It worked before!! Who hasn't heard this? It may be that financial engineering takes advantage of this and turns it into a gaming advantage.
Well, many times we learn from observing some effect in nature that is repeatable. At first, we just use the effect if it's convenient. Then, we study the effect to see why it might be so and how to control it better. That's how science and engineering worked, in the beginning. At some point, we let the computer come between ourselves and our science.
As well, when you have some new product you test it before the public gets involved. For instance, we don't put passengers on a new plane before it has been tested and passed muster.
That is, we put the product through the 'oops with loops in order to reduce the odds for oops.
On the other hand, we have not found such in the dismal sciences of economics and finance. There, we experiment in life (real time), and real people get scarred as a consequence. That is, some of the major players get their pockets filled (year-end festivities are reliant upon this); the majority find themselves worse off. Guess what? Again, it's related to the computer. And, we seem to take it for granted that oops are by nature necessary.
Of course, it would be nice if we only experienced oops that result from our own actions, but, in this case, our pain is either someone else's gain or our oops are consequences of the choices of others. Much argument goes into how we get the playing field leveled or just keep the hands of others out of our pockets.
A case in point is the Auction-Rate Security (ARS) which has become problematic of late for many reasons. A Business Week article says that this market has been working for years; ah, yes, it was working. Well, we could take exception to that fact as on the surface this market might have been well-oiled, but a real close analysis could probably find many warts. That the problematics may have shuffled up to visibility shows several things, such as muddied waters bring up the sediments.
There are several things that we could look at with this type of market. However, one lesson might be that we still need to good old model that is behind bonds, such as the Treasuries.
In fact, the ARS has led to the downfall of the student loan industry. Gosh, that one thing alone is atrocious. Too, do the ARS (and tranche-ing) put lipstick on junky pigs?
There needs to be better accounting on who wins and loses. In terms of the ARS, I would bet that many have lost money over the years (during which the market was working in some views) where loss was taken as a lesson learned (for the individual) about the results of improper decisions and unwarranted risks or was taken as an oops. Yet, we see now that the information involved with this market was not as good as many would hope.
Ah, oops just seem to abound where the Street is concerned. How can one build the future on such shenanigans? America, and others, wake up! We cannot stop the world, but we sure do need a better ontology than that of sharks, etc. (Business Week article).
Remarks:
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
06/07/2009 -- Say what?
01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.
Modified: 07/23/2009
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Creativeness and oops
Of course, that one does 'oops and loops by necessity leads to oops. Our task is to try to control the risks which implies a whole lot of stuff. We can look to both engineering and financial examples to study this further.
But, in looking at finance, does anyone remember that about 18 months ago or so some experts were claiming that the tranche, and its ilk, spread risks such that we would not, ever, have any type of financial meltdown? Was there not some type of meltdown of late? If you don't think so, go talk to the Bear Stearns people, meaning, of course, those who lived and strove for the company and not those cats, of the fat variety, at top.
So, along with tranching, leveraging, and other creative things, we see another bit of activity that was verboten in the 80s, namely "brokered deposits." One quote in the article mentions that we need to manage these things; yet, are we not always faced with the problem described by Minsky, namely froth?
Not to stand in the way of progress, but it seems that a whole lot of financial experimenting has gone on the past couple of decades without much oversight, for several reasons. Of course, as old Alan said, the Fed doesn't have any better forward-looking glasses than do the rest of us. They would better focus on bail-outs, as we have seen in abundance, of late.
Yet, one would expect that we would have some core of mature insight with which to apply our prowess in mathematics and computing.
Remarks:
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.
11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.
06/12/2008 -- Turns out to be worse in several senses. It raises uncertainty for the bank since they have other than the traditional relationship with customers. At the same time, gaming types can come in and make trouble for the customers, through various types of malfeasance.
One lesson may be that if you have the money, do your own work in laddering, etc. Ah, but that goes against the grain of having other people do the work.
Modified: 07/23/2009
But, in looking at finance, does anyone remember that about 18 months ago or so some experts were claiming that the tranche, and its ilk, spread risks such that we would not, ever, have any type of financial meltdown? Was there not some type of meltdown of late? If you don't think so, go talk to the Bear Stearns people, meaning, of course, those who lived and strove for the company and not those cats, of the fat variety, at top.
So, along with tranching, leveraging, and other creative things, we see another bit of activity that was verboten in the 80s, namely "brokered deposits." One quote in the article mentions that we need to manage these things; yet, are we not always faced with the problem described by Minsky, namely froth?
Not to stand in the way of progress, but it seems that a whole lot of financial experimenting has gone on the past couple of decades without much oversight, for several reasons. Of course, as old Alan said, the Fed doesn't have any better forward-looking glasses than do the rest of us. They would better focus on bail-outs, as we have seen in abundance, of late.
Yet, one would expect that we would have some core of mature insight with which to apply our prowess in mathematics and computing.
Remarks:
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.
11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.
06/12/2008 -- Turns out to be worse in several senses. It raises uncertainty for the bank since they have other than the traditional relationship with customers. At the same time, gaming types can come in and make trouble for the customers, through various types of malfeasance.
One lesson may be that if you have the money, do your own work in laddering, etc. Ah, but that goes against the grain of having other people do the work.
Modified: 07/23/2009
Thursday, May 22, 2008
One year later
7oops7 isn't quite a year old as the first post was almost September of 2007. The precipitating event is one year. As mentioned earlier, the interests are varied, including truth (as in lack of hubris, for one), engineering, finance, and many others.
On the engineering side, we get this from flightblogger, a Happy Birthday.
Now might be a time to review the past year in terms of releases, forums, and all the discussion. Of course, such analysis will take some time.
The anchor point would be the Release one year ago which talked about rolling out (ostensibly to fly) in seven weeks. Then, one can delta forward and backward from that point and look at who knew what or how (too, who is a cheerleader versus an analyst) there was so much confusion (Some seeds, posted 08/31/07; these have not been looked at since November of 2007 but expect an update).
On the finance side, the intent is still to explain that 'gaming' does not sustain an economy and that any scheme that indentures (as in debt to the fat cats) the populace to the nth generation as we see now is not sustainable.
Earlier, Minsky's ideas were used. Also, tie ins between engineering and finance were mentioned, even to the extent of comparing outsourcing to leveraging. We'll get into that more.
Too, we'll need to look at personal finance which lessons apply as well to smaller business, and perhaps broader.
If we look at E_S_T_A_T_E like this brief overview, we can go a long way toward a better framework. We will look more closely at: Earning, Saving, Tithing, Alms giving, Tax paying, Enjoying the fruits.
One might even say, in that order, as we are allowed to do in the USA. That second activity (Saving) is antithetical to what some have seen as a necessary part of the modern economy. "Alms giving" covers a lot of bases including the current encouragements to volunteer. The final action does not imply in any way that debt is required (beyond some reasonable amount - hey, mortgages were real nice before the madness of the past 10 years) nor does it make judgments about extents of spending, such as McMansions, et al, which will be as much controlled by wisdom (which is a growing set - even with the propensity toward greed) as by resources.
Remarks:
04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.
Modified: 04/07/2012
On the engineering side, we get this from flightblogger, a Happy Birthday.
Now might be a time to review the past year in terms of releases, forums, and all the discussion. Of course, such analysis will take some time.
The anchor point would be the Release one year ago which talked about rolling out (ostensibly to fly) in seven weeks. Then, one can delta forward and backward from that point and look at who knew what or how (too, who is a cheerleader versus an analyst) there was so much confusion (Some seeds, posted 08/31/07; these have not been looked at since November of 2007 but expect an update).
On the finance side, the intent is still to explain that 'gaming' does not sustain an economy and that any scheme that indentures (as in debt to the fat cats) the populace to the nth generation as we see now is not sustainable.
Earlier, Minsky's ideas were used. Also, tie ins between engineering and finance were mentioned, even to the extent of comparing outsourcing to leveraging. We'll get into that more.
Too, we'll need to look at personal finance which lessons apply as well to smaller business, and perhaps broader.
If we look at E_S_T_A_T_E like this brief overview, we can go a long way toward a better framework. We will look more closely at: Earning, Saving, Tithing, Alms giving, Tax paying, Enjoying the fruits.
One might even say, in that order, as we are allowed to do in the USA. That second activity (Saving) is antithetical to what some have seen as a necessary part of the modern economy. "Alms giving" covers a lot of bases including the current encouragements to volunteer. The final action does not imply in any way that debt is required (beyond some reasonable amount - hey, mortgages were real nice before the madness of the past 10 years) nor does it make judgments about extents of spending, such as McMansions, et al, which will be as much controlled by wisdom (which is a growing set - even with the propensity toward greed) as by resources.
Remarks:
04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.
Modified: 04/07/2012
Monday, May 19, 2008
Leveraging and oops
Earlier posts here and on another blog (TE's look at Truth, fiction and finance) suggested that gaming was the basis for a lot of modern finance as people tried to line their pockets, for whatever reason.
This theme will continue along with reviewing all the ways that oops can arise. The Calculated Risk blog provided an overview of leveraging (and tranching - can this be other than sleight-of-hand movement of monies to the bigger pockets, or how do we get something from nothing?) in the context of the recent sub-prime problem. Essentially, leveraging will accentuate movement on either side; if it's positive, then the Streeters (and their others) enjoy big bonuses and maintain their growing distance on the wealth disparity line; if it's negative, then the small guys (usually) lose more relatively than do the bigger pockets.
Except that all this gaming has been the result of Fed foolishness. What happened to the lessons from the 'big crash' with regard to leveraging? So, we have our work cut out for us in regard to the financial shenanigans and related.
On another note, this week Boeing is hosting the world's eyes (both traditional and new, meaning bloggers, of course) in an update of the Dreamliner status. That, no doubt, will spawn off more need to talk about insights, issues, and, especially, the imaginative.
In reference to the Dreamliner program, outsourcing is a type of leverage, especially if expertise is assumed. In terms of that particular program, there were several aspects that will be of continued interest as things unfold, if only for lessons learned.
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).
03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.
This theme will continue along with reviewing all the ways that oops can arise. The Calculated Risk blog provided an overview of leveraging (and tranching - can this be other than sleight-of-hand movement of monies to the bigger pockets, or how do we get something from nothing?) in the context of the recent sub-prime problem. Essentially, leveraging will accentuate movement on either side; if it's positive, then the Streeters (and their others) enjoy big bonuses and maintain their growing distance on the wealth disparity line; if it's negative, then the small guys (usually) lose more relatively than do the bigger pockets.
Except that all this gaming has been the result of Fed foolishness. What happened to the lessons from the 'big crash' with regard to leveraging? So, we have our work cut out for us in regard to the financial shenanigans and related.
On another note, this week Boeing is hosting the world's eyes (both traditional and new, meaning bloggers, of course) in an update of the Dreamliner status. That, no doubt, will spawn off more need to talk about insights, issues, and, especially, the imaginative.
In reference to the Dreamliner program, outsourcing is a type of leverage, especially if expertise is assumed. In terms of that particular program, there were several aspects that will be of continued interest as things unfold, if only for lessons learned.
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).
03/17/2011 -- Politicos might actually be compounding the issues.
12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.
11/01/2008 -- Recently, Boeing announced having obtained insights from analyzing problems with outsourcing. Well, the company has been a success from applying its lessons learned over a number of decades. Here's one for it to consider: Wichita would have been a marvelous grounding asset - in terms of well-founded knowledge about the 787 status, plus more. Oh, of course, letting it go helped line oodles of pockets which would have not have happened if it had been retained within Boeing.
10/26/2008 -- Leveraging is a fairy dust operation, or as Marx would say, fictitious capital creation is the game. We ought to be looking at what has gone wrong, in more ways than being looked at Paulson, Bernanke, and crew.
Modified: 08/01/2013
11/01/2008 -- Recently, Boeing announced having obtained insights from analyzing problems with outsourcing. Well, the company has been a success from applying its lessons learned over a number of decades. Here's one for it to consider: Wichita would have been a marvelous grounding asset - in terms of well-founded knowledge about the 787 status, plus more. Oh, of course, letting it go helped line oodles of pockets which would have not have happened if it had been retained within Boeing.
10/26/2008 -- Leveraging is a fairy dust operation, or as Marx would say, fictitious capital creation is the game. We ought to be looking at what has gone wrong, in more ways than being looked at Paulson, Bernanke, and crew.
Modified: 08/01/2013
Monday, May 12, 2008
Poll completion 5
23 voters showed up for the 5th poll with most being of the flying public (38% of 18) or suppliers (31% of 18).
Most saw that first flight would be after 2008 (77% of 23) and that the 787 would be delivered (90% of 20)
Support bet2give: 787 will test flight in Q2 2008
Prior polls: First, second, third, fourth.
Remarks:
01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.
12/30/2008 -- See, will the 787 test flight in Q2 2009?
05/13/2008 -- It's not a scientific poll, yet the numbers might be interesting.
- In September of 2007, most in the poll said that first flight would be after mid-2008
- In October of 2007, most in the poll said that delivery would be in 2009
- In November of 2007, most in the poll said that delivery would be in 2009
- In January of 2008, most in the poll said that first flight would be after October of 2008 and that delivery would be after October of 2009
- In April of 2008, most in the poll said that first flight would be in 2009
Modified: 01/20/2013
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Dreams and all
This blog has covered topics over the last year related to 'oop, loops and oops. Initially, the focus may have been a particular product, but then the scope widened to the general economy's problems. There are other topics that will be tied in this coming year.
Today, Fortune Magazine published an article on Boeing's big dream. It's an update on the 787's status. One thing that is different is the series of pictures from several suppliers and Boeing that show some process and its tooling. Both process and tooling are interesting things to know about; that we have an update like this is great.
Yet, one wonders why last year's event wasn't of this type. That is, we all know that building a new plane is difficult. And, we know that we cannot know everything that is done due to both its complexity and, perhaps, some proprietary limitation.
Yet, truly talking during a project like this about the whys and wherefores would be a learning experience for us all. Many in the flying public have interest in the technical issues.
As said before, there is an issue in engineering related to earned value (and effectiveness) which essentially deals with completion status. It's easily seen in complicated affairs that an estimate of 90% completion may just mean that the easy stuff is done and the hard stuff looms. So, the adage says that the last 10% takes more, in time and resources, than the first 90%. Naturally, we can change the ratio (80/20, what have you), and the message is still the same.
Somehow a notion seems to come around, that thinks that expertise is best shown as flawless, like a magician acting with his cape. That is indeed unfortunate. Think about it, all you OEMS.
How can the younger folk learn what's real if sleight-of-hand tactics are what they learn to expect?
I think that NASA has the right approach with its openness. So, you're at T-50 or so, and you go on hold. Well, there are usually very good reasons why countdown was halted. Anyone who would want to take the place of the astronauts and let the countdown begin is welcomed. Not really, as there is too much at stake (hubris doesn't count).
Same goes for the 787 or any thing of this nature, sales are great; but, as a WSJ article recently recapped, there are other disciplines, namely analytics and operations. You see, these need to be kept in sync, these three. But, ought sales be the overarching discipline? Well, not if performance and safety and maintainability, and a number of other things, don't get the attention that they deserve, no, they demand.
NASA also lets us ride along, though we ought to be thankful that the one shuttle was out of communications when it had its disastrous end. One difference with an OEM program now is that the web somewhat lets us tag along, even if it's as parasites.
Truth requires that we see warts as well as beauty spots. In the real world, any attempts at coverup or air-brushing is not what we need for the future.
Large OEMs need to realize their roles as educators, labs, and participants in our laying out the future. Okay, make money; yet, remember how close money is to hubris; and, allow those who can appreciate see just what are the wrinkles and how they are smoothed.
Remarks:
09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.
05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.
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: 09/02/2009
Today, Fortune Magazine published an article on Boeing's big dream. It's an update on the 787's status. One thing that is different is the series of pictures from several suppliers and Boeing that show some process and its tooling. Both process and tooling are interesting things to know about; that we have an update like this is great.
Yet, one wonders why last year's event wasn't of this type. That is, we all know that building a new plane is difficult. And, we know that we cannot know everything that is done due to both its complexity and, perhaps, some proprietary limitation.
Yet, truly talking during a project like this about the whys and wherefores would be a learning experience for us all. Many in the flying public have interest in the technical issues.
As said before, there is an issue in engineering related to earned value (and effectiveness) which essentially deals with completion status. It's easily seen in complicated affairs that an estimate of 90% completion may just mean that the easy stuff is done and the hard stuff looms. So, the adage says that the last 10% takes more, in time and resources, than the first 90%. Naturally, we can change the ratio (80/20, what have you), and the message is still the same.
Somehow a notion seems to come around, that thinks that expertise is best shown as flawless, like a magician acting with his cape. That is indeed unfortunate. Think about it, all you OEMS.
How can the younger folk learn what's real if sleight-of-hand tactics are what they learn to expect?
I think that NASA has the right approach with its openness. So, you're at T-50 or so, and you go on hold. Well, there are usually very good reasons why countdown was halted. Anyone who would want to take the place of the astronauts and let the countdown begin is welcomed. Not really, as there is too much at stake (hubris doesn't count).
Same goes for the 787 or any thing of this nature, sales are great; but, as a WSJ article recently recapped, there are other disciplines, namely analytics and operations. You see, these need to be kept in sync, these three. But, ought sales be the overarching discipline? Well, not if performance and safety and maintainability, and a number of other things, don't get the attention that they deserve, no, they demand.
NASA also lets us ride along, though we ought to be thankful that the one shuttle was out of communications when it had its disastrous end. One difference with an OEM program now is that the web somewhat lets us tag along, even if it's as parasites.
Truth requires that we see warts as well as beauty spots. In the real world, any attempts at coverup or air-brushing is not what we need for the future.
Large OEMs need to realize their roles as educators, labs, and participants in our laying out the future. Okay, make money; yet, remember how close money is to hubris; and, allow those who can appreciate see just what are the wrinkles and how they are smoothed.
Remarks:
09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.
05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.
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: 09/02/2009
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Fifth poll series
Note: Poll completion.
The first four polls are complete. There have been many announcements of late, so another poll might be in order.
There are two questions to raise this time:
The second question, hopefully, is unnecessary, yet, at this point, obtaining opinions about the matter may be interesting. Why opinions? As we are outside and are only dealing with information released by Boeing, what facts do we have to go by that we can believe? And, this question has been asked in other forums.
Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no current correlation between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.
Modified: 05/13/2008
The first four polls are complete. There have been many announcements of late, so another poll might be in order.
There are two questions to raise this time:
- When will the 787 fly?
- Will Boeing deliver the 787?
The second question, hopefully, is unnecessary, yet, at this point, obtaining opinions about the matter may be interesting. Why opinions? As we are outside and are only dealing with information released by Boeing, what facts do we have to go by that we can believe? And, this question has been asked in other forums.
Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no current correlation between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.
Modified: 05/13/2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
People matters
One thing to discuss might be how insularity comes out of proprietary practices. We see examples being made of people who go outside with inside knowledge without approval or who just get a company involved in unexpected ways with issues (Oops!?!, let us count the ways) because of blogging, structuring, or the like (one comment to this report points to a talk given in 2006 in which there was this statement: do we have a culture of silence — don't ask the tough questions?).
Okay. One can see disclosures being bad, if not controlled, given that a company's future resides on what it knows. Yet, what it knows is really encapsulated in the people.
We also see an example of extreme farming out that ought to demonstrate to us that limits do exist and ought to be understood. This type of thing has to presuppose that the people don't matter. Too, there is an erroneous take on just what computer systems bring to the table.
From another angle, most firms that try to impress peers, mind you , peers, not customers, by getting into this thing of comparative analysis. That is, there is supposedly a thing called 'industry practice' which those who are successful in some industry know and against which firms can measure themselves.
Yet, if something is really proprietary, will it be amenable to comparison? That is, is any measure beyond its demonstration in the market of any use? These are not meant, cynically.
So, it may be that we need to expect the insularity that we observe; perhaps, understanding how this relates to how people are treated is something that is necessary.
You see, capitalism thinks that 'labor' is something that is there to be exploited. Why haven't those in the thralls of capital's grasp realized that 'knowledge' is capital? Too, is it not obvious that 'labor' has morphed to something else that is very much knowledge related?
So, would not a proper model let those who found their abstractions on the 'capital' myth and on the financial gaming that has emerged play (perhaps in a sandbox that we, the people, control) and, at the same time, allow true evolution of knowledge of the types that somehow eludes the grasps of those who ascend the management hierarchy?
With whom would the 'knowledge' ownership reside? That is, if we can show that people found the phenomenon, those people surely are not chattel for fat cats alone. Yet, we seem to let that happen; the counterpoint offered by entrepreneurship is only a chimera.
The discussions will continue.
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).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
04/24/2009 -- We'll start to re-look at this and related subjects.
02/03/2009 -- Islamic economics, supposedly, looks to improve their people's lives.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
11/12/2008 -- Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!
Modified: 08/01/2013
Okay. One can see disclosures being bad, if not controlled, given that a company's future resides on what it knows. Yet, what it knows is really encapsulated in the people.
We also see an example of extreme farming out that ought to demonstrate to us that limits do exist and ought to be understood. This type of thing has to presuppose that the people don't matter. Too, there is an erroneous take on just what computer systems bring to the table.
From another angle, most firms that try to impress peers, mind you , peers, not customers, by getting into this thing of comparative analysis. That is, there is supposedly a thing called 'industry practice' which those who are successful in some industry know and against which firms can measure themselves.
Yet, if something is really proprietary, will it be amenable to comparison? That is, is any measure beyond its demonstration in the market of any use? These are not meant, cynically.
So, it may be that we need to expect the insularity that we observe; perhaps, understanding how this relates to how people are treated is something that is necessary.
You see, capitalism thinks that 'labor' is something that is there to be exploited. Why haven't those in the thralls of capital's grasp realized that 'knowledge' is capital? Too, is it not obvious that 'labor' has morphed to something else that is very much knowledge related?
So, would not a proper model let those who found their abstractions on the 'capital' myth and on the financial gaming that has emerged play (perhaps in a sandbox that we, the people, control) and, at the same time, allow true evolution of knowledge of the types that somehow eludes the grasps of those who ascend the management hierarchy?
With whom would the 'knowledge' ownership reside? That is, if we can show that people found the phenomenon, those people surely are not chattel for fat cats alone. Yet, we seem to let that happen; the counterpoint offered by entrepreneurship is only a chimera.
The discussions will continue.
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).
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
04/24/2009 -- We'll start to re-look at this and related subjects.
02/03/2009 -- Islamic economics, supposedly, looks to improve their people's lives.
01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.
11/12/2008 -- Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!
Modified: 08/01/2013
Thursday, March 20, 2008
2008 Q2 or not
bet2give's stock about whether or not the 787 will test flight in Q2 2008 took a drop. Both the flightblogger and the Seattle P-I report possible delays.
It's interesting that the 4th Poll here showed that 79% of the 34 voting saw delivery to be after May of 2009 with a good 50% looking at the fall of 2009.
Remarks:
01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.
12/30/2008 -- See 5th and 6th Polls. Also, will the 787 test flight in Q2 2009?
Modified: 01/20/2013
It's interesting that the 4th Poll here showed that 79% of the 34 voting saw delivery to be after May of 2009 with a good 50% looking at the fall of 2009.
Remarks:
01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.
12/30/2008 -- See 5th and 6th Polls. Also, will the 787 test flight in Q2 2009?
Modified: 01/20/2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)