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

Accounting's failure

As we watch the markets bounce (volatility is up) around, some might think that it's possible to get a handle on this thing. Why?

Well, there are long periods with little volatility in which the trend has usually been up. Yet, not always, as we can have sideways movement. The chart covers 70 years of the DOW.

The blue line is the overall trend line from 1939 to yesterday. As such, it has little variability due to assumptions (note, accounting is full of special rules and assumptions that then imply choices -- it's not mathematics, folks), since it is a mere straight-line fit (however, all the largess of late is very visible).

Now, those with a certain view like this line. In fact, viewpoints that talk a 30K DOW use this line as their basis for argument. This viewpoint might argue that it has a lot of history behind it, but, as well, we need to consider what has happened the past 30 years that has influenced the rise (inflation, general economic growth, foreign investors, ..., largess).

---

In fact, we have a whole generation or two of financial planners who believe this line. Look at the FED's goals. They love equity, even though their moves sack the savers and those who are retired (QEs, low rate, other bits of largess - will they ever end?).

Now, consider the green line. It is as if weighting out extraneous issues, such as those related to the recent bubbles, would allow for a better fit. What it shows is that we ought to be hovering around 9K or so. How could that be?

---

One fact is that it would not be easy to see this happen given all of the loose money floating around. Or, to where would the money go?

---

One means for control is suspect from the beginning. Remember all of the arguments about accounting and special rules that you heard a couple of years ago? One of the more controversial (but correct) rules was relaxed, by order of Congress; hence, the surge of the DOW the past couple of years. Add to that the largess of the FED as a big factor.

Well, a recent report talks about an even worse problem (Pentagon can't put their thumb on trillions). The truth is that no one can do an accurate accounting (to be discussed) of any of these financial things in our modern, complex economic world. It's about time that we recognized that and took the proper action.

---

There are several things involved. Just like some European countries are restricting use of 'short' positions, we need to put a damper on derivatives, except for a playground where we can let these 'children' play to their hearts content.

Warren may call these things WMD, but he's making money on them, too. Warren, my challenge to you would be to put you money where your mouth is. Help me show how this whole bunch of supposed advanced techniques are bad, will always be, and need serious control. Too, take the vow of no derivatives (or only those of a type that can be shown to have necessity).

---

Analog: taking the vow of not being an idiot and texting (or anything of that ilk) while driving.

---

Secondly, we need to stop the markets every day and take an accounting. How would this look? Well, anyone know? I propose that we look at it seriously. You know, it'll go against the grain as the big money wants their 'black pools' and other questionable tools.

Thirdly, we will tame the stochastic beasts rather than en-flame them in an attempt for non-chaotic progress.

---

The goal is a sustainable economy. Too, moderation of the ca-pital-sino. All of this bears, and will get, more attention.

---

Finally, why pick on accounting as this problem is larger than that discipline? Well, you guys and gals, have you not been implicated in every bit of mischief that has come down the pike? Or, at least, has not one of your kind been involved?

Has there been a successful establishment of ethical practices? If so, let me know where I can see this. From where I sit, computation has just increased the avenues toward perdition. This is outside of your domain? True. Hey, IEs! What are you doing in this regard?

Remarks:

08/15/2011 -- Let's give Warren some credit.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Economics and fairness

How many think that deals ought to be fair? Who is going to see that this is so?

---

What if playing on the edge never has consequences for those who are doing the playing? Of course, someone pays; that's the nature of near-zero.

---

In a case that's been going on from some time, the prosecution (elected and appointed) could not make anything stick to what seemed to be obvious shenanigans. Then, the accused, after being left off, pursued a claim that resulted in an eight-figure payout (for himself).

The news sources report that customers won't pay; no, it's coming out of monies set aside by the stock holders; yet, we know that the buck always goes down those who have the least power and the most to lose.

---

Message here. How did this state of affairs come about? That is, how would we explain the idiocy to old Rip? The main oops: ah, that old siren of 'markets' and their seductiveness.

Necessary, yes. But, from a long view (we can give Warren that).

All the gaming (including shorts, derivatives, etc.) is not necessary; in fact, it's the chief culprit of our troubles.

---

The chief enablers have been mis-used mathematics and computation.

Remarks:

10/10/2011 -- With the successful message coming out of the protests about Wall Street, evidently the number who cares is large.

08/12/2011 -- What about better 'accounting' of all this?

08/10/2011 -- One might ask: economics and legitimacy - weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

Modified: 10/10/2011

Rip Van Winkle I

We looked at this a couple of years ago under a different context, but let's do it again with a new view. And, let's do a series.

---

Motivation: USA Today's Editorial dealt with the reaction by some bankers to the requirement to raise capital levels. See Remarks, this date, on Chimera, again. Of course, Jamie is a central figure.

---

Before we said, what if one woke up after 30 years? Part of that had to do with the major changes that happened with the Carter to Reagan transition. It is not outrageous to start there in order to look at what is behind the current messes.

To wit: the bosses are making oodles, after the downturn, while the rest of the people are losing. ... A very long list.

Are these people a special breed? In McCullough's latest book about American visiting Paris in the early 19th century, he describes some early surgeries that were witnessed by those who went to France in order to obtain more hands-on experience. Sure enough, they got that.

---

Picture this: Being operated on by a maniac (who has no regard for your health -- rather, he's into some ego trip), without any anesthesia, and in septic circumstances (including the milieu, the instruments, ..., all of it). And, the maniac takes some superior stance toward you, as if he were better.

One example given was of an old man who had some mass that the surgeon wanted to remove. Remember, these people wielded scalpels, thought that they were artists, and carved at will (pity the poor suckers, subjected to a fate worse than the martyrs (such as Richard Woodman, and many others)). Of course, the old guy died within an hour. The conveyor of the story (Oliver) remarked that the gent may have lived five to six more years if he had not been used for a 'live' and conscious experiment.

---

Oh wait! Bring yourself forward 200 years, is it any different in some cases? Yes, you have the anti-septic effort, you can get drugged to the max (not necessarily effectively), plus there has been better training (or so, we hope). Yet, is there not ego involved?

---

Well, medicine is only mentioned, right now, as an analog. However, please read this article in the Atlantic. It turns several directions but is right on target with the message. We'll discuss it later.

---

Change the doctor to CEO and what have you? Ego, not caring beyond the pocket (some call this greed), and a whole slew of other attributes that do not contribute to a sustainable economy.

One has to ask, were there any lessons learned (from two years ago)?

Somehow it seems to me, that Washington Irving's theme has some use here. Perhaps, it's that I've spent a lot of time the past couple of years looking at early American History.

As we just celebrated, people came here for freedom, for the most part, of several types. The early patriots suffered to bring about what we know as the United States. In the beginning, we did not have an aristocracy.

Based upon the attitudes of some, one wonders if we are not creating such a thing. The CEOs strutting around seem to have developed this virtually-founded little world in which they reign (without any restraint -- where is our Magna Carta?) seemingly without even any geographic constraint. We know that there are little political and legal constraints (given some of the decisions, of late, from the Supreme Court).

---

Of course, Big Ben deserves some mention, to boot, as he operated on us and our economy, without proper preparation (experimentation on the fly). No, he carved out the savings from the old-timers, for one thing, so that he could line the pockets of whining banks (who were bailed out, and then these people turned around and spit on us).

Then, we have people who were raked in as they believed in us (have you all forgotten?).

As said before:

• Folks, remember Ireland (When Irish Eyes Are Crying) and many other countries that bought into what the idiots were selling? Jamie just wants to get back upon that leveraging wagon which rolled down the slope to the crash. Why? Big bonuses (why is it that such chicanery deserves pay? Jamie, play for free!).
• Reminder: when things fell apart, the bankers, knowing that they're all crooks and not trusting each other, took their ball home. Said: we're not going to play. Have they yet? What context? They're sitting on money that we gave them. For the past two years, how has main street benefited? No, they want to know that their big bonuses will continue.

---

Theme will be continued.

Remarks:

01/15/2015 -- The experience is like being a parent whose kids are behaving. Then, you take a brief nap and wake to find that the inmates are running amok. Okay, we are all adults, responsible for our lives. We all expect adult behavior of other adults. The kids? Well, we hope that someone is watching. ... Now, in the Wall Street paradigm, there are no adults (putting greedy older people into the lot of uneducated minors - not knowing better - sheesh). So, old Rip, here, thought that there was some semblance of order in the economy - erroneously, it turns out. That the inmates trashed our lives is still obvious all around (except for those bailed out or for those who are friends of the Fed). ... No adults on Wall Street? Look, I have been there. If there is some mature mind in that vicinity, please stand up and let yourself be known (no Mr. Wonderfuls, please).

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics. 

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

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

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

07/12/2011 -- We need to do a constructive build.

Modified: 01/15/2015

Not back III

We know delivery time is approaching, but we're not watching. However, the theme is good enough for being repeated (we're gone, not back I, not back II).

---

Believe it or not, we did not copy from this site. That is, notice the blogger saying: We are done. That post was dated 4/15/2009. I did reference the blog from a post on Hedge Funds that was dated 1/29/2009.

Recently, there was an update of 'hedge' funding at FEDaerated which referenced old posts. I was reading them today which is probably a good idea for a blogger, though tedious (not necessarily, as if done right, posts build a story).

---

I need to find another blog on hedge funds, which are idiocy from several angles. That those in power like these things does not make them right. If people knew how much they stink, there would be an outcry.

---

That little tirade, above, is well-founded, folks. Too, note that it DOES not say not to hedge (in reasonable fashion).

Anyway, the focus will continue to be on those gamers who use our money system for their sand box.

Remarks:

09/16/2013 -- So, the five year retrospective time. Business week devotes a whole issue. It will be interesting to read all of the perspectives, WSJ, FT, etc. We will have to say some things about Raytheon's push out of Hawker and its subsequent bankruptcy. Like Spirit's split from Boeing, wishful thinking on the part of management and the company led to problematic results (for a lot of people).

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

05/15/2012 -- Except for retrospective looks, as necessary.

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 which are beyond aviation, only one of a whole bunch of domains.

07/06/2011 -- It's been a month. The chimera is. The sandbox needs to be.

Modified: 09/16/2013

Leverage, again

We went on before about leverage, which tranching leads to: 7oops7, Truth engineering, FED-aerated.

So, QE3? Sheesh. See The Daily Ticker (about 3:30 into the video). How many Americans are pointing fingers at the Greeks?

Leveraging: something from nothing, folks. The eternal, fruitless wish. Oh yes, it can work when there is a cadre of suckers to exploit (like, out-housing).

Where is the 'mature' capitalism being developed? We'll have to get back to exploring the real basis so overlooked in the interest of the best-and-brightest.

Remarks:

06/01/2011 -- In the writeup accompanying the above video, there is a brief discussion of 30-1 leverage giving people some pause. Only idiots ran after that as a good idea. Big Ben has, in his books, a leverage of 51-1. Very smart, big guy. In the trashy tranche post, I used an example of $7 find $93 so that we could have $100. Big Ben's status is $2 finding $98 (whatever, it's absurd to any but the mind of the best-and-brightest).

Modified: 06/01/2011

Avatars

An older person, intellectual and college educated (very good school), asked about avatars. Its use by the gamesters was confusing the person, since the contexts were modern and computational. You see, 'avatar' is older than the hills (well, almost - and, implicit in this is that yo has been into that mindset since the early 60s); too, the world view behind the concept may seem strange to some western minds; and, as we see a whole lot, young minds took an older thing and used it to be something somewhat like, but really different from, the age-old usages (bringing angst forward, as well, each time -- until we get inured (or is it indoctrinated?)) .

---

We probably ought to enumerate these types of idea morphs from the past 1/2 century; I've been involved with the development of computational techniques using mathematics and modeling for a long time and will start getting together a list if I don't find that it has already been done; development meaning, of course, the evolution of our artificially oriented prowess.

---

Now, concepts found in abstract mathematics can relate to the 'avatar' theme. Mainly, the lift and the projection. We'll go on about that, to boot. Sufficient for now is this: many times what seems like a lift is actually a projection. And the confusion arises from a 'virtual' vertigo, so to speak.

Take the avatar, for instance. It can be embedded in a space that 'lifts' (no, not a change of usage, let me explain - at some point). However, what we see is that its usage is involved with a projection (implying into a lower-order affair - again, will explain) many times. Let this slogan suffice, for now: lifts can trample while projections squish 'being' (unfortunately, we'll have to pause to consider some t-issues - but, as said before, PTIME may apply).

---

And, folks, that type of thing (see Remarks 05/28/2011, below, on vertigo) is behind a whole bunch of 'oops' that we see in life. Mind you, this discussion, in no way, is meant to imply that 'gaming' is never the 'lift' that it appears to be. Rather, we want 'computational being-ness' to be more uplifting than it has been to date.

---

Aside: the avatar concept may have more applicability than not; in fact, it allows another way to look at several problems that might be effective; too, why limit 'avatar' to being a glorified icon (even if it exhibits behavior -- hint: think duck test against an embodiment)?

Remarks:

09/16/2012 -- Avatar (movie's tale) as parable.

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. 

06/22/2011 -- IEEE has a nice overview of social media and related issues.

05/28/2011 -- In what situations will an 'avatar' be confused (as in befuddled)? What? Yes, in the traditional sense, one would think never (except for those whose role might include the possibility). Because we have the quasi-empirical issues to resolve since we like to push the envelope, there is a 'vertigo' state that is possible computationally (or cyber-ally). The recent re-look at the Air France event (of 2009) that was made possible with the recovery of the flight data recorder can allow us an analog. One commenter talked about how the bucking of the plane, and it being night, did not allow any basis to determine appropriate action. That state has many more possible occurrences than we have admitted (for many reasons) to be likely in computational frameworks. We'll continue to try to explain why. The article on the Lemons problem touched on one possible avenue of expression of this phenomenon - implying, yes, that the cyber-based (without confusing map-territory) is what we know as the reality (think sensors and their increasingly electronic basis) many, many times. Aside: what the heck is money except for bits within the FED's (and its cohorts worldwide) cyber-realm, though all sorts of first-world expectations fill in its 'avatar' (if I'm allowed that stretch)?

Modified: 09/16/2012

Caveat Emptor

A few words are apropos in the context of truth and lemons.

---

We've all know about, or heard of, buyer's remorse. That is, you spend your hard-earned money on something and then wonder if it was junk that you bought. There have been ways to help with this: consumer protection laws, etc.

You see, though, the bankers did just that. That is, bought junk. Actually, sold junk, too. And, got away with it, almost. Why almost? They did crash the economy for which we are still paying while they have, essentially, been playing (with our money).

Any remorse on their part? Not that I can see. At the ex ante time, they were rolling the dough with glee. Luxury was almost synonymous with banking (investment type). In the ex post time, they've spent oodles of money (on lobbyists, for instance) and time on avoiding any notion of blame.

Now, the article mentioned in 'lemons' and 'truth' (both above) somewhat offers bankers an out. You see, they were moving the shells in an indiscernible manner while only being human. We should all know that bankers wallow; have you ever seen one that might be considered angelic?

Aside: talking those best-and-brightest who have been allowed to lead the old farts astray, not the laboring clerks, and lowly managers, who work to help the customer base.

Yes, all the while, gaming our beans and trying to appear, to the public, as if they knew about due diligence, fiduciary duty, and the like. Yet, behind the scenes, the depths of idiocy were being explored.

---

Aside: I agree with the FED dude in KC who wants to clamp down on banks and to put banking back into its utility framework. Too, I saw banking 'fraud' up close. Was actually thrown out of a bank since I could do mathematical modeling, noticed slight perturbations on their returns that suggested chicanery, brought it to the attention of management. The government? They said to take the banking company to court. What? An individual trying to do what ought to have been done by the OCC, the FDIC, or such? Too, the state banking association told me categorically that they were for the banks, not the customers. What, again? And, there were never any repercussions for the potential losses to that bank's customers who were not aware of the 'thumb on the scale' tactic. How much did the bank take in with their little scheme?

Aside: It's funny that the bank responded by throwing me, and my money, out; too, they did some character assassinations (or tried to) as if I were a harasser. When the machinations of Made-off (my ordeal was prior to this -- in summary: depositor, mainly - no debts) were revealed, what was brought out? Many had tried to tell the tale of his misdeeds. One even depicted the state of being alone and fearing legal repercussions. My motivations for 'truth engineering' are deep (long association with computing) and wide (everywhere dense).

Aside: Not anti-banking. I deal with several. Financial advisers? That's another story.

Aside: The bank also got back at me by taking TARP money which, we all know, came out of the taxpayers' pockets. Why did not TARP have strings?

---

Essentially, there are serious issues to resolve with computing and finance. To date, those in charge have let the young people run, almost without restraint, after riches and glories. Some have hit things big time (and, we get freebies, like blogger, for instance). Many more (a very many more) have become impoverished with the new types of 'gaming' that resulted in the ca-pital-sino.

Now, the authorities can blubber all they want about legalities, and such, and the law-makers can listen to as many of the lobbyists as they want (by the way, these people do not want us to think about these underlying, systemic, problems), but malfeasance seems to have become an acceptable mode (what did one headline say today? John Edwards, mis-used campaign money and hid it -- the adage? mis-use was not the issue, covering up is -- what a state of affairs!).

So, to make this short, for now, here are some things with which we will need to concern ourselves:

• -- mathematization does not equate to truth - nor, does computation -- we will have to work to build a framework that is sustainable, and does not do harm (nod to those behind this medium). We cannot let those who can spawn off all of these awful instruments that have unknown consequences to continue to do so willy nilly. A sandbox would help. But, what exactly is that?
• -- just as the prior bullet suggests, we cannot let pseudo-science reign in finance, and economics. We need to make it real. Of course, many have said that. For one thing, we could expect some type of 'testing' (no, not what Timmy did last year) within our money realm that is more solid than what we have now. Of course, that has implications on the bean counting, to boot.
• -- following up on the prior bullet requires me to note that the 'pseudo' is partly tongue-in-cheek, due to the dismal nature of the domains. Oh, of course, those who roll in the dough (a very small percentage) may not be dismal. The reality is, folks, that for the most, the dire situation does not have to be, in many cases. True, there are natural disasters, accidents, and such. Yet, the type of things where a few, because they can, risk the livelihood, and the health, of the many need to scrutinized. Where that is not being done is with those things computational, for a variety of reasons. Some of it is pure laziness (ah, it's too difficult) and hubris (what? you expect me to dirty my hands?).
• -- ..., doing what might be consider a flip-flop, we ought to encourage 'open' methods in computing and software. However, there is a big potential for hidden 'snakes' (find the article about this - that is, altered electronics that can be controlled remotely, embedded within something that is widely distributed) on the hardware/firmware side. Too, even with open software, there are issues, such as understanding how code works, is executed, and such. Then, algorithms are not necessarily grasped correctly.
• -- So, we will be back to using computing, and networks, to found the truth, albeit augmented with devices everywhere in the hands of trained minds who are not afraid to recognize the importance, and use, of intuition (what? - being mindful of the map-territory silliness).
• -- And, we'll have to put insurance back into its proper state -- not where some dude, at the top, pulls in 100+ million, for himself, in one year, by not doing things: paying claims, etc. After all, 'lemons' can be insured against, AIG's little (actually large) turmoils notwithstanding.
• -- ...

Remarks:

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

05/26/2011 -- Quoted 'fraud' as will carry this discussion over to Fedaerated in a continuing discussion of banking, money, etc. Along the line of truth & lemons (context of the post), how do we discern the truth when mathematics/computation are involved? There are serious issues that have not been given enough attention, probably due to the operational effectiveness that we have seen. Too, there are human issues. Auditors are cut from the same cloth as the bankers, in many cases. Politicos are limited many ways. Somehow, we need to introduce independent reviews, beyond the oversight attempts by regulators. We'll closely look at this case of a bank throwing me out after I had been a good customer for 10 years. What changed? New management came in, an expansive mode went into effect (buying banks at other locales), and some operational changes were put into place to put the balance toward the bank (this is a key issue). At that time, returns started to diverge from the expected. Another factor is that it was not just me computing and checking one bank. I was comparing this bank's results against three others. Of the four, one bank's results were right on target with my expected return calculations (as in, mind you, zero deviation). The other two had slight residues, but that is to be expected given that one can interpret regulations several ways and still remain compliant. The bank out of which I was catapulted had deltas, in their favor, that were significant. We'll explain why and discuss why this was so. And, do it all in a nice manner despite a growing awareness that bankers are not upright (to wit, dead peasant - classy, indeed).

Modified: 05/29/2011