The best and the brightest

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

Aside: all three blogs have used the term, for various purposes: 7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated.

---

Who are these to whom the Title refers? Well, the intersection of these sets (of course, best and brightest) has been the bane, many times, of the world since the beginning of time. You see, the un-best, and the un-brightest, have a smaller sphere of influence; in short, their troubles impact a smaller bunch. The best and brightest? We'll go on about how these are defined, but, in general, have not the widest types of havoc been wrought by these (without any doubt)?

Now, to be fair, plenty of the best-and-brightest actually are worthy of our attention and affection.

---

Okay, just to remind you: of late, the best-and-brightest took their balls home since the game that they defined, and instituted, became so confounded by their wrong choices that they did not know whom to trust (and, not trusting others comes first from not trusting yourself). Yes, the financial failings all trace back to silly games by those who ought to have known better. We'll, of course, characterize this further.

Aside: we still see the problems, and Ben isn't helping. A recent WSJ had several letters that pointed out the problems that will come from Ben's stance of sacking the savers. It's nice that the letters were written and that the WSJ printed these. But, will Ben learn?

---

So, what makes for the brightest? Too, ought not 'best' be an ex post facto determination? How much ought to have been 'raked' back during the errant times (oh, you know, being paid big bonuses for building a house of cards that failed inevitably)? Why not tie remuneration to long-term results rather than to the short-term rush after rent?

---

As for the 'brightest' side of things, that, too, is problematic, to wit[,] discussions about g-loading, et al. As we know, a lot about smarts (including to be rich is to be smart) is cultural. It's interesting that a culture free test is visually based. Too, the hardest of tests has no time element; in fact, one takes it home (but, then, if it does measure [in] the upper realms, to whom would one turn for help?).

---

Somehow, the past couple hundred years has led toward 'darwinian' ideals, on the one hand. On the other have been extreme views on communal life. One thing that we'll bring in is how we need to somehow balance with more insights related to symmetry. Why is it that only the sciences get to play with the concept? Political polarities can be seen as being related to asymmetry (which isn't bad, necessarily).

---

Per usual, this will continue. We're dealing with foundational issues here, folks. We're in deep doo-doo since the willy-nilly chasing of the best and the brightest after either their own gain or someone's demise (think of of it, not being a winner, just keeping someone else from winning) goes one daily in an increasingly complex fashion (methinks such is to allow the crooks some relief from oversight -- yes, those of you who talk as if dark pools are a rationally based thing of value of we, the people).

Naturally, near-zero will need, and get, more attention. Yesterday, we saw a game, with a winner and a loser. Too, we saw a level playing field. And, there were rules and regulations enforced. A lot more could be said, but here is one thing: both teams got paid to play (one has more bragging rights, essentially). The rape-and-pillage of modern business ought to be within a similarly bounded scheme. Ah, 'how to do that?' is the question.

Remarks:

09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).

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

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

03/05/2012 -- As said earlier, edits will be marked.

02/11/2012 -- A few editorial changes (marked thusly). Plus, here is an example of a main issue with the ca-pital-sino, namely stock trading without sense. Given to us by whom? The best and brightest! Out of control. 

Modified: 09/19/2013

Fraud Power II

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

Modified: 08/01/2013

Posts of interest - 2011

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• -- Wing and body -- This is from mid-2009; at the time, a lot was unknown by the lookers. Of course, the Company did make the right decisions to work things as needed, because the test period continued. Too, there have been deliveries. Now, the issue is production. But, the topic of this post was proven by tests. Will we know the lessons learned? I just hope that one of them is to not 'believe' computational modeling, by itself despite what has seemed to be sufficient evidence that we can do so. As an aside, a whole lot of testing has been pushed out to the users, in a seemingly production environment. Even, with cars we find this. Usually, this failure has little consequences beyond grief. As we saw with the airplane, the rigors cannot be avoided.   

• -- Confoundedness -- Again, mid-2009. One player is gone. In the look backs, what will be seen as lessons learned? It remains the case that measured steps from a known position is the right thing to do in many cases. However, there are many other times when going further is warranted. Again, this is a balance that we need to learn more about. 

• -- Truth,fiction and finance -- From 2008, this post pulls together somethings about the idiots of finance. Why do I say that they're idiots? They 'believe' too much in computation; the main issue is that this belief was reinforced due to machinations that allowed big paybacks (without clawbacks). The real issue is that these are not trivial things that are easily resolved. And, the current state of evolution in these matters is so apparent in its unfolding over the past years; yet, forces whose sole purpose is obfuscation seem to have the ear of the politicos. Oh yes, money is what drives that whole thing. 

• -- Cramming for the exam -- From 2007, the thing was motivated by a CEO's off-handed remarks that must have made engineers cringe. Yet, his was the mouth that perturbed the airways. As the first bullet says, from two years later, the proof is in the pudding. So, there was eventual performance. But, that came about from applying expertise, money, and thoughtful reviews and not from hubris associated with word play. 

Remarks:

12/29/2012 -- Summary - 2012.

Modified: 12/29/2012

December, 2007

The blog started with a project management focus. By the end of 2007 and the next year, it seemed that finance had really gone down the drain. Why? Too much gaming and misuse of mathematics (all because of an environment that relaxed oversight and that allowed young ones to play games without constraint as long as it filled the pockets of those who were funding the game -- at the same time, the real engineers had followed their improvements with an increasing amount of power at a reduced cost).

We had people thinking that trashy stuff, like the tranche, was high-powered finance. Wishful thinking, in some cases. Definitely, unrealistic in scope (there is no perpetual motion machine (something from nothing -- Ben, Ben, you can't just keep printing money -- oh, you're developing an economy to be like a game board -- funny money), yet there are many ways for people to gather more than they deserve).

--

Then, there was this role that had been created in which a wizard had a couple of buttons to control the economy via monetary schemes. Back in 2007, we had not realized how far he could take it in applying changes, and schemes, without any real data with which to know the impacts.

So far, does he look like gold? We don't have the final accounting; in other words, it's too early.

--

We jawboned a lot about moral hazards. It seemed that the FED was rewarding this a lot in its prancing upon the world's stage. Is that not still the case? Later, it was obvious that Ben liked to dance around strewing his fairy dust.

Too, the FED made happy talk.

---

The whole structure was shaky due to an overabundance of leverage. This was one consequence of the bastardized mathematics mentioned earlier. In fact, much of the machinations of financial engineering would not have been possible without the advances in computational modeling (this I know about deeply).

---

So, it's been four years of major oops, with all sorts of people suffering. Of course, the system risk is still there and understated. We can look back and try to see what happened. That will happen in the academic environment.

In the meantime, people are trying to move forward. As the OWS shows, we cannot sustain ourselves using the methods that led to the failure. What would help improve things? Do we not need to reconsider the deleterious effects of colonization and exploitation, for one thing?

Remarks:

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

Modified: 12/07/2011

Sealy finale

A Thanksgiving theme, in part. We can be thankful that some retail establishments stand up to their role in offering quality products over time. Defective products can reflect upon their reputation; sometimes, one might think that they're caught between two immovable forces: shoddy production and design practices on the one side, discriminating consumer on the other.

---

A bedroom stands empty since the retailer removed the mattress and refunded the purchase price. The consumer is now venturing, again, upon a quest for a good mattress; perhaps, the events described below will allow for a more informed decision.

Too, additional information, such as that provided by sleeplikethedead will be part of the decision process. It is interesting that the particular manufacturer rates low in customer satisfaction.

---

So, what happened with this consumer? Firstly, a mattress set was delivered in June, 2010 (yes). As the delivery folks were setting up the bed, the lift strap broke. That is, the mechanism provided to allow one to move the mattress failed. Ought the consumer have accepted this set?

A few weeks later, the second set was delivered which then allowed the consumer to become acquainted with the bed set. Ah, what was a firm mattress had obvious soft spots. How could that be?

These earlier posts depict what occurred as the consumer tried to find out what was what. Is firm 'firm' in the modern parlance?

• - Sealy snafu (Feb 8, 2011) -- It took from July 2010 until February 2011 to get Sealy to send out someone to look at the mattress. This was after several go-arounds with their filtering process (is this to weed out those who don't follow through?). And, the first complaint was registered within five days of starting to use the mattress.
• - Sealy saga (Feb 15, 2011) -- Sealy went from a point test to one that averages across a fairly large expanse, perhaps due to an excessive amount of returns. The averaging test made rejection a whole lot harder for the consumer. However, using weights in a consistent fashion allowed the problems to come to fore in a measurable, repeatable fashion.
• - Sealy shimming (Feb 26, 2011) -- The net result was that there had to be shims put on the mattress in order to prevent sinking into the soft spots. That is, in order to provide a sleeping platform, the mattress had to be reinforced in several areas.
• - In April, the retailer (not Sealy) honored the consumer's analysis (described in the above posts) and decided to replace the mattress. When it arrived, the consumer accepted the mattress with only a casual review. However, before use, the consumer did have a closer scrutiny, and the mattress was found to be full of flaws. It had soft spots, even without use. It had mangled sewing (even Sealy admitted this). However, they had to send out the guy, again, before doing anything. That whole process took some time.
• - So, this time, Sealy said that they would replace the mattress (before, it had been the retailer who stepped up). In the meantime, a shimmed Sealy (Stearns and Foster) was in use by the consumer. The replacement mattress, this time provided by Sealy, was scrutinized before the consumer would accept it. Why? Sealy's policy makes it obvious that the only way to reject is to scrutinize for flaws prior to signing. Was the mattress acceptable? No. Hence, the mattress went back.
• - At that point, we were talking four flawed mattresses (the user satisfaction rating is low, the consumer found out). Why are so many flaws overlooked? You see, it's hard to do the proper lookover while crew is awaiting one's decision. Besides, there is the social pressure to not make waves. And, some of these things are not easily seen. Where is the quality control inspection at the plant that ought to be looking for these obvious shortcomings?
• - Since the time of that latest delivery attempt, early summer of 2011, the consumer has been in discussion with the retailer. They do offer the brand and have to give their stamp of quality. It was obvious that four strikes ought not to be ignored.
• - So, the decision, finally, was for the consumer to return the thing and get refunded.

---

That event puts the consumer at square one, again. Frustrated, of course, in having to go through this whole thing, again. The final choice from the upcoming decision process will be reported once it has been made. In fact, there may be a post or two during the interim.

---

You see, this is under 'oops' since there are several involved. On the consumer's part, one big 'oops' was thinking that brand reputation held up in the modern day. Will we ever get back to how it was before? Too, brand loyalty (the consumer has used Sealy for years) is not the way to go either, evidently.

What 'oops' there are on the manufacturers side we'll not go into, though we could. That is their issue.

---

What ought Sealy do? Well, pressure test, for one thing. We hear that they spend oodles on research and development. What amount of this effort goes into testing? Of course, if they're doing 'lean' they ought to be making (the building process) their product so as to not have to test (ah, that is the ideal; can it apply in a case like this?).

Sealy, perhaps, is learning something. They are offering 'core support' which looks like an engineering improvement. It would be interesting to find out when this was first offered. As well, there are other modern offerings that indicate some thoughtful design.

---

Why did the National Sleep Foundation pick Serta? Does that mean anything?

Remarks:

03/03/2012 -- Decision made, after much research, and looking. Se*** (guess). 

Modified: 03/03/2012

There yet?

There was a 'not back' series that kept confirming that we were still looking at the idiocies of the finance world while letting engineers do their thing, such as deliver the 787. Of course, we know that there are engineering marvels all around and coming about every day.

---

This marvel of finance exploiting computing is not what it appears to be. In fact, the reality stinks; we'll somehow have to constrain the thing with regulations and moral imperatives. We don't have to count the ways these things can go wrong, as the stench as drifted even up to the heavens.

---

So, we're start another discourse that is more amenable to discussion and test. The automobile's expected life-cycle, for short. Ignoring, for now, issues of planning for obsolescence and other optimization schemes that increase the profit while reducing the utility and issues related to drive-by-wire (et al), let's just look at one vehicle.

---

Taken by an old digital camera.

Now, the make and model will be ignored, for now, to protect the not so guilty. The thing is of 2004 vintage and has 163K miles on it without any major breakdowns. Its companion, a little older, has over 149K miles on it.

The drift of the post ought to be apparent now. Yes, why ought we not think that a purchase of a new vehicle is a transaction that allows us to get something that will work for as many years as we want it to? Who can tell us what the life expectancy might be?

---

Insurance companies do this for people. They even put their money up front on betting that they can do the modelling correctly (however, things like the dead peasant must really throw them a curve ball -- who would think that bankers would stoop this low?).

---

Here are a few particulars, to support the query about how far this thing can go:

• -- The miles have been mostly road miles (up to 80+ is common, where it can be driven like that legally and safely); the mechanic says that the brakes are just over 1/4 worn.
• -- For driving habits, all starts are gradual; there is almost nil quick breaking (if it's necessary, it's usually due to some unexpected move by another car); for disclosure, usually the car has out-raced others in seeing who gets to the top of the mountain first (yet, the tach seldom goes above 2500).
• -- It's on its 3rd set of tires. Judicious care about rotation, pressure care, etc. allowed maximal use to within 5/32nds of wear. Since I got a nail in the tire early, I used the spare for a pair. So, then the issue was managing the change over of pairs. A recent change of all four tires now has offered 10/32nds to play with.
• -- Oil changes were kept, for the most part, around 3000 miles. The air filter was changed, at least, yearly but sooner if dirty (you would be amazed at how eight hours driving in rain on an Interstate can trash the filter). Since manufacturers claim that the oil monitoring is a great system, I've giving this a try (but, the mechanics say that they've had to fix many cars that pushed too far without an oil change).
• -- The first major preventive work was changing the transmission fluid around 100K miles. This unit is one of the workhorses in mostly continual use.
• -- The plugs were not changed until 134K miles. They didn't look too badly. A performance change, though, could be seen in acceleration and mileage.
• -- The belt wasn't changed until 154K miles. It had no cracking. There was some stretching in certain load conditions.
• -- Problems: the instrument panel went (could not see speed, drove awhile with a stop watch and eyeballing mileage markers - that only worked out in the country) and took $.5K for fixing. A sensor went but hasn't been changed (it's been out for two years, another story that will be written) since it only applies to startup conditions.
• -- Oh yes, the windshield. It has about 20 dings, one starting to crack slightly. Insurance will change that; already has done this once. Needless to say, the wipers have been changed (but, they're kept clean).
• -- Light bulbs have been pretty good. One headlamp and one taillight, so far.
• -- Body work, interior -- only one ding that happened in a parking lot with a cart (intentional?); of course, trying to remove bug juice can be an issue; the interior doesn't have any real problems after 7 years. The thing still looks good when cleaned and shined up a little (never have added wax -- mostly hand washing).
• -- Warranty work: there was one little recall item early on. Did not buy the extended warranty this time with the thought that I would self-ensure. Turns out that I saved the money. The manufacturer (or its representative) is still trying to get me to buy this type of insurance at 163K miles.
• ...

---

There may be more to add to the list. Right now, we can ask two questions. Can this vehicle go to 200K miles without any major work? If so, what about 300K? One mechanic told me that he had just done the first brake job on a pickup with over 300K miles on it.

---

Now, as we know, the answer would depend upon several things which we'll get into. One thing is that all of the subsystems have some life expectancy. What are those? Where do you go to find these?

You see, people ask these questions all the time. No one seems to want to answer. Why? I can go to the web and find expected life of household items. Why not for auto systems?

I can tell you a lot about tires. The major worry there, for me, was tread and handling since I'm doing year around driving (only got stuck once in the snow -- the better tread was on the front tires at the time -- the thought, at the time, was safety over traction). The casing can have a very long life (hence, re-rubbering as we see with trucks) if cared for properly.

---

If there are places where this data is available, I, and others, would sure like to know. If it is there, how do we make it more than anecdotal?

Remarks:

03/27/2015 -- Almost 210K. See photo from Nov. 2014 (see some disclosures).

10/12/2014 -- Over 200K. This story is apropos: F250, 1M miles, 4 years.

06/24/2014 -- Over 198K. Wrote a review at Kelley's Blue Book. Also, updating the Talk page on Wikipedia. Latest incident was an actuator arm freezing (A/C system) after a battery failure. -- General question: With all of the recalls of late, are we seeing engineering cutting too many corners? Too, some of these were due to software issues; are they just hacking away? Where is the software engineering discipline?

04/25/2013 -- Over 180K, several weeks ago. Had the transmission serviced, again. It looked good. The first time was about 100K miles as this is one of the work horses. A recent failure was the water pump going out. But, with that fixed, the Rainier runs smoothly and quietly. On a business trip, I rented a new Buick and almost got hooked on all of the newer features that one finds nowadays. But, I'll be thorough in checking out all options before buying new. In the meantime, a couple of road trips are planned with the Rainier.

Taken by by phone camera but
modified to grey scale. 

09/17/2012 -- Approaching 180K. In the past year, replaced one failed sensor used to determine fuel mixture at start-up temperatures. Put on a new set of tires. Of late, getting queries about selling. Evidently, this year of Buick Rainier has built a reputation for reliability. 

Modified: 03/27/2015

OWS

There have been several developments the past few weeks. One of the major events relates to the Title, which is not expanded for a reason (see below).

• 1% versus 99% -- the latter is finding a voice and a presence - finally, one might say. Tech Ticker has a good overview of the basic issues.
• best-and-brightests' lack of sense versus the public's heart -- again, it's good to see that there is still something afloat (the suppression of the past decade was extreme).
• own Wall Street versus occupy Wall Street -- of course, those running the game think that they own the street; actually, we could do a better job with a bunch of smart monks.

All of this is too new to see what's going to be the end results. However, the blogger is happy to see the unfolding, almost deja vu (so many ways, to boot).

Remarks

12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.

10/18/2011 -- Hopefully, the OWS will bring this type of thing to public awareness.

10/15/2011 -- The recognition goes global. Banking ought to be handled by those whose greed is close to nil.

10/14/2011 -- One thing that has always concerned the blogger was the trickery that finance did with student loans which ought to be as straightforward as mortgages. Yet, some play games with those needing the support and, in doing so, made oodles (atrocious, in essence). Some of have this in mind as they join in the protest. Yes, it was turned over to bankers of whom there are many types; and, do not bankers exist for the purpose of filling their pockets?

10/13/2011 -- Cain, the candidate, has a 9-9-9 tax plan. Of course, those at the top would pay less, fattening their pockets more. Those at the bottom would be bled. What is interesting is that he wants to remove any capital gains tax. Guess what? That would put even more money, and silliness, into the gaming that we're now all paying for. Actually, the short-term profits (milking the system, actually) and speculative gains ought to be taxed higher than anything. The consequence of these things -- though, the aura is hyped daily by pundits, tv, and more? Moving money to the bigger pockets (small set) from myriads (very, very large set) of the hapless.

Too, Cain, of the boot-strap thinking, worked for the government (Department of Navy -- not in uniform, mind you) for his starter work. And, in a well-paid position with all sorts of benefits. Yet, he wants the young people (it seems) to create a position for themselves out of thin air (we'll have to re-address the whole perpetual motion issue -- no, we're not talking the mouth motion of people like Cain -- it has to do with accumulation expectations that are unrealistically founded and are not sustainable (except by chewing up the hapless)).

Where is the worker's equivalent of the 13th amendment? Workers, in many cases, are indentured servants (ah, we can easily explain this). We want them to enlarge their debt in order to keep the controls in place (shackles). Remember the Irish and the IPhone suicides (as if those using these things care about that sort of thing -- sort of like us not being mindful of the mistreatment of farm workers as we belly up to the tables of bounty).

Modified: 12/13/2011

CEO MVP

As in, the 'most valuable' of the CEOs. I first saw this in Fortune (May issue). That Jamie is foremost on the list got my attention.

---

Will need to find out what were the results of the poll.

---

The whole notion reeks of the claim here that what are roles has turned into a 'cult of personality' sort of thing. And, the importance of the role is not in question. Rather, that this type of top-down person can rake off so much is a very big issue (see Wealth).

---

So, there will be much to talk about in this regard. But, first, let's just go down the line of the qualities (see article) needed by this new type of king (whose wings have not been clipped yet by the proper Magna Carta).

• understand global business in their bones -- or, 'true citizens' of the world (come on, Fortune, I thought you were better than this). Exploiting workers, and other resources while building up a framework that is beyond the reach of law, and more? I have no problem with applying the 'bones' (intuition, folks) as those at the lowly side of things do that, to boot. Those with their hands in the dirt. Yes, indeed.

• change strategies and business models more than before -- innovate at a deep level? does that not imply that there are those AT THAT LEVEL who can, and are allowed to, innovate? Let me remind you all, after the innervation! Besides, how can this sit with the ego-maniacal boss at the top (as in, from whence will we see self-adapting organisms, with autonomous parts, congealing to an effective entity? -- what? yes, the real indicator of a mature humanity!)?

• skillfully manage relationships with governments -- ah, a tight-rope walk here, do you not think? smooze, do you say? The balance that will be required for the political (used in a universal sense) and the business and the social (used as the closure - hence, fairly broad) realms is very important indeed. Is this then the place for the swash-buckler?

• identify and manage risk before they become disasters -- crap, have we not heard that before? In fact, just a few years ago, were not risk's uncertainties forever put to bed since it was being so well managed (as in, pushed under the cover or out to the hapless)? Are we to forget that Jamie and his kind are at the core of the troubles?

---

No doubt, these four items cover a lot of territory. Anyone who can handle them all has a lot of talent. Yet, Jamie does what exactly for his company? I never see him when I go talk to a banker (yes, I see that he doesn't want, or has been allowed, to not pay me and my kind -- oh, wait, it's Big Ben who is behind that).

---

So, let's see who Fortune crowned as MVP.

In the meantime, is it okay if I go barf?

Remarks:

04/27/2013 -- The *CEO* is only crap without his engineers, lowly workers and many others. Too, these types keep us from having a sustainable economy.

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

10/12/2011 -- CEOs could look to Paul.

10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).

Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.

Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).

It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof.

Modified: 04/27/2013

OFFME (HSC)

OFFME stands for The Order of the First Families of Maine. It is a historic and genealogic organization; many of these came to be in the past century.

 The OFFME ancestor list consists of people who were early into Maine. ‘Early’ is considered to be from 1604 to 1652 which makes them prior to the Virginia and Plymouth settlement efforts. The purpose of the group, which started in 2003, is, in part, “to honor those hard and enterprising early ancestors who concentrated their efforts, labor, and skills in building the enduring greatness" of the State of Maine.

Other goals are to “educate, preserve and increase of the history of Maine” and more.

OFFME, like its sister organizations, is partly under the umbrella of The Hereditary Society Community (HSC). There are many (over two hundred) organizations (chronological list) spanning from 1637 (Ancient & Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts) to 2011 (Sons and Daughters of WWII Veterans). The purpose of the HSC is very well expressed (see this page). Too, in April, the HSC helps to coordinate meetings of all of these groups in Washington, D.C.

---

Virginia, 1607

Having recently spent some time delving into a few genealogical matters, the blogger sees how the relationship with history comes strongly to fore. As in, history is not a bunch of dry facts, nor is it only about the exploits of those who are written up on paper (or stone). There were several entrant avenues to this land. New England stands out for a variety of reasons.

For example, a group came into Maine early, overwintered, and actually built (from scratch) a sailing vessel that crossed the Atlantic a few times (see story of the Virginia). In many ways, that little colony's  venture was an incredible tale, yet it is not well-known.

Note: 'scratch' would need some discussion. No doubt, the sails, and other rigging, would have been brought over with the group. Too, tools would have been brought over, as well as necessary material, such as tar. Yet, building the vessel was not an easy task. Of course, by 100 years later, ship-building was an established industry in the region.

---

The HSC has a national focus, unlike the NEHGS (New England Historic Genealogical society) and other regional groups. However, these groups have a common goal of continuing education, and sponsoring research, related to what makes America what is it (which ties to the efforts of people and their families). Too, that 'America' is the one which has become (note: did not say 'was') a shining beacon (nod to Winthrop) to the world.

So, the HSC, et al, very much intersect with the interests of the blogger.

Remarks:

04/15/2012 -- Today's edit took a different format since it clarifies a misconception and affords the opportunity to discuss important issues (on-going). Some of the earlier content remains while much was added. The original post was in August of last year and was incomplete, as is much of the stuff found on the web. This blog, though, has always tried to stay coherent, given the problems with completeness (discussion pending under the guise of computability). 

Modified: 04/15/2012