[FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread Alfredo Covaleda
After Gadaffi's death a local newspaper wrote : who is going to be the next
dictator to fall?.  Well, my answer is: Wall Street.

-- 
Alfredo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread Owen Densmore
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Alfredo Covaleda alfredocoval...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 After Gadaffi's death a local newspaper wrote : who is going to be the
 next dictator to fall?.  Well, my answer is: Wall Street.

 --
 Alfredo


I certainly agree with the sentiment.  And I do believe the core signal in
our noise is the lack of a robust middle class, thus I find very troubling
the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us and our immense struggle
just to get by nowadays.

But I don't think the problem is wall street per se.  After all, wall street
funds companies who build things that are useful.

I think the problems are 1) in the financial sector 2) caused by
too-big-to-fail, including monopolies.

The financial sector is different.  It makes money by manipulating money.
 Sometimes that's fine, for example futures markets help stabilize the price
of components of products we buy.  Hedge is not a bad word here. Even
lending is important when it too relates to real things like houses and
companies building products.

I think the disconnect is when real products and people are abstracted out
of the financial world, when we're building bundles of loans, slicing and
dicing, and nothing real in sight.  Or when we are trading in currencies.

Big is different too, distorting markets and dangerous if they fail.

As much as we hate them, regulations are important.  But they are very hard
to manage, and with the global economy, they need to be balanced world wide.
 And we don't really know which ones will really build the right incentives.


We have, however, just learned by experiments gone wrong, that letting banks
also be insurers is a mistake.  And that banks and companies are too large,
they distort the economy, and worse, need rescuing when they err.

So yes, let the financial dictator fail next.  Now lets figure out how!

-- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread Marcus G. Daniels

On 10/22/2011 10:45 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


So why did  we in the middle class been so stalwart in our defense of 
wall street for the last 40 years?


The answer, it seems to me, is that we are all stockholders.


[..]


Over the years CREF, which started out as a sturdy conservative fund, 
 became a family of funds, and you could invest your retirement 
money in any crap you felt like.  In short, many academics lost a 
large proportion of their retirement.


Thus, the gradual erosion of our retirement institutions in the 50's 
into INVESTMENT institutions has turned us all from people trying to 
guarantee a minimum dignified retirement income to people trying to 
make a stock-market killing.


As Doug has pointed out many times, a large chunk of the `99%' create 
the problem and won't take responsibility for it.


TIAA-CREF has a number of funds and lets one move between them with the 
latency of a few days.   It's not like a retiree's financial security is 
held hostage to a particular fund.   For example, there's this option:


http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/how-we-invest/sri/social-screening/

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread ERIC P. CHARLES
Two thoughts,
1) This is also part of the magic that happens when companies match
retirement investments, rather than simply paying you more money. The idea of a
proper savings account went out the door, and instead money that should have
been saved went into artificially inflating stock prices. I have more than a
few friends who have started referring to the movement not as Occupy Wall
Street, but as The War On my Retirement. The fact that the people using the
latter term are right simply emphasizes how screwed up the current economic
model is. People can't tell the difference between saving, investing, and
gambling, and they are forced by government regulations and employer incentives
to gamble instead of investing or saving! No wonder we are in trouble. 

2) As for crashing the stock market, that is related to the centerpiece of
Camejo's running platform when he was trying to become Governor of California.
(Others might vaguely remember him as Ralph Nader's 2004 running mate.) The
idea was that most major corporations had leveraged their retirement plans so
much that they were, for all intents and purposes, employee-owned companies. If
a large enough group of employees could believably threaten to take out their
retirements at the same time, even with penalty, they could usurp control of
their companies. To take that principle to the current situation: If you want
major corporations to change, or wall street in general to change, withdraw all
your money from the market. Or at least get a lot of people to make a
believable threat of doing so. As an added incentive, whoever withdraws their
money first gets to keep more of it ; - )

Eric


On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 12:45 PM, Nicholas  Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:











Everybody, 
















 








Anybody who studies the history of the American south is led to wonder why the
many non-slaveholders in the south were led to defend slavery with such
ferocity.  (The inability of a population to see and act on its own best
interest is not a new phenomenon)  So why did  we in the middle class been so
stalwart in our defense of wall street for the last 40 years?
















 








The answer, it seems to me, is that we are all stockholders.   I am a member
of a pension plan for academics called TIAA-CREF.  Why the hyphen?  Because it
started as a pension plan, TIAA, with a partially defined benefit; sometime
along the way it added a stock fund, CREF.  CREF had no defined benefit, but it
tracked the SandP very closely.  You could decide, whether you wanted to put
your money in a place with a certain outcome, or whether you wanted to gamble
it.   We were advised to start out in CREF and shift our investment over to
TIAA as we got older.  But many of us forgot to make the shift and got SCREWED
in the .com bust. Over the years CREF, which started out as a sturdy
conservative fund,  became a “family of funds”, and you could invest your
retirement money in any crap you felt like.  In short, many academics lost a
large proportion of their retirement.  
















 








Thus, the gradual erosion of our retirement institutions in the 50’s into
INVESTMENT institutions has turned us all from people trying to guarantee a
minimum dignified retirement income to people trying to make a stock-market
killing.   I am as guilty as anybody else.  I could go out tomorrow and buy an
annuity that would pay most of my last salary, inflation adjusted, for the rest
of my life.  But there is no upside!  Something in me is unwilling to give up
the upside for the safety of avoiding the downside.  
















 








So, even though I am solidly in the middle of the 99%, I  have the psychology
of the one percent.  I am coopted.  As Pogo used to say, “We have seen the
enemy, and they is us!”  (Does anybody on this list even KNOW who Pogo was?)
















 








I wonder what would happen to Wall Street if every one of us who has a pension
took the annuity option.  The market would crash in a day, right?  
















 








Don’t all rush for the door at once!
















 








Nick 
















 








From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 9:56 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator
















 








On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Alfredo Covaleda # wrote:














After Gadaffi's death a local newspaper wrote : who is going to be the next
dictator to fall?.  Well, my answer is: Wall Street.

-- 
Alfredo
















 








I certainly agree with the sentiment.  And I do believe the core signal in our
noise is the lack of a robust middle class, thus I find very troubling the
divide between the wealthy and the rest of us and our immense struggle just
to get by nowadays.
















 








But I don't think the problem is wall street per se.  After all

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread Douglas Roberts
That might possibly be one of those questions that if you have to ask, the
answer would be meaningless.

The real issue, which, with the exception of Marcus, keeps being
conveniently ignored here, is that we have placed our elected officials into
office every year.  And then we have collectively looked in the other
direction as these fine public servants have allowed the corrupting
influences of big corporate money to do its special magic, year after year.

Politicians are paid for.  We allow that.  It's our fault.  It always has
been.

--Doug

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Nicholas Thompson 
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:

 ** **

 Should we be lobbying  TIAA to stop buying bonds issued by the likes of
 Bank of America, if, indeed, they do?  

 ** **

 Nick 

 ** **

 *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
 Behalf Of *Marcus G. Daniels
 *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:11 AM
 *To:* friam@redfish.com

 *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

 ** **

 On 10/22/2011 10:45 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: 

 So why did  we in the middle class been so stalwart in our defense of wall
 street for the last 40 years?

  

 The answer, it seems to me, is that we are all stockholders.

 

 [..]

 

 Over the years CREF, which started out as a sturdy conservative fund,
  became a “family of funds”, and you could invest your retirement money in
 any crap you felt like.  In short, many academics lost a large proportion of
 their retirement.  

  

 Thus, the gradual erosion of our retirement institutions in the 50’s into
 INVESTMENT institutions has turned us all from people trying to guarantee a
 minimum dignified retirement income to people trying to make a stock-market
 killing.  

 As Doug has pointed out many times, a large chunk of the `99%' create the
 problem and won't take responsibility for it.

 TIAA-CREF has a number of funds and lets one move between them with the
 latency of a few days.   It's not like a retiree's financial security is
 held hostage to a particular fund.   For example, there's this option:

 http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/how-we-invest/sri/social-screening/

 Marcus

 
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
 lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread Alfredo Covaleda
I think current model has some sinister and wicked rules:

1. To make of each one of us an stockholder. We can't choose if we want or
not to gamble. The fact of opening a retirement account makes you an
stockholder. ¿Where is it the freedom of western culture? You must decide
the level of risk of the investment you are constrained to do.  In the same
sense, at the end profits belongs to the bank but losses belongs to the
owner of the retirement account. Banks use our money to increase their
profits. For example, last trimester I lost more than twice the amount I
saved during the same period (check your accounts).

2. Labor flexibilization: is an excuse to impel private inversion.
Theoretically, reducing the cost of production gives more jobs.
Unfortunately to reduce cost of production means reduce all kind of benefits
for workers and creates labor instability but the worst thing is that it is
false about creation of more jobs.

3. Health care privatization: has made life a merchandise and level of
corruption in this kind of private companies is amazingly big (at least in
my country).

4. To allow companies to growth without limit. The tiny company will
extinct, monopoly will get strong and more poor people will emerge. Years
ago I read that the value of Microsoft was equivalent to the economy of
Spain and my Country of the size of Yahoo. It is ridiculous.


At the end of the day, real discussion is the weak paper of the governments.



2011/10/22 Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net

 Good point!  And any academics on this list should think hard about where
 their TIAA-CREF money actually IS. 

 There’s a “social responsibility” fund, for instance.  But my point was a
 psychological one, right.  

 ** **

 Should we be lobbying  TIAA to stop buying bonds issued by the likes of
 Bank of America, if, indeed, they do?  

 ** **

 Nick 

 ** **

 *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
 Behalf Of *Marcus G. Daniels
 *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:11 AM
 *To:* friam@redfish.com

 *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

 ** **

 On 10/22/2011 10:45 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: 

 So why did  we in the middle class been so stalwart in our defense of wall
 street for the last 40 years?

  

 The answer, it seems to me, is that we are all stockholders.

 

 [..]

 

 Over the years CREF, which started out as a sturdy conservative fund,
  became a “family of funds”, and you could invest your retirement money in
 any crap you felt like.  In short, many academics lost a large proportion of
 their retirement.  

  

 Thus, the gradual erosion of our retirement institutions in the 50’s into
 INVESTMENT institutions has turned us all from people trying to guarantee a
 minimum dignified retirement income to people trying to make a stock-market
 killing.  

 As Doug has pointed out many times, a large chunk of the `99%' create the
 problem and won't take responsibility for it.

 TIAA-CREF has a number of funds and lets one move between them with the
 latency of a few days.   It's not like a retiree's financial security is
 held hostage to a particular fund.   For example, there's this option:

 http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/how-we-invest/sri/social-screening/

 Marcus

 
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
 lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




-- 
Alfredo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator

2011-10-22 Thread joseph spinden
I think the problem is incentives -- not simply on Wall Street, but in 
the broader world as well:  In general, people act to maximize their own 
individual rewards.  As long as the system provides individuals with 
opportunities for large rewards with little personal risk, people will 
act to maximize their own individual rewards.  If they are right, they 
earn big rewards.  If wrong, others pay.


Joe



On 10/22/11 9:55 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Alfredo Covaleda 
alfredocoval...@gmail.com mailto:alfredocoval...@gmail.com wrote:



After Gadaffi's death a local newspaper wrote : who is going to
be the next dictator to fall?.  Well, my answer is: Wall Street.

-- 
Alfredo



I certainly agree with the sentiment.  And I do believe the core 
signal in our noise is the lack of a robust middle class, thus I find 
very troubling the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us and 
our immense struggle just to get by nowadays.


But I don't think the problem is wall street per se.  After all, wall 
street funds companies who build things that are useful.


I think the problems are 1) in the financial sector 2) caused by 
too-big-to-fail, including monopolies.


The financial sector is different.  It makes money by manipulating 
money.  Sometimes that's fine, for example futures markets help 
stabilize the price of components of products we buy.  Hedge is not a 
bad word here. Even lending is important when it too relates to real 
things like houses and companies building products.


I think the disconnect is when real products and people are abstracted 
out of the financial world, when we're building bundles of loans, 
slicing and dicing, and nothing real in sight.  Or when we are trading 
in currencies.


Big is different too, distorting markets and dangerous if they fail.

As much as we hate them, regulations are important.  But they are very 
hard to manage, and with the global economy, they need to be balanced 
world wide.  And we don't really know which ones will really build the 
right incentives.


We have, however, just learned by experiments gone wrong, that letting 
banks also be insurers is a mistake.  And that banks and companies are 
too large, they distort the economy, and worse, need rescuing when 
they err.


So yes, let the financial dictator fail next.  Now lets figure out how!

-- Owen



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

   -- Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1913.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org