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
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Rent seeking
Too bad, we don't see heroes (oops, wrong, see Remarks below about Michael Milken. I'll, most likely, find more on proper search.) in finance. We get a lot of negativity with a little back-slapping (enough to bring on hubris, such as this graphic depicts).
The Economist, recently, had a special report on business in America which included some discussion of the future for the financial types that we have all come to just love so much, of late. Figure 6 above shows the big pay increase that was associated with the madness before the crash.
But, we need finance as a means to facilitate the flows of the economy (several aspects to this that will be re-addressed). But, this discipline need not think that they are it (rather, they're mechanics). Gosh, where did that type of hubris arise?
So, as an opinion in the WSJ ("There Is No Upside to a Down Economy") discusses, we have progress when people strive whether they do it in a mature way or in the adrenaline enhancing manner. Progress can be described, partly, by wealth creation which makes the game non-zero sum, yet, closer to near-zero [to be updated]. Supposedly, everyone benefits in this game.
Why near-zero? With a nod to Adam Smith, we can describe it as some partaking in 'rent seeking' which tends (it will be shown) to have the Minsky property which leads to states of undue speculation and ponzi/madoff, almost as if by necessity. There are ways to measure this, such as the efficacy of moving monies into the pockets of the few from scores of hapless.
Consider that this concept will be added to the basics on money and truth.
Remarks:
02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.
11/27/2011 -- Labor, and those who do it, have much more value than has been allowed.
11/30/2010 -- Finance and pay, always problematic.
The Economist, recently, had a special report on business in America which included some discussion of the future for the financial types that we have all come to just love so much, of late. Figure 6 above shows the big pay increase that was associated with the madness before the crash.But, we need finance as a means to facilitate the flows of the economy (several aspects to this that will be re-addressed). But, this discipline need not think that they are it (rather, they're mechanics). Gosh, where did that type of hubris arise?
So, as an opinion in the WSJ ("There Is No Upside to a Down Economy") discusses, we have progress when people strive whether they do it in a mature way or in the adrenaline enhancing manner. Progress can be described, partly, by wealth creation which makes the game non-zero sum, yet, closer to near-zero [to be updated]. Supposedly, everyone benefits in this game.
Why near-zero? With a nod to Adam Smith, we can describe it as some partaking in 'rent seeking' which tends (it will be shown) to have the Minsky property which leads to states of undue speculation and ponzi/madoff, almost as if by necessity. There are ways to measure this, such as the efficacy of moving monies into the pockets of the few from scores of hapless.
Consider that this concept will be added to the basics on money and truth.
Remarks:
02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.
11/27/2011 -- Labor, and those who do it, have much more value than has been allowed.
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.
12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).
12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).
11/30/2010 -- Finance and pay, always problematic.
12/01/2009 -- Some rent is okay.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
09/24/2009 -- Things looking up for those who churn.
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.
06/17/2009 -- We may not have heroes in a general sense, but we have people who are idolized (and more), such as Milken whom we'll use as a focal point to discuss several things. Milken, evidently, is not a fan of Modigliani's opinion. Mike says that structure counts (see WSJ article). By the way, Mike's comments on myths about him will be part of the discussion. His comment #13 makes him out almost to be stockholders' Robin Hood.
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. We need a fresh look.
Modified: 02/05/2012
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
09/24/2009 -- Things looking up for those who churn.
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.
06/17/2009 -- We may not have heroes in a general sense, but we have people who are idolized (and more), such as Milken whom we'll use as a focal point to discuss several things. Milken, evidently, is not a fan of Modigliani's opinion. Mike says that structure counts (see WSJ article). By the way, Mike's comments on myths about him will be part of the discussion. His comment #13 makes him out almost to be stockholders' Robin Hood.
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. We need a fresh look.
Modified: 02/05/2012
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Remuneration, finance style
The WSJ (week of 5/11/09) had an article about this subject that referenced academic work by Thomas Philippon (New York University) and Ariell Resheff (University of Virginia). The WSJ touted the "long bull market for wall street pay." Using graphs from Philippon and Resheff, the WSJ article mapped events related to regulatory and deregulatory legislation to the timeline.
So, let's go to the source which is a paper titled "Wages and Human Capital in the U.S. Financial Industry: 1909-2006" and which was submitted to the Journal of Finance. Two figures from the paper tell a lot.
Figure 10: Actual and Benchmark Relative Wages in the Financial Industry
In this Figure, we see that there is a drop in 1940 accompanied the Investment Advisors and Investment Company Acts. Then, there was a long period where the money guys were paid like the rest of us stiffs. But, notice the upshot of the finance pay after the relaxations of 1980 after which we saw bunches of supposedly creative methods come into play that mainly lined certain pockets but extracted oodles from countless pockets of the hapless.
Figure 7: Annual Income of Engineers and Financiers
An earlier Figure in the paper compared the pay of the financiers and engineers. Needless to say, those of the latter set, who do real work and cope with real problems, lags behind the ego-stroking pay given those with big egos and not much else. It's interesting that there were fewer finance graduates which could be used to explain the pay gap; yet, comparative superiority of the engineering education over the financial can be easily argued. The latter is heavily influenced by quasi-empirical issues (though, they have not awakened to this, as of yet).
In his post on the Stern blog, Philippon asks "Are Bankers Over-Paid?" and concludes that they are; Philippon says about 40% too much pay in 2006.
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).
03/06/2012 -- 4 Myths.
02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.
01/13/2011 -- Pay seems to be a continual issue.
So, let's go to the source which is a paper titled "Wages and Human Capital in the U.S. Financial Industry: 1909-2006" and which was submitted to the Journal of Finance. Two figures from the paper tell a lot.
Figure 10: Actual and Benchmark Relative Wages in the Financial Industry
In this Figure, we see that there is a drop in 1940 accompanied the Investment Advisors and Investment Company Acts. Then, there was a long period where the money guys were paid like the rest of us stiffs. But, notice the upshot of the finance pay after the relaxations of 1980 after which we saw bunches of supposedly creative methods come into play that mainly lined certain pockets but extracted oodles from countless pockets of the hapless.Figure 7: Annual Income of Engineers and Financiers
An earlier Figure in the paper compared the pay of the financiers and engineers. Needless to say, those of the latter set, who do real work and cope with real problems, lags behind the ego-stroking pay given those with big egos and not much else. It's interesting that there were fewer finance graduates which could be used to explain the pay gap; yet, comparative superiority of the engineering education over the financial can be easily argued. The latter is heavily influenced by quasi-empirical issues (though, they have not awakened to this, as of yet).In his post on the Stern blog, Philippon asks "Are Bankers Over-Paid?" and concludes that they are; Philippon says about 40% too much pay in 2006.
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).
03/06/2012 -- 4 Myths.
02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.
01/13/2011 -- Pay seems to be a continual issue.
09/24/2009 -- Things looking up for those who churn.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need.
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.
07/17/2009 -- 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.
Modified: 08/01/2013
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need.
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.
07/17/2009 -- 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.
Modified: 08/01/2013
Monday, April 27, 2009
I M F
Idiots managing finance? Joking! No, the IMF, as in International Monetary Fund.
These people oversee the global financial system and just picked up $.75T (thereabouts) at the recent G-20 for them to do globally something similar to the financial bailouts that we've seen in the US and EU.
Who are these guys, and gals, beyond a bunch of harpers who can go into a country and attempt to tell them how to run their economy? Many times these efforts had very unpleasant consequences for the citizenship. Must be nice to know so much as to run the world.
Note that the US is not a client. No, the US is a founder.
Well, Shelton (Gab Standard, et al) sees some issues (WSJ 04/27/2009) that bear to be noted. There is some pressure for another international currency, like a Euro for the world.
How would this be valued? That is, what new insights and knowledge would prevent those same types of things we see with the dollar and the American economy?
In terms of gold, the IMF has 12.9M ounces. How much is in Fort Knox? 147M ounces, or so.
What other approaches are there besides gold?
Remarks:
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
08/10/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
Modified: 08/17/2009
These people oversee the global financial system and just picked up $.75T (thereabouts) at the recent G-20 for them to do globally something similar to the financial bailouts that we've seen in the US and EU.
Who are these guys, and gals, beyond a bunch of harpers who can go into a country and attempt to tell them how to run their economy? Many times these efforts had very unpleasant consequences for the citizenship. Must be nice to know so much as to run the world.
Note that the US is not a client. No, the US is a founder.
Well, Shelton (Gab Standard, et al) sees some issues (WSJ 04/27/2009) that bear to be noted. There is some pressure for another international currency, like a Euro for the world.
How would this be valued? That is, what new insights and knowledge would prevent those same types of things we see with the dollar and the American economy?
In terms of gold, the IMF has 12.9M ounces. How much is in Fort Knox? 147M ounces, or so.
What other approaches are there besides gold?
Remarks:
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
08/10/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
Modified: 08/17/2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Valuing assets
How does this subject apply to oops ? Well, measuring progress is similar to determining value.
Too, plenty have argued that 'mark to market' has exacerbated the downturn.
We'll get back to this problem as one thing to do will be to document the effects of the recent relaxation of the rule.
Remarks:
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/30/2009 -- Well, all of the bailouts from Ben and friends plus account rule changes sort of motivates the need for an econoblog that looks at things like what is necessary to support savers, those perpetually sacked ones. Where does the money go? Indeed.
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.
Modified 08/17/2009
Too, plenty have argued that 'mark to market' has exacerbated the downturn.
We'll get back to this problem as one thing to do will be to document the effects of the recent relaxation of the rule.
Remarks:
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/30/2009 -- Well, all of the bailouts from Ben and friends plus account rule changes sort of motivates the need for an econoblog that looks at things like what is necessary to support savers, those perpetually sacked ones. Where does the money go? Indeed.
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.
Modified 08/17/2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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.
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.
10/13/2011 -- This needs to be updated due to an emerging phenomenon: OWS.
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
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
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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
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
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Securitization
One might describe this whole discipline of securitization as wanting 'something from nothing' (not unlike efforts at perpetual motion) as the absence of a basis to understand the essential control issues leads to gaming and messes, much like we see now. The natural metaphors, that are founded in the sciences, only have a tenuous use. The computer? It's mainly led us down a path to perdition.
This whole game starts with money (in more than the modern senses) which can be stable but, by choice, is not. The physical basis for money does not have to be something of historic value. That we have not explored these other techniques more fully is because of entrenchment, not unlike the Big 3's delay in considering options for other types of vehicles.
Then, there is a whole series of instabilities added in modern finance via derivatives and processes that do not allow the full amount of bookkeeping that is required. That the current mess was precipitated by the sub-prime problem is basically coincidental. The house of cards would have fallen for some other reason eventually.
We'll be looking at all this more fully.
Remarks:
08/01/2013 -- We'll be looking at financial engineering, more closely.
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
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.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
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.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
02/27/2009 -- There are many aspects and viewpoints and issues related to finance. It's too bad that the experimentation must be done on the fly. Many lessons are still to be learned.
02/18/2009 -- Actually, that financial engineering looks to the real engineering and the sciences is right on. That is, there are natural analogs for the market and other activity; yet, the work is half-way, at best; it is not sufficient to try to use physics, or even biology. Why? It's a topsy-turvy thing that will require us to establish and use a mathematics (to be discussed further). Of course, bayesian and other adaptive methods are not a bad start or a waste of effort. Yes, the computer will be central. See Truth Engineering.
Modified: 08/01/2013
This whole game starts with money (in more than the modern senses) which can be stable but, by choice, is not. The physical basis for money does not have to be something of historic value. That we have not explored these other techniques more fully is because of entrenchment, not unlike the Big 3's delay in considering options for other types of vehicles.
Then, there is a whole series of instabilities added in modern finance via derivatives and processes that do not allow the full amount of bookkeeping that is required. That the current mess was precipitated by the sub-prime problem is basically coincidental. The house of cards would have fallen for some other reason eventually.
We'll be looking at all this more fully.
Remarks:
08/01/2013 -- We'll be looking at financial engineering, more closely.
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
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.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
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.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
02/27/2009 -- There are many aspects and viewpoints and issues related to finance. It's too bad that the experimentation must be done on the fly. Many lessons are still to be learned.
02/18/2009 -- Actually, that financial engineering looks to the real engineering and the sciences is right on. That is, there are natural analogs for the market and other activity; yet, the work is half-way, at best; it is not sufficient to try to use physics, or even biology. Why? It's a topsy-turvy thing that will require us to establish and use a mathematics (to be discussed further). Of course, bayesian and other adaptive methods are not a bad start or a waste of effort. Yes, the computer will be central. See Truth Engineering.
Modified: 08/01/2013
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What the hell happened here
Well, I have to admit that I wasn't paying attention to what was going on in the finance world for some very good reasons that I'll get into at some point, as they are apropos to the subject. So, during the past year, I've been reading like mad to see what was what and to catch up with the economy. As I got into the details, I kept thinking what idiot thought of this. Oh, that is crazy. Sheesh, folks, how did casino capitalism get so entrenched?
I quit feeling behind, and ignorant, when the golden boys of Goldman Sachs (and Citi and ...) took a hit, and analysis started to look for the culprits behind the mess. At that point, I was vindicated, again, for several reasons that will be discussed. Who said that those guys were the best and brightest?
Then, of late CitiGroup is under the gun. If my memory is correct, Weill (their CEO until 2003, the King of Capital) was instrumental in getting the leveraging game going again (yes, after the 1929 crash, leveraging was verboten - Weill argued successfully for a relaxation). So, that Citi wrestles with their current problem might just be poetic justice.
Let's look at some issues, that will have to be reviewed further, with a few comments now.
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.
04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.
I quit feeling behind, and ignorant, when the golden boys of Goldman Sachs (and Citi and ...) took a hit, and analysis started to look for the culprits behind the mess. At that point, I was vindicated, again, for several reasons that will be discussed. Who said that those guys were the best and brightest?
Then, of late CitiGroup is under the gun. If my memory is correct, Weill (their CEO until 2003, the King of Capital) was instrumental in getting the leveraging game going again (yes, after the 1929 crash, leveraging was verboten - Weill argued successfully for a relaxation). So, that Citi wrestles with their current problem might just be poetic justice.
Let's look at some issues, that will have to be reviewed further, with a few comments now.
- - Where did the idea come in that the market (as defined by those instruments associated with the DOW - Modigliani aside) was the key economic indicator? That is, with the expenditures of all this human and computer labor, CBOE, and journalistic interest, that is a whole lot of ado about not much. What does Citi care that they're at $3? Oh yes, Weill, and others, took a pocket book hit. An earlier post looked at the irony of trying to use a random walk as the basis for future certainty. Idiotic, to the extreme.
- - How is it that we have the consumer side as a very large factor in the economic equation (macro), yet we set up the whole game so that the majority only fall into an endless indentured servant state? Yes, isn't that stupid? At the same time, we let the fat cat pockets suck the life out of all but a fraction of a percent of the rest. Something stinks here. Consumer Reports had an ad (USA Today, 11/24/2008) stating that consumer debt is near $1T (yes, trillion - see FRB numbers for Sept 2008). How can there be a continuation of the manic rate of consumer expenditure with that heavy load?
- - How is it that about 100 people can account for the extraction of $21B from the market into their pockets for the past 5 years (WSJ article)? At the same time, a very many were essentially without even the basics.
- - We need to talk about moral hazards, profit privatization, loss socialization, gab standard, and more.
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.
04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits.
08/17/2009 -- Books on the credit crunch. This crunch involved "macroeconomic imbalances, greedy and incompetent bankers, and fraudulent American homebuyers."
08/17/2009 -- 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.
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.
06/07/2009 -- Say what?
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
03/11/2009 -- We also need to look at accounting's role messing up affairs.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance among other things.
Modified: 08/01/2013
09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits.
08/17/2009 -- Books on the credit crunch. This crunch involved "macroeconomic imbalances, greedy and incompetent bankers, and fraudulent American homebuyers."
08/17/2009 -- 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.
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.
06/07/2009 -- Say what?
04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
03/11/2009 -- We also need to look at accounting's role messing up affairs.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance among other things.
Modified: 08/01/2013
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Stable money
Earlier, a post mentioned that 'gab standard' was a good description of the current affairs in handling money. The phrasing came from a WSJ article by Judy Shelton. Since then, several posts have used gab standard in discussing financial oops, such as those things dealing with fiction and leveraging.
Yesterday, in her "Stable Money is the Key to recovery" (WSJ), Judy expands further on the issues that stem from going off a basis (it was gold).
Having an underlying for money (money as a derivative, so to speak) is something to discuss as we go further into this.
Remarks:
01/15/2015 -- One of the most-read, of late, as things do look unsettling. Did we learn anything?
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).
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
Yesterday, in her "Stable Money is the Key to recovery" (WSJ), Judy expands further on the issues that stem from going off a basis (it was gold).
Having an underlying for money (money as a derivative, so to speak) is something to discuss as we go further into this.
Remarks:
01/15/2015 -- One of the most-read, of late, as things do look unsettling. Did we learn anything?
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).
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
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.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
09/08/2009 -- Heterodox covers several things, but here the suggestion leans towards the energy-based approach to money and value.
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.
02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.
02/13/2009 -- Debate continues.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/18/2008 -- Yesterday, the WSJ had an opinion article titled: "To prevent bubbles, restrain the Fed". The Fed has been on record many times saying that we cannot see bubbles as they happen. What? The approach has been to clean up the mess after the fact (as if the market capitalist cannot be toity trained). Well, as said above, the gab standard is troublesome, for many reasons.
Modified: 01/15/2015
09/08/2009 -- Heterodox covers several things, but here the suggestion leans towards the energy-based approach to money and value.
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.
02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.
02/13/2009 -- Debate continues.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/18/2008 -- Yesterday, the WSJ had an opinion article titled: "To prevent bubbles, restrain the Fed". The Fed has been on record many times saying that we cannot see bubbles as they happen. What? The approach has been to clean up the mess after the fact (as if the market capitalist cannot be toity trained). Well, as said above, the gab standard is troublesome, for many reasons.
Modified: 01/15/2015
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Our economy
Yes, the economy belongs to us, though some seem to think that the economy belongs to the fat cats or to the gamers or to those in power, where the majority are just mere resources to be exploited at the will of those who think that they own the economy.
Ah, there have already been several posts related to these themes.
Well, there were some fundamental changes that have appeared since Reagan and probably from before. Some of these are theoretically sound; many others are only an extension of the gaming ontology. So, expect that changing back to something reasonable ought to be on the plate.
For instance, there is much more emphasis on stock ownership as a means to wealth. Hah!! That is a near-zero game, folks. For every example of success that we can hold up, we'll have 100 (probably 1000 or a much larger multiple) or more examples of the down side. Think of it this way; every billionaire has associated with him or her oodles of those who lost. Okay, to be fair, many would have ridden the coat tails and obtained success. But, we need to look at the other side as it is a much larger number, almost a type of leverage.
Actually, that is a leverage number that we need to describe as part of the argument against 'the market' of the idealogues (mostly rogues wanting enrichment at the expense of others - yes). One question is how can we ever get the needed accounting; that hedge funds, and some others, want no oversight (or regulation) confound the issue.
Two articles this week touch upon the problem. In one, the question is raised: how good is the market in the long run (Business Week) for wealth building? Well, it's good in a very long run. For the individual investor, we must really look at better ways (we'll have to go further into issues of casino capitalism and more).
For another example (WSJ) of the problems that we face, consider this. Take an insurance company that wants to offer reasonably priced and benefited annuities. Well, the mathematics is fairly plain. How leveraging of the negative sort became so wide-spread is just indicative of our continual wishing for the easy way (quick bucks, etc.). Now, how is the insurance company supposed to found the annuities that it has to sell competitively since there are others making similar offers?
One current means is via stock. Okay. Now, the market supporting the stock has become more gamed by casino capitalism than by real concern for the future. Annuities are long term instruments. How are they to be covered with short-term wealth goals? What does the company do if it needs to pay out when the market is down?
The answer to that question wasn't clear yet needs some consideration.
Well, expect more of this same type of thing. We'll get technical, too, in order to show how the claims seen here in this blog, that mathematics has been mis-used, developed.
Remarks:
10/13/2011 -- Finally, something like OWS.
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?).
08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/12/2008 - a few more words and links were added to this important subject.
Modified: 10/13/2011
Ah, there have already been several posts related to these themes.
Well, there were some fundamental changes that have appeared since Reagan and probably from before. Some of these are theoretically sound; many others are only an extension of the gaming ontology. So, expect that changing back to something reasonable ought to be on the plate.
For instance, there is much more emphasis on stock ownership as a means to wealth. Hah!! That is a near-zero game, folks. For every example of success that we can hold up, we'll have 100 (probably 1000 or a much larger multiple) or more examples of the down side. Think of it this way; every billionaire has associated with him or her oodles of those who lost. Okay, to be fair, many would have ridden the coat tails and obtained success. But, we need to look at the other side as it is a much larger number, almost a type of leverage.
Actually, that is a leverage number that we need to describe as part of the argument against 'the market' of the idealogues (mostly rogues wanting enrichment at the expense of others - yes). One question is how can we ever get the needed accounting; that hedge funds, and some others, want no oversight (or regulation) confound the issue.
Two articles this week touch upon the problem. In one, the question is raised: how good is the market in the long run (Business Week) for wealth building? Well, it's good in a very long run. For the individual investor, we must really look at better ways (we'll have to go further into issues of casino capitalism and more).
For another example (WSJ) of the problems that we face, consider this. Take an insurance company that wants to offer reasonably priced and benefited annuities. Well, the mathematics is fairly plain. How leveraging of the negative sort became so wide-spread is just indicative of our continual wishing for the easy way (quick bucks, etc.). Now, how is the insurance company supposed to found the annuities that it has to sell competitively since there are others making similar offers?
One current means is via stock. Okay. Now, the market supporting the stock has become more gamed by casino capitalism than by real concern for the future. Annuities are long term instruments. How are they to be covered with short-term wealth goals? What does the company do if it needs to pay out when the market is down?
The answer to that question wasn't clear yet needs some consideration.
Well, expect more of this same type of thing. We'll get technical, too, in order to show how the claims seen here in this blog, that mathematics has been mis-used, developed.
Remarks:
10/13/2011 -- Finally, something like OWS.
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?).
08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/12/2008 - a few more words and links were added to this important subject.
Modified: 10/13/2011
Friday, October 24, 2008
Savers sacked
There's talk that the Fed is considering lowering its rate to 0.75. Gosh, Ben, you blinked before. Now, you're desperate? [Note, originally pointed to Yahoo Finance page which has expired]
Look, Ben. That market and game that gets your attention is not worth its salt beyond being a field for fraud and froth.
So, you're going to throw more pixie dust at those who you want to put their money in stock. Well, Alan's low rate is considered a factor in the mess. Why should you follow suit with the equity bias (yes, keep those gamers on the Street and at the CBOE satisfied)?
In fact, it looks as if we need to bolster the models that are driving decisions; as well, why not start to consider getting beyond the gab standard, to start to remove the fiction (Marx' view, 7'oops7 view) out of finance?
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).
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
Look, Ben. That market and game that gets your attention is not worth its salt beyond being a field for fraud and froth.
So, you're going to throw more pixie dust at those who you want to put their money in stock. Well, Alan's low rate is considered a factor in the mess. Why should you follow suit with the equity bias (yes, keep those gamers on the Street and at the CBOE satisfied)?
In fact, it looks as if we need to bolster the models that are driving decisions; as well, why not start to consider getting beyond the gab standard, to start to remove the fiction (Marx' view, 7'oops7 view) out of finance?
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).
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.
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.
07/30/2009 -- The WSJ reports that Ben lost last year, despite his best efforts to keep the equity market afloat. Gosh, was there not a time when those guys had to forgo personal gain? Well, it's obvious from his portfolio that Ben's not on the savers' side. Nice to know. You see, Ben, some of us aren't looking to put our hands into the pockets of others (as do the best and brightest). No, we're looking for a little gain with preserved principle. Get it?
07/16/2009 -- Well, effects from several months of meddling (big Ben's economy) can be analyzed. Yet, the main questions is where is all this going? Systemic issues are still there.
04/25/2009 -- People matter.
12/18/2008 -- Savers still take it on the nose. We need to address inherent differences between debt and equity (Modigliani notwithstanding).
10/30/2008 -- A more robust basis is possible, but it would require better behavior on the part of those involved.
Modified: 08/01/2013
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.
07/30/2009 -- The WSJ reports that Ben lost last year, despite his best efforts to keep the equity market afloat. Gosh, was there not a time when those guys had to forgo personal gain? Well, it's obvious from his portfolio that Ben's not on the savers' side. Nice to know. You see, Ben, some of us aren't looking to put our hands into the pockets of others (as do the best and brightest). No, we're looking for a little gain with preserved principle. Get it?
07/16/2009 -- Well, effects from several months of meddling (big Ben's economy) can be analyzed. Yet, the main questions is where is all this going? Systemic issues are still there.
04/25/2009 -- People matter.
12/18/2008 -- Savers still take it on the nose. We need to address inherent differences between debt and equity (Modigliani notwithstanding).
10/30/2008 -- A more robust basis is possible, but it would require better behavior on the part of those involved.
Modified: 08/01/2013
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Money and oops
A recent WSJ OpEd provides a good opinion about the need for more than a 'gab standard' for money. Much of the current crisis results from a lack of a reasonable standard for value, as what we have is some basis set arbitrarily by committee which is not that far from the 'central committee' approach loathed so much by the capitalist. So, the Fed's usefulness can be questioned.
Too, we have seen that 'capitalists' are those who like to privitize their profit while socializing their losses off on the rest of us poor suckers (paraphrased). Ah, how did this happen?
This blog was to look further at money from several angles. It's still on the plate. Too, alternative methods have been studied and discussed.
Remarks:
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
Too, we have seen that 'capitalists' are those who like to privitize their profit while socializing their losses off on the rest of us poor suckers (paraphrased). Ah, how did this happen?
This blog was to look further at money from several angles. It's still on the plate. Too, alternative methods have been studied and discussed.
Remarks:
03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.
02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/18/2008 -- Yesterday, the WSJ had an opinion article titled: "To prevent bubbles, restrain the Fed". The Fed has been on record many times saying that we cannot see bubbles as they happen. What? The approach has been to clean up the mess after the fact (as if the market capitalist cannot be toity trained). Well, as said above, the gab standard is troublesome, for many reasons.
Modified: 03/15/2011
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
11/18/2008 -- Yesterday, the WSJ had an opinion article titled: "To prevent bubbles, restrain the Fed". The Fed has been on record many times saying that we cannot see bubbles as they happen. What? The approach has been to clean up the mess after the fact (as if the market capitalist cannot be toity trained). Well, as said above, the gab standard is troublesome, for many reasons.
Modified: 03/15/2011
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
To the hilt
This blog started by looking at a particular development project's status with the intent to comment on a few modern predicaments that have been exacerbated by computational confusion. Well, in engineering, as said before, we have a real world that comes into play.
The same world influences the market, and things financial, but in an entirely different way that cannot seem to get its head out of gaming (apologies to the Olympic athletes, as gaming can have an honorable connotation or two).
In the 08/18/08 WSJ, Ethan Penner describes one aspect of the current problem in his op-ed ("How Low Interest Rates Contributed to the Credit Crisis"). Penner has one example that we can expand upon and comment about here. The following analysis will just be a small beginning.
Penner says that a key factor is that some retirement fund techniques will require a huge return in order to pay up as they promised (by the way, the use of entitlement applies here on several sides - who is more 'entitlement' laden in thought than some CEOs and some financial types?) . How many times have we heard 20% returns plus?
So, if the going rate for some real investment type is 6.5%, how does one get more? Well, the tranche method (Penner also has some thoughts on securitization's future) played that game, too. But, let's use a little story.
Supposing we had 100K bucks (later in the story, we'll multiply that by several 10s; as well, dampen any notion of rationality for a few sentences). Well, in the easy money and high liquidity times, we could have found someone who would have loaned us 900K bucks which would have given us a cool 1M bucks in total. Now, if we could get the money (900K bucks) at 5%, then we would make 1.5% for each of the nine 100Ks. The accumulation of return would give us the 20% on our original 100K bucks.
Get it? Smart or not?
Now, apply your multiple of 10s to the 100K bucks. Lots of people were making money this way; of course, what we saw, or read about, were the big winners. Then, we also heard about big losers.
Hah! Is this how an economy ought to work? Actually, a whole industry has been set up the past 20 years to foster this time of gaming which, by necessity, moves money from the pockets of the multitude of hapless to the golden (and more) purses of the favored few (those who have infinite entitlement - versus those who are only looking for some food and shelter).
By the way, this little example can be applied many ways to what goes on daily in the markets. We'll be getting back to that.
But, we'll also pose, and try to answer, some questions. Like, who would put $900K upon $100K (9 to 1 if you're counting)? In the old days, this type of number would have been a fraction (think the multiplier effect in macroeconomics). Why would I as a rational holder of $900K let you get the 1.5%?
If this type of leveraging was then extended (almost recursively), what value is there (of course, we see with unwinding that things do dissipate)? This brings up another side. If the one with the 100K bucks gets 900K bucks more and then has a -5% return, that would reduce the 100K bucks by half. But wait, the 5% would still be payable, so the 100K bucks would be even less.
Gosh, ought we to get the financial thing on some natural basis, not unlike using thermodynamics (no endorsement is intended, implicitly or otherwise) as some economists argue?
So, where is the accounting for all this? Some seem to think that the 'risk' ontology is sufficient; these need to look closely at quasi-empirical issues.
Remarks:
03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.
The same world influences the market, and things financial, but in an entirely different way that cannot seem to get its head out of gaming (apologies to the Olympic athletes, as gaming can have an honorable connotation or two).
In the 08/18/08 WSJ, Ethan Penner describes one aspect of the current problem in his op-ed ("How Low Interest Rates Contributed to the Credit Crisis"). Penner has one example that we can expand upon and comment about here. The following analysis will just be a small beginning.
Penner says that a key factor is that some retirement fund techniques will require a huge return in order to pay up as they promised (by the way, the use of entitlement applies here on several sides - who is more 'entitlement' laden in thought than some CEOs and some financial types?) . How many times have we heard 20% returns plus?
So, if the going rate for some real investment type is 6.5%, how does one get more? Well, the tranche method (Penner also has some thoughts on securitization's future) played that game, too. But, let's use a little story.
Supposing we had 100K bucks (later in the story, we'll multiply that by several 10s; as well, dampen any notion of rationality for a few sentences). Well, in the easy money and high liquidity times, we could have found someone who would have loaned us 900K bucks which would have given us a cool 1M bucks in total. Now, if we could get the money (900K bucks) at 5%, then we would make 1.5% for each of the nine 100Ks. The accumulation of return would give us the 20% on our original 100K bucks.
Get it? Smart or not?
Now, apply your multiple of 10s to the 100K bucks. Lots of people were making money this way; of course, what we saw, or read about, were the big winners. Then, we also heard about big losers.
Hah! Is this how an economy ought to work? Actually, a whole industry has been set up the past 20 years to foster this time of gaming which, by necessity, moves money from the pockets of the multitude of hapless to the golden (and more) purses of the favored few (those who have infinite entitlement - versus those who are only looking for some food and shelter).
By the way, this little example can be applied many ways to what goes on daily in the markets. We'll be getting back to that.
But, we'll also pose, and try to answer, some questions. Like, who would put $900K upon $100K (9 to 1 if you're counting)? In the old days, this type of number would have been a fraction (think the multiplier effect in macroeconomics). Why would I as a rational holder of $900K let you get the 1.5%?
If this type of leveraging was then extended (almost recursively), what value is there (of course, we see with unwinding that things do dissipate)? This brings up another side. If the one with the 100K bucks gets 900K bucks more and then has a -5% return, that would reduce the 100K bucks by half. But wait, the 5% would still be payable, so the 100K bucks would be even less.
Gosh, ought we to get the financial thing on some natural basis, not unlike using thermodynamics (no endorsement is intended, implicitly or otherwise) as some economists argue?
So, where is the accounting for all this? Some seem to think that the 'risk' ontology is sufficient; these need to look closely at quasi-empirical issues.
Remarks:
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.
03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.
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.
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
06/07/2009 -- Say what?
12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.
10/27/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.
10/11/2008 -- It keeps getting more interesting.
08/24/2008 -- This example where we see a 9 to 1 increase off of $100K is equivalent to a reserve ration of 10% which can be considered a historically low figure for the reserve or a high multiplier. This notion is related to leveraging in the sense of creating something out of nothing from one view. Of course, as argued before, the lowering of the reserve ration goes hand in hand with increasing use of mathematics through growing computational prowess which can exacerbate the Minsky ponzi tendencies, as we've seen of late. If we're going to model the economy via computation, why not base it on some physical analog, like energy (no endorsement intended)?
Modified: 04/03/2011
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
06/07/2009 -- Say what?
12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.
10/27/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.
10/11/2008 -- It keeps getting more interesting.
08/24/2008 -- This example where we see a 9 to 1 increase off of $100K is equivalent to a reserve ration of 10% which can be considered a historically low figure for the reserve or a high multiplier. This notion is related to leveraging in the sense of creating something out of nothing from one view. Of course, as argued before, the lowering of the reserve ration goes hand in hand with increasing use of mathematics through growing computational prowess which can exacerbate the Minsky ponzi tendencies, as we've seen of late. If we're going to model the economy via computation, why not base it on some physical analog, like energy (no endorsement intended)?
Modified: 04/03/2011
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Money and Being
The related blog is going to start to look at money (1st post on Money, money, money) and why the modern gaming schemes are out of whack in terms of managing such. In the meantime, this blog will pursue issues of oops in finance, in engineering, and in general.
Too, an anecdotal view is in order to try to explain the claims that computation and modern mathematics are at the core of the faulty thinking. It has to do with modeling and more.
But, taking money, and using the dollar, one problem is that giant sucking from the hapless to the ever-growing pockets of the fat cats does not move an homogeneous entity. No. The fat cat could not care less for an individual dollar.
On the other hand, those of meager means could even tell you how parts of a dollar were spent.
How do we account for this disparity better than the economists and financial types have done so far? Well, they'll talk in a mode that includes concepts such as marginal value and even risk in terms of how dollars are handled. But, remember they have scrunched what is a phenomenal complication into crunching numbers.
That is not sufficient, but no one has proposed a better means that passes muster. Granted such a model would be a large undertaking, perhaps beyond the means of a blog. Yet, somehow the stage needs to be set for the proper thinking and data analysis.
This new media may just be the sort of thing for that.
In short, think of these related blogs as a coherent entity (or an attempt thereof, at least), not unlike a book, that allows any associated bit of information to be available at a click of the mouse (or whatever other means) assuming that the underlying service pointed to by the link is both accessible and capable (not true, in any sense, except for in an ex post facto manner).
Actually, from the Truth Engineering perspective, such coherency (as is sought) would not be unlike a theorem-ic collective.
Yes, there is more to a dollar (and money) than the abstracted and sanitized view allows. By the way, money in its roles relates to objects of value which then applies to land, ourselves, and, perhaps, any other physical thing (for starters, let's go back and read the TE notions on Being).
The modern view on value has been screwed (skewed) by the growing prominence of 'busyness' in our psyches.
Those who argue that 'money' is this nebulous thing of arbitrary definition and value really are to blame for the mess that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries caused (and which, we'll need to recover from in the twenty-first century).
Remarks:
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
Modified: 06/06/2011
Too, an anecdotal view is in order to try to explain the claims that computation and modern mathematics are at the core of the faulty thinking. It has to do with modeling and more.
But, taking money, and using the dollar, one problem is that giant sucking from the hapless to the ever-growing pockets of the fat cats does not move an homogeneous entity. No. The fat cat could not care less for an individual dollar.
On the other hand, those of meager means could even tell you how parts of a dollar were spent.
How do we account for this disparity better than the economists and financial types have done so far? Well, they'll talk in a mode that includes concepts such as marginal value and even risk in terms of how dollars are handled. But, remember they have scrunched what is a phenomenal complication into crunching numbers.
That is not sufficient, but no one has proposed a better means that passes muster. Granted such a model would be a large undertaking, perhaps beyond the means of a blog. Yet, somehow the stage needs to be set for the proper thinking and data analysis.
This new media may just be the sort of thing for that.
In short, think of these related blogs as a coherent entity (or an attempt thereof, at least), not unlike a book, that allows any associated bit of information to be available at a click of the mouse (or whatever other means) assuming that the underlying service pointed to by the link is both accessible and capable (not true, in any sense, except for in an ex post facto manner).
Actually, from the Truth Engineering perspective, such coherency (as is sought) would not be unlike a theorem-ic collective.
Yes, there is more to a dollar (and money) than the abstracted and sanitized view allows. By the way, money in its roles relates to objects of value which then applies to land, ourselves, and, perhaps, any other physical thing (for starters, let's go back and read the TE notions on Being).
The modern view on value has been screwed (skewed) by the growing prominence of 'busyness' in our psyches.
Those who argue that 'money' is this nebulous thing of arbitrary definition and value really are to blame for the mess that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries caused (and which, we'll need to recover from in the twenty-first century).
Remarks:
06/06/2011 -- Finance is the focus, henceforth.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.
Modified: 06/06/2011
Thursday, June 12, 2008
It is not funny
Earlier, we talked about financial decisions that would be funny, such as leveraging, as being a cause of oops as it provokes gaming which can have very much non-funny results. Minsky's notion of the inevitability of the ponzi following speculation seems to fit.
Well, we see financial issues everywhere, from the Fed opening up discounts to junk'ies (a view in the WSJ asks, Why Is the 'Discount' Free?) to workers being screwed out of their pensions that are comparatively small to what the fattest of the cats may get (also, see recent WSJ article on CEOs posthumous pay -- millions and millions).
An example of a problem, that has lurked but is very illustrative, is the dilemma of workers. For instance, we see pension robbing, where one would expect that after all this time we could support the future for workers with more than just gab. We see little respect for workers from management as the latter go about their profiteering ways.
Of course, many of these issues would be hard for an angel to resolve, that we have greed involved to the equation just complicates things more. Perhaps, getting the dismal areas to be less so would be a good step forward starting with currency that has 'real' value.
Remarks:
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.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
01/26/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.
07/31/2008 -- For a little bit, we'll be looking at money and why there is so much problem handling things. The oops part results from our letting computationally-framed methods run amok, just because we could. Lawmakers and lawmen, essentially, have let this happen either due to wanting the benefits to accrue for their friends (and, boy, has this happened) or just due to the complexity of the situation (which is real, but that does not mean that we ought to let those opportunists who play and win to not see beyond their mountains of dollars [or any other currency]).
That these issues are not simple is due to the very foundational nature of the related problems.
Modified: 08/24/2009
Well, we see financial issues everywhere, from the Fed opening up discounts to junk'ies (a view in the WSJ asks, Why Is the 'Discount' Free?) to workers being screwed out of their pensions that are comparatively small to what the fattest of the cats may get (also, see recent WSJ article on CEOs posthumous pay -- millions and millions).
An example of a problem, that has lurked but is very illustrative, is the dilemma of workers. For instance, we see pension robbing, where one would expect that after all this time we could support the future for workers with more than just gab. We see little respect for workers from management as the latter go about their profiteering ways.
Of course, many of these issues would be hard for an angel to resolve, that we have greed involved to the equation just complicates things more. Perhaps, getting the dismal areas to be less so would be a good step forward starting with currency that has 'real' value.
Remarks:
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.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
01/26/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.
07/31/2008 -- For a little bit, we'll be looking at money and why there is so much problem handling things. The oops part results from our letting computationally-framed methods run amok, just because we could. Lawmakers and lawmen, essentially, have let this happen either due to wanting the benefits to accrue for their friends (and, boy, has this happened) or just due to the complexity of the situation (which is real, but that does not mean that we ought to let those opportunists who play and win to not see beyond their mountains of dollars [or any other currency]).
That these issues are not simple is due to the very foundational nature of the related problems.
Modified: 08/24/2009
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Gab standard
Or, should we say 'Gab as standard' which we do see a lot?
The title came from a WSJ opinion article but struck me as funny. Some earlier posts in this and the related blog talked about things like this. For instance, in finance we can look at the relative rankings of marking. Such as, is to model better than to market? Well, it turns out that it depends, like anything, upon who wins and who loses (it's near-zero, no matter what the richer and smarter say, folks). Of course, some have been marking to myth (Note to Cal Thomas: yes, we're in a 3rd-world dictatorship where the 'dictator' is not the 'decider' (whatever) but the group whose mindset is that their success is a divine-right and that their use of a gaming ontology, which is stacked in practice somewhat, is okay).
Too, on the engineering side, we can go on about 'gab' versus progress, where we know that the latter is hard to measure though it can be done. The former is always problematic, probably by necessity.
We also can look at the lowering dollar. How can this have come about when the US (Uncle Sam) talks (brags about) the 'capitalist' game? Well, we've talked about that, too, as mainly an issue more related to keeping the coffers of the few full. Turns out, though, that we've done so in the US using extracts from the pockets of many others. For how long can this be sustained?
Judy Shelton (see also Stable money) in the WSJ article (The Weak-Dollar Threat to World Order) looks at various reasons and the consequences of the current status. It's not pretty, folks. Anyway, the article is full of clever turns of phrase, such as things like "sleight-of-hand monetary policy" and like what we see with the title. In that case, the question is what is better, a gold standard (Note: 'gold' is being used since that was the standard [albeit erroneously] at one time; we could use anything, such as an element -- the key issue is what is a sustainable growth rate -- medical metaphors [morbidity, for one] may very well be apropos) or a gab standard? Some actually think that this is a foregone conclusion.
Oh, one sees that those who fell for the abstractionistic advances of the 20th century have really caused a lot of grief.
One case in point is that the supply-chain idea of globalization can fail in more ways than we've allowed ourselves to consider. Okay, we've seen both engineering and financial failings.
Now, let's look at agriculture. Has anyone ever thought about having a garden (or did so)? Seems almost to be a human right. Also, remember the idea behind the Victory Garden? Well, the World Bank and others have been telling others, of the developing mode, that they (the super rich) will supermarket-chain food to them. These countries were told not to have their own effort; consequently, many places cannot even do any type of sustenance farming in a reasonable fashion now.
What silly notions these are, all of this stuff. It has been 'rich' and supposedly smarter people telling everyone else what to do. Oh, I know, that's not new. It's just that technology and mathematics has allowed us to spread pain faster and further now.
See the WSJ for an article titled, Food Crisis Forces New Look at Farming. Makes one wonder what other ways the 'smart' set will be screwing it up for those who, in many cases, have no champion. By the way, of what is a CEO champion of?
There is a lot more to cover. It's interesting that the subprime problem has precipitated some of this review, yet that a whole house of cards has had such a very shaky basis portends what?
Remarks:
01/15/2015 -- One of the most-read, of late, as things do look unsettling. Did we learn anything?
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
09/08/2009 -- Heterodox covers several things, but here the suggestion leans towards the energy-based approach to money and value.
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.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/15/2009 -- Globalization, and capitalism, now a dirty word, according to one in private equity.
04/27/2009 -- The IMF who sits on a lot of gold got about $1T more to play with.
03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
02/13/2009 -- Debate continues.
12/16/2008 -- Shoes continue to drop, but they are of several types.
10/20/2008 -- It got even worse throughout the year, from Ben's blink, through spitting in the face of savers, to bailouts (what?) of those touting capitalism.
07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 01/15/2015
The title came from a WSJ opinion article but struck me as funny. Some earlier posts in this and the related blog talked about things like this. For instance, in finance we can look at the relative rankings of marking. Such as, is to model better than to market? Well, it turns out that it depends, like anything, upon who wins and who loses (it's near-zero, no matter what the richer and smarter say, folks). Of course, some have been marking to myth (Note to Cal Thomas: yes, we're in a 3rd-world dictatorship where the 'dictator' is not the 'decider' (whatever) but the group whose mindset is that their success is a divine-right and that their use of a gaming ontology, which is stacked in practice somewhat, is okay).
Too, on the engineering side, we can go on about 'gab' versus progress, where we know that the latter is hard to measure though it can be done. The former is always problematic, probably by necessity.
We also can look at the lowering dollar. How can this have come about when the US (Uncle Sam) talks (brags about) the 'capitalist' game? Well, we've talked about that, too, as mainly an issue more related to keeping the coffers of the few full. Turns out, though, that we've done so in the US using extracts from the pockets of many others. For how long can this be sustained?
Judy Shelton (see also Stable money) in the WSJ article (The Weak-Dollar Threat to World Order) looks at various reasons and the consequences of the current status. It's not pretty, folks. Anyway, the article is full of clever turns of phrase, such as things like "sleight-of-hand monetary policy" and like what we see with the title. In that case, the question is what is better, a gold standard (Note: 'gold' is being used since that was the standard [albeit erroneously] at one time; we could use anything, such as an element -- the key issue is what is a sustainable growth rate -- medical metaphors [morbidity, for one] may very well be apropos) or a gab standard? Some actually think that this is a foregone conclusion.
Oh, one sees that those who fell for the abstractionistic advances of the 20th century have really caused a lot of grief.
One case in point is that the supply-chain idea of globalization can fail in more ways than we've allowed ourselves to consider. Okay, we've seen both engineering and financial failings.
Now, let's look at agriculture. Has anyone ever thought about having a garden (or did so)? Seems almost to be a human right. Also, remember the idea behind the Victory Garden? Well, the World Bank and others have been telling others, of the developing mode, that they (the super rich) will supermarket-chain food to them. These countries were told not to have their own effort; consequently, many places cannot even do any type of sustenance farming in a reasonable fashion now.
What silly notions these are, all of this stuff. It has been 'rich' and supposedly smarter people telling everyone else what to do. Oh, I know, that's not new. It's just that technology and mathematics has allowed us to spread pain faster and further now.
See the WSJ for an article titled, Food Crisis Forces New Look at Farming. Makes one wonder what other ways the 'smart' set will be screwing it up for those who, in many cases, have no champion. By the way, of what is a CEO champion of?
There is a lot more to cover. It's interesting that the subprime problem has precipitated some of this review, yet that a whole house of cards has had such a very shaky basis portends what?
Remarks:
01/15/2015 -- One of the most-read, of late, as things do look unsettling. Did we learn anything?
06/23/2013 -- Ben sure has talked up (gabbed to) the investors; a recent downturn offers a lot to think about.
03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
09/08/2009 -- Heterodox covers several things, but here the suggestion leans towards the energy-based approach to money and value.
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.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/15/2009 -- Globalization, and capitalism, now a dirty word, according to one in private equity.
04/27/2009 -- The IMF who sits on a lot of gold got about $1T more to play with.
03/30/2009 -- Near-zero will be looked at more closely.
02/13/2009 -- Debate continues.
12/16/2008 -- Shoes continue to drop, but they are of several types.
10/20/2008 -- It got even worse throughout the year, from Ben's blink, through spitting in the face of savers, to bailouts (what?) of those touting capitalism.
07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
Modified: 01/15/2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)