Lords and strive for their ilkness? Interesting question. Madoff provides the answer, in part.

Can Lords pass through the needle's eye? Oops. That a t-issue but nevertheless part of the discussion.

Now, what name might be appropriate for the new blog? Fed-aerated? Any suggestions?

What has happened to all the talk about 'moral-hazards' of only 12 months ago or so? Gosh, when the money flies is not like fairy dust?

Remarks:

07/03/2014 -- The Magna Charta is a wonderful example for us to apply to provider (king)/user (baron) issues.

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.

09/25/2010 -- Capitalism was defined within a classist's framework. We can improve on that.

01/26/2010 -- This sort of started tongue-in-cheek but moved a little (Lords? What else but the Street of the best and brightest. Serfs? Well, Main Street). Yes, employees as chattel is one lesson. Too, ideological issues have screwed up Adam Smith's little idea. And how. We've been in a mess now for over a year. Big Ben shot his bullets early and showed where his loyalty were (bail out the Big Chimera). Obama did not take on the financial idiots and their slobbering lobbyists early enough. Nationalization sounds more interesting, in retrospect. What was done only increased the gravy train. Big Ben was Man of the Year? He's up for review now. Can we take another four years? Oh, yes, there are traps that we all face in trying to do things; however, some have this Lordly Prince thing going on that needs more scrutiny.

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

07/29/2009 -- For the econoblog, leaning toward FEDaerated, for obvious reasons.

07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.

Modified: 07/03/2014

Two trillion

As in bucks. Even the richest person hasn't gotten there yet, that I know of. Okay, they are at fractions of a trillion with their growing billions. But, China has this large of a bucket of bucks (could we use such a bucket?), reports the WSJ.

We need to consider that it's being shared mostly with a few (comparatively) there like anywhere. They have fat cats there (just like here) that got that way by influence, merit, or whatever.

Then, we need to consider the larger set (having lesser accumulations) which does not mean, necessarily, the very poor.

As, the middle people, especially on the lower ends, are stuck in the mire. The fat cats are hogging all the space in the sand box. Why? We've gone over this a few times and will continue to do so. But, it's not a simple issue.

Even Volker and Summers (look, you guys, too many from the Ivy League and with the modern financial indoctrination warp the context - look to the middle of the country, please - and state schools produce worthy peoples, to boot) are arguing about this. Like, ought GS, and those in their milieu, be reigned in, for example. The WSJ also says that CIT probably won't get help; you see, their clients are the smaller business people, perhaps fat cat strivers, but by no means amongst the dinosaurs (yes, used advisedly and will explain) of gigantic proportions.

Okay, back to the two trillion. So, that accumulation was from selling us stuff, via the role that they got under the guise of globalization, a lot of which was crap. Yes. Let me explain below.

But, first, during the same time period, Americans were losing jobs. Those that had them were swimming in deeper and deeper pools of debt. They were being led down the path to perdition while being told that consumerism (Darwin?) drove the economy. How? Well. Buy something now. Of course, use credit. That something would look good but, most likely, would fall apart (planned obsolescence) and need replacement. An eternal cycle that kept the monies flowing to the buckets/pockets of those who are really communistic at the core, that sucked the monies out of those who were on the tread mill here (not that China didn't work their people to death - actually, we exported the labor exploitation scheme to Japan, to boot - and are we ever proud of that, some of us, that is), and covered the oceans with carriers full of junk, more or less.

Ever wonder why the furniture stores, after about 10 years ago or so, didn't have anything USA made. Nope, it was prettied up junk. Of course, one could argue that one who thinks that a dining table ought to be able to last 20-30 years, oh my, is an idiot. Oh yes, buy prettied things, get half (or less) use, then throw it in the growing garbage pile.

Now, of course, that two trillion is mostly over here (is it not?) muddying up the US financial markets. Not that the fat cats care. They earn from the churning that muddies the water, no matter what.

How many in the past few months lost a lot (some everything)? And, were not some of these of a class that never expected such losses (say, the rules changed so that security holders saw their assumed value in hand vanish)? There is a lot more to tell.

Has anything really been done at the core? Nope, we have GS off running. Oodles envying their position. Thankfully, it is a new day, so things may change as needed.

As the comment to the last post mentioned, some of those who are acquiring continue to do so (one is in jail for 150 years, would that have even been seen if the administration had not been changed party-wise - think of if, Made-off still pocketing his gains, ill begottenly).

This is not a rant (well, maybe, a little full of hyperbole), by the way, as this discussion will continue with examples until the picture is clear about what might need to be done. Those in the flow now are too close, too addled trying to handle the complications, and tied too much to the rewards.

We need to step back and 'stop' as said by old WFB, Jr. And, that savings is up might be a good sign of something permanent. The WSJ also showed the star economic bloggers. Do any of those in the dismal science really know?

One could say nope, yet the function of thinking of these things is somewhat necessary. We can't go back to the agrarian. That was never fun, anyway.

But, think of how the current fat cats are not unlike the old lords who made the lives of the serfs miserable. Back then, the cardinality of the lords was small. The misery? Well, was it worse than now? The number of fat cats is larger now; their take is way much more - something like 0.01% of the people sitting on a big part of the wealth.

The fact is that we do not need as much structured finance as some would have those in the lead to believe.

Message to those in the lead. Let us get back to limited terms, gentleman and lady public servants, and this: finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope (no need for the silly games) and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money. Yes, it can be so.

Remarks:

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

07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.

07/21/2009 -- The WSJ was right. Elsewhere, someone remarked that the CIT rescue shows capitalism in action. Well, we'll go into all that in a new blog soon.

Yes, the fat cats go crying and get bailed out. Where is the talk of moral hazards nowadays?

Modified: 08/10/2009

Predicting idiocy

We may not know what is smart, but we can identify idiocy by its pain, especially that imposed upon the hapless.

So, we have 2 trillion (bucks) of toxic waste (so-called assets) from the latest idiocy which was brought on us by the best-and-brightest. This was predictable. How?

Well, a few years ago, congruent in time with the tech bubble, the smart kids were going into computing. What happened there where a new world was supposedly being put into place (web-oriented, for those who don't recall)? Bust city.

Then, people wondered why the exflux (opposite of influx) of people out of computing (note that we can enumerate the associated academic disciplines). The kids were going into finance. What? That's a silly discipline. Oh wait, the bonuses were beyond anyone's imagination. And, as we see, especially with AIG, very addictive to those who get on that teat.

And, what happened with finance and fiction? Bust city.

So, a survey of the academic disciplines will help pinpoint the next boom and bust. You see, we can go back in time and, generation by generation, identify idiocy in action. And, the older folk just get out of the way; Hawker has put an old guy in charge now (isn't that apropos?). Some of this is not unlike cleaning up messy diapers from those who never grew up, perhaps like those in the rogue gallery.

What is the new intellectual fad to watch?

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

05/07/2013 Case of the sucking of life out of a firm?

05/30/2012 -- As covered by flightblogger.

05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker.

09/02/2009 -- The supposedly best-and-brightest have led us on a perdition-directed path through mis-using mathematics and computation.

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.

04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.

03/30/2009 -- Renewable energy is getting a lot of interest. Let's hope that more young people being involved there will get us some more progress and increase potentials for careers.

03/25/2009 -- All the involved generations are culpable here. We'll get into that with depth, including technicalities, as we go along here.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Oops as poop

Yes, the title sort of sets the tone here. Business week, recently, had an op-ed that said that the Fed (and Treasury and others of the ilk) are spitting in the eye of those who have made good economic decisions the past few years; too, they're stiffing the savers and those working for their own future.

What does that mean? Well, lets talk first about those who fail, get bailed out, and then come back for another day. How long do we have to deal with this type of thing? Like AIG who floated in dough for years; when it's time to pay out (that is, put the money where the mouth is), they disappear. Oh, floated how? Well, many mansions and a high life, essentially.

There has to be a growth rate for the less risky that is a good basis (what? 4%? name it!). That those dealing in the stock market can show an increase over the years in value has been made problematic by the 'gaming' that the computer has allowed. What value can be ascertained anywhere? The reason for the unwinding results that we see show us that the 'froth' is essential to the churning rate. That is probably a poor metaphor, yet looking at Minsky's idea ought to give us pause (hedge to speculate then ponzi/pyrimid [oh, don't tell me that some hedge funds (perhaps many) have not had huge returns just because their basis is expanding due to more money] as an inevitable sequence).

Well, poop will have to now be added to the 'oops, loops, oops, and nooop group. I could not see how that pejorative word would apply to product management or engineering (perhaps too close to that to see it - other than the normal joke of going around with a shovel after certain types - the saving grace there is that nature and testing will iron out the truth). But, it does deal with the financial crowd who has run rampant the past few years, fostering on us all sorts of idiotic schemes, yet at the same time getting press due to the wow factor.

So, there have been many, who have worked hard, accumulated assets (like through savings and other mature economic moves), and tried to keep from all those silly shell games being offered by the supposedly smarter.

Yet, who gets bailed out? Those who are basically economically immature and who crap all over those who are economically mature and more sane.

It may be that a lot of this 'bailing' is to help influence the election; on the positive side, much may be learned from this; unfortunately, those who play games will only be more emboldened to continue their sandboxy ways.

Remarks:

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

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

12/05/2008 -- Not to be gross, but we can be biological and talk about a cycle. We have an eating phase and an elimination phase. A good article to read in regard to recent boom/busts is Harry Blodget in the December 2008 Atlantic ("Why Wall Street Always Blows It").

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

11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

Modified: 03/22/2011

We know better

Not only do we know better, we can make the choice to do better.

A year ago, many knew that the market was over-priced. Heck, it was visible even before that.

So, what caused the reality that it took a year for this thing to unwind? Well, that we will look at, but a variant on Minsky's thinking is apropos.

But, words that come to mind are gaming, malfeasance, entitlement (of the rich, CEO, etc. - not so much the lowly work, folks), sheer stupidity, denial (wishful thinking), ...

Yes, there are culprits all around.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- We're relook at this as we consider the good side (as if there is one) of financial engineering.

09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

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.

11/24/2008 -- In the last two days, the DOW (and other indexes) were up 11% which is a record or close to one. With this type of volatility, how does one plan? Well, that's one problem to be considered.

10/15/2008 -- That the market jumped back with a large increase after more governmental meddling indicates the level of interest in the gaming approach. All sorts of infrastructure has been built to support this gaming (the casinos of the Street - and Chicago and ...). That we pay attention and cheer is another sign.

So, it's time to go back to the basics and start over in the analysis with comments, such as: now that we the taxpayers are involved, we know that it is absolutely true that the fat cats want their privatization of profit (rolling into their pockets) and their socialization of loss (rolling out of our pockets).

Too, if the government is going to be involved, then we need oversight. It is possible despite the protestations otherwise of Alan and Ben.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Our beans

Madoff confessed. Consider how long it may have taken to catch him otherwise. Then, he's been living in luxury as some people scramble to see what is what and as others suffer the consequences. It's been awhile, and he is still not charged. Why?

Oh, is it a reward for fessin' up?

Well, these things can get complicated. There is a reason that the world of business requires trust. Some, perhaps many, take advantage of the situation (below). So, consider that the whole business game has evolved into a stinky mess. We do need more insightful oversight which we'll define.

But, first, quoting Morrill Goddard (an editor of a rag) from 1935 (see Note 1): The truth, which the public has never been told, is that no practical institution can be thoroughly checked so that every transaction is verified, except at prohibitive time and cost.

That quote was found in a 1967 book on Cost Accounting (Chapter on Internal Control). What is the modern view?

Well, we have SOX. What did that do for the current bubble? And, now we hear that there will be a regulatory overhaul. That is good; yet, what chance is there of getting it right?

This is an interesting subject that will be to the forefront for awhile due to its importance. The solution lies with truth engines; as well, techniques like an analog of random drug testing will be required.

Now, Goddard used 'prohibitive' which we all know is relative to many things. Granted, some of these problems will be intractable. But, assessing the market is not such. Rather, it is a matter of choices; of these, one approach would put ethics on a higher plane of relevance.

Yes, the old hat of greed and the other supposed traits of the best-and-brightest do not cut it.

---

Note 1: Goddard, Morrill. What Interests People and Why NY, Published Privately, 1935, 1st Edition, Hardcover. 6.75"X 9.5", 179pp, Fine. Full leather cover with bright gilt design and lettering, top edge gilt. No jacket as issued. Six addresses by the former. editor of the American Weekly, revealing the workings of his editorial formula and technique that built the greatest circulation in the world. Clean, crisp pages, bright and tight. Excellent condition! Journalism, Psychology, Human Interest (#004456).

Remarks:

01/19/2011 -- The quirks of capitalism are rank, not by necessity.

08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

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.

06/17/2009 -- Michael Milken says that structure counts (see WSJ article). Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.

04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.

03/30/2009 -- The WSJ today looks at the Future of Finance. The idea is that finance is like the cardiovascular system. Okay. So leeches are a good metaphor for the sucking out that we see. Like the AIG guy who was central to the losses that we the taxpayers are paying and who left with $300M. We'll be referring back to this discussion.

03/19/2009 -- How do we get the silliness out of the disciplines?

03/12/2009 -- Of course, Madoff finally went to jail today. Also, USA Today said it right in an editorial today. The SEC went from a watchdog to a lapdog. When a watchdog, accumulation of wealth would tip off the SEC of a need for an audit. One can make a claim, which we'll attempt here soon, that too much building of the pocket contents is a characteristic of fraud. As a lapdog, the SEC seemed to salivate and wag its tail at mass accumulators.

Modified: 04/03/2011

Why finance? II

Finance and economics go hand in hand. Both are respectable fields of study and are commendable disciplines, though the latter is a dismal science. The former was spiffed up by mathematics and the computer, according to a special report in The Economist.

Yes, the confounding from modernism adds interesting twists requiring advanced concepts and methods to protect the innocent. Too, we see poster boys emerge, such as Thain, which could provide a focus for delimiting what is wrong and what might be done. Of course, the Fed is experimenting like mad and further exacerbating the problems.

Oh, that we could have some analog of the Hippocratic Oath for these money, and economy, guys; oh, wait, hasn't medicine run after the buck, to boot? Or, could business schools, in their lecturing on busy-ness, consider ethics as fundamental (actually, foundational)?

What about a vow of poverty? Yes, let the monks handle the money. Ah, I can hear the clamor now. What? Richness is the motivation?

Let me remind you folks of the myriad of people who labor and do not put their hands in the till. Where did finance learn that the leech is their ideal animal spirit (ah, yes, we need to bring up that notion of Keynes')? Bulls and bears are merely chimera.

We could find many with the right attitude (probably there are some even in finance). There are professors in these two disciplines who have not raked in oodles of money. Despite the set of those who have exploited the opportunities, many apply principles of science and engineering to the disciplines, dismal though their efforts may be.

So, the computer did not cause the malfeasance in finance, though it definitely adds new dynamics. In short, a whole new arena of study and of operational prowess is going to emerge and evolve. One example is being discussed.

So, as said before, we can do better.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

01/31/ 2011 -- Referenced from 4th January. And, the chimera shines.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

08/02/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

So, is this what financial engineering is all about? Sounds more like leeching.

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.

06/17/2009 -- Michael Milken says that structure counts (see WSJ article). Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.

03/30/2009 -- The WSJ today looks at the Future of Finance. The idea is that finance is like the cardiovascular system. Okay. So leeches are a good metaphor for the sucking out that we see. Like the AIG guy who was central to the losses that we the taxpayers are paying and who left with $300M. We'll be referring back to this discussion.

01/29/2009 -- Earlier, there were some words put here about Truth, Fiction, and Finance. Well, pick up the 1/28/09 Wall Street Journal and look at an article about a 'proliferation' of ponzi schemes. We all know about Madoff as he mis-handled a lot of moeney over a long period of time. But, a lot of states are finding that they have a madeoff/ponzi going on within their borders. How much of finance is a sham?

The WSJ mentions that the hedge funds' claims to high returns is one possible cause as people try to duplicate that. Sort of a Jones' keep up thing, we can suppose. Well, a reading of hedge fund tacits raises all sorts of suspicions to the rational mind. Just how legit are these things and why are they even allowed? Are we that much into some mass insanity?

Modified: 08/01/2013

The debates

The debates (example) about capitalism (here, the libertarian ideology seems to come to fore, though, note that libertarianism can be enlightened) and socialism (here, the purported autocratic , or perhaps only authoritarian, tendency arises) rage forever in the western mind. Yet, we find ourselves now bailing out the socialistic fat cats of capitalism (Thain, another poster boy -- who would have believed that on the Republican watch, such largess with taxpayer money would ensue?). What gives in all this mess?

Well, it's time to look at something that can change the perspective, such as looking more closely at the Islamic take on these matters. Some insight might come from looking at Iran. It's Islamic but sufficiently away from Arabia to have interesting twists. A recent New Yorker article introduces the ideas of an economist in Teheran, Mohammad Tabibian. He talks of going to Qom to talk to the spiritual leaders who, by the way, are humble in characters, poor in acquisitions, and consideration of their human fellows. They are not inhabiting gold palaces as we see in some western situations.

But, they, from a spiritual sense as there is more attention to the 'other' world, don't really have an economic plan there in Qom. Hence, post the 1979 change-over in Teheran, the regimes have had to expend efforts to develop the necessary economic prowess. It would be interesting to see some more in-depth analysis, comparative to our stumblings over the past 200 years.

But, Tabibian, who is not favored in Iran due to his free market leanings, sees the need to encourage innovation as one thing that capitalism can do (yes, wouldn't it be nice to be able to do this with exhorbitant pocket linings - reminder, any pocket that fills, empties others - usually a many to one phenomenon). Why is not the socialist (at least, the communist experiment) view useful? Well, Tabibian was able to look closely at East Germany's economy, and, as a fellow revolutionary, could do so without censure. However, note that he had already been influenced by the western view.

As, he did study here in the west before he went back to Iran. So he can talk about the problems with the command economy (see the Trabant and much more) in comparative terms that are more meaningful than not. For example, he can talk about the problematics of the top-down specification of things versus the markets' approach that is, supposedly, bottom-up.

Isn't it the case that companies are more top-down now than ever before? What happened to worker empowerment? What we see is that people don't really matter here (western economy) except as resources to be exploited); one reason is that the 'other' influence has been filtered out.

Our recent turmoils from the disintegration of that Wall Street hubris show us the problems related to the 'free' ideology. In the western world, the reward for innovation has been seen as allowing enormous pocket filling to the detriment of the many. That is, smart means rich. But, do not the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, the favored) essentially corrupt the market's paradigm? Too, do they not screw it up for the rest of us?

One solution: monks as CEOs (who needs the preening of the elites?).

Yes, the suggestion is that the CEOs work from a vow of poverty (see Remarks) relative to their current expectation that they are the best and, divinely, chosen. It's the function that we want; these egos may have arisen to their positions by some talent that seems to hide under their avarice; let's propose that they just floated to the top (scum?) in the irrationalities that have run amok the past couple of decades.

So, our task? Define what might be the qualities that would be truly beneficial to all concerned (isn't that the ideal - meaning, of course, shareholders, customers, employees - what can BofA show its customer? no much, according to some). Among these attributes would not be the excessive drive for accumulation (those socialpathic tendencies ought to cause a filtering - are boards mere sustainers of elitism?).

This theme will re-occur.

Remarks:

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.

03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.

03/11/2009 -- We also need to look at accounting's role messing up affairs.

02/05/2009 -- Of course, Iran is only one of many Islamic examples that we can (ought to) study; especially, as on this side of the world, the likes of the poster boys, who want their big pay and fast jets, even when they are on the dole, seem to prevail. Why do we allow such idiocy?

Too, Iran can be thought of as being about 30 years old. So, they've stumbled. The USA has been perfect over 200 years (e.g. Mining in Colorado)? Obama says that we do not disparage wealth on this side of the planet. Well, no wealth has been accumulated without others (the endless hapless) being diminished. Near-zero is the reality, folks.

Also, equity and debt are not equivalent when looked at correctly. The former's mechanisms have evolved, unreasonably, into gambling. Some wanted the latter to be so influenced, to boot. But, these both could be tempered, by various means that are rationally, and naturally, supported.

Economics and finance have erred to the extent that they've abstracted, meaning misused mathematics. Let's get back to being real and more stable.

Modified: 07/17/2009