Holy shit! So I’m not the only one who sees that connection. I totally wasn’t expecting to find anything when searching the two names together, but sure enough… It’s comforting to know I’m not alone.

[to those that say i am too long… if you read and have read what i linked to, i would not have to type paragraphs and post long things.. i could just say a name… Donald W Shimoda!!! and thats all i would need to do!!! its your ignorance that makes you suffer, and causes other who would know what i was refering to, to have to live through it for your benifit which you cast down as not having the solid wisdom of a downy commerical in size and form.

GREAT comment JMS!!

[anyone want to bet that the typical leftist will just pass over it… ]

i dont know how to answer.

on one aspect, i throw up my hands and say.. i have no idea!!

but on another angle, the answer (as usual) is NOT what people would think, nor is the solution.

want to know why people die when someone runs a red light? because an arbitrary rule was not followed. now imagine that there were absolutely no traffic lights. one type of accident would get traded for another.

but if we are to use this analogy usefully, we should apply it..

what is the purpose of the arbitrary rules? the presumption is to facilitate a more productive end.

after all, we ahve all seen what happens when a traffic light goes out, or rules are ignored as a mistake OR for gain (as they just disovered a hit and run in ny may be a murder).

so again, the thing boils down to culture and morals. if you compare accidents of this nature in teh past with today, you will find that when they had better manners and no arbitrary rules, people had to be more concerned. they looked out.

the remember caveat emptor…

but as the culture was stripped from them. they become more sociopathic, mor willing to take a shortcut and break a rule. when this happens the rule becomes an artificial advantage as it impinges on some and not others.

if we all follow the rule, and the traffic light is good, then we can move faster through the intersections… we can move faster to an end result. but we can NEVER shift or move and gain a free lunch… we go faster with fewer accidents but they are larger and more detrimental.

want to have smaller accidents? remove the rules that create a false sense of security and trust. the person going through the intersection that would be hit, would not be hit if they paid attention to things that the rules are not intended to replace.

a guideline is not a programatical replacement that you switch out your responsiblities now that you have a new module put in.

just because a traffic light exists, one does not just blindly drive through the intersections imagining that the rules, the overseer (real principals), and all that are always perfect.

if there were no oversight rules over madoff, people with a lot of money would not have put that money in without due dilligence and reporting.

which is the OTHER hidden side of the coin, besides the dynamic above.

and that is trust and the picking up of a responsibility coming from an age of merit, means we are too trusting of a declining competency.

the traffic light only works if we all USE THE RULE correctly…

but if merit is not there any more, or as much. or someone decided to cheat like a parasite, and so on… then we are going to use the rules and tools wrongly, with the outcomes being wrong.

no new tool will make a bernie maddoff go away… because he LOVES The tools.

the tools/laws, change a fixed landscape where things move slowly, into a jumble where advantage can be found like insects in a freshly plowed field.

to a rule breakin opportunist, each new rule creates a lag between its instiution its effect, and the changes that will happen.

the market is divesting because the markets are all people waiting to see how the new land will lay and what advantages will bet her.

it is assumed that the plow will destroy the advantages allready in existence.

so the new rules are going to allow a larger bernie madoff to be in our futures.

thats because in order for us to get thorugh the traffic lights faster, we have to choose not to do the dilligence we should over our own interests. (the constant message we dont have to is also not good)

if they dont teach capitalism they sure arent teaching caveat emptor. the reason is easy… it makes capitalism look like a crooked cheat becasue it shifts trust into areas in which the rules say dont trust.

it allows us to drive thorugh the intersection blindly and not have an accident happen except rarely and usually to other people. bit if there were no light, we could not blindly ride through, things would be slower, and there would be more small collisions distributed among the people.

the one thing you cant do is avoid all accidents.

i sure hope i gave a meaningful anser… but i am even more sure tha occam, baklava, fredhjr, and a few others could rewrite it better than i have. i am long on great ideas, not so good at transfering them. my not being allowed to attend formal things due to being the wrong cog has left me with this deficit… not to mention personal style and other things lean that way too… double whammy.

but i never see things the way other people do because for me i see things ni all these ways, not one way… when i see a flower, i dont just see the beauty that some others see (i say some becasue if i photo it, i can then get others to see beuty in the same place that they couldnt see standing next to me). but i also see the physics and all the way up to the macro level an beyond.. to me it spans femto to feet… systemic integrations… mollecular arangements, simple rules to complex outcomes. fibonaci numbers, set theory, toploligical realms, search sets, biological symbolisim and absract6ions…

but do you think i can actually answer trutfully when i am contemplating a flower and somone says “penny for your thouhgts?”

not at all… they say i ruin it…

but for me… i dont see the lone singer acapela… i see a complete full blown long running complicated and interconnected opera…

but then again… people like the lone singer on american idol more than they like Carmen…

I guess Pucchini ruins it too. 🙂

[i am also way way way too abstract – its a powerful tool for doing two things. one is to fnid out incredible new insights and relationships, the other is to confuse otehr people over basic things that they thought have been setteld and have little complexity]

Financial sociopath, not an economic sociopath.

I think we need to reserve that term for the 111th Congress, if not the 110th, 109th, 108th and at least the 107th as well…

Printing money/ The hunt for Madoff\s money

This is the question I repeatedly asked about all this myth of Home Mortgagees crises.

In fact Maddoff case I was talking to a friend about it, he reply to me, that the money went to those share holders, the people who invested with Maddoff he paid them high interest rate comparing to other money institutions like banks and others that mean all the group share the blame about those billions missing.

But what we told by those who invested with him now the lost every thing and their money and their saving. Did any one asked each of them how long he did investing with Maddoff and how much he paid him for those periods.

So if we calculate who much he paid those people we will found then its big portion went to them and other portion of course Madoff himself have it in some sort.