Good News Bad News

Not to reference a joke or peripheral* vision.

* The enlightened gift.
(FP1)

[On the other hand (dot)(dot)dot. . .***]







Nassim Nicholas Taleb **

** a caveat ?
*** inconvenient dub-you-beds. Also Note: Major Segweigh





Taleb Image

Life Imitates Chart (knot)

 

 

Bottom Line or D'Ribble:  On the Bane or Scale ?

Alternate Crossfires: Taleb v. Greenspan. 

 

[[Snowden / NSA ? !]]

 

Kit Ten

Or Cat Tales?

Actually, is this residue or derivatives from a lucid snooze?[2]
If math is next to G*dliness, then how are words accountable?
Go google!  Or am I in violation by not CAPitalizing or is capitalisizing?
Go figure!
Then watch[1]  yourself.
Meanwhile I will pause to investigate where cats have nine lives or is it from their tails?

* not to offend(nor link or asterisk)
[1] watch 
[2] NFRY  "go all"

Hi Ate Us

[updated 6-23-11 here and here]
[updated 6-22-11 below]

Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)
US in perspective?

(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)

[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]

[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]

Way[!]

Not Exactly [!] (Sarcasm aside !)
[Important to reads: Doing What Works, not Lean Six Sigma, but* Try Angles!]

*also Taleb link (too update)

[Earlier con/text

Technical Difficulties

Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.

* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]

Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.

Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:

Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?

Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.

*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)

[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]

Bursting a Bubble.

Wind Energy vs NG
Pyramid Power?

Wind and Solar seem to be Natural Goods. Rising energy prices are seen as an incentive for alternatives. If you need rising natural gas prices to make wind or solar affordable it seems that there may be something wrong. Rising gax prices have not made nuclear affordable? I know there is no direct link there. But I must say the that it seems like bubble headed thinking. Now it may not be all about frackin' but there do seem to be risks to the environment. But the bubble I am talking about is the economic impact of any policy. Environmental impact is a cost that must be accounted for out of profits not as a cost of being at the bottom.

[A similar* pop or thought? * I am not sure where I may have misplaced the latter, but I did run into the author of the former.]

Slash Segue

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
And Criss-Classification
It is not about right or left but who* is the behind.

*please excuse the just(juxt)aposition of humor

---

For Sagans Sake: I will ungoogle the B. or link con tent:
(i.e. list of links above)
TED: Sandel as noted
Sandel/Soros
BookTV: Hedges on Class
New Yorker: Taleb
Jim Wallis(Sojourners) Sandel
BBC:Sit com? (no pun but Latin roots**)
Taleb Context
*
Asimov context
Mike Wallace: Ayn Rand
Embed(un) Pop Culture
Pre-Decartes or Aristotellian***?

**actual roots are(not) the spin on "darkest before the storm"

*** not to mention the B&A tangents not relinkeds(sp!)
[2-17-11 UPDATE:(not) Talk about a fifth sense? Yikes.]

Obtuse Comment

[Actually written and Dated 2-7-11]
Yikes! With the stochastic nature of nature in mind, this comment is relevant(maybe) to the zero somers*.

* Packers, Steelers, Somers.
[Sequence Scrolls Up Unless Noted]
Hint: Links are related to the links I followed to get(and context) the bold link under "this comment" by Paul Nevins.

The Bully...

Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.

[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.

** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]

In Balance

In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.

Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**

*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]