So Actually, The Ivy League Failed Completely

[mascale]

Extending previous Opening Posts--Number One is that there is a computing flaw in the so-called, "incentive structure" of the Ivy League, and the rest of economics. Number Two is that the computing flaw should be regarded a tort level, lethal, human behavior: With the victims simply of more "diverse" populations--at the very same time--than is usual in the absence of Worldwide Warfare. Number Three is that there is computing resolution of the problem, from outside the usual Ivy League, and all the "wannabes."

The Total Credit Market is represented as fitting into Euclidean quadrants. The left side of a four-quadrant box is an income scale--from zero to any highest level. A diagonal--from the lower left to the upper right--represents a fixed percentage income raise--like Jesus presented in Matthew 25::14-30. The Pythagorean Theorem had a religious basis at the time, which was foreign and Greek: But the scale of five, doubled, created a base and perpendicular with the square root of five squared, plus the square root of five squared: computing a new scale of length, about seven.

The household, which should have been enriched eight talents, was only enriched seven, represented in the new diagonal length. The household lost one talent, plus one talent, plus one servant--who should have had both. Again, there was no credit propping up the new and diminished box full of (credit), and so instead of total credit equal to 16, Total credit was only 14, and then of even less value equal to the area of one half the base, times the height.

Mortal Jesus, of course, had no decimal point to work with.

From a balance model perspective, actual system failure is put at the creation of a fifth quadrant of credit, which has no sixth quadrant of personal income creating balance. The existance of any such quadrant would put the whole thing, "back in the box."

"S'AlRight!" The fifth quadrant of credit itself: Is inflation. The units all tend to lose relative value. The Pythagoreans were a religion to some people.

The model of solution is the equal dollar method in Matthew 20::1-16, regardless if the time is the first hour, the second hour, or the fifth hour. The First are actually Last, and the Last Actually First--as a way of describing the outcome of an equal amount raise. So to account for the new quadrants, then the equal amount gets indexed.

Notable in the description is no recourse to the pumps of Keynes. In fact. The financial houses of the Ivy League economics--including like George Bush was taught--absolutely, failed completely. The economics of the Chicago School, and of Alan Greenspan personally, failed completely. The economics of the Federal Reserve Board failed completely. The Obama federal stimulus has even yet: To happen, except for a small tax cut at some lower incomes, plus 10% of the package, or so. It is not a solution, but a start. . . .In an Obama Administration, when it does.

There is Cash For Clunkers in-between. (Congress, actually, did that!)

Go back to the opening of paragraph Three. Actual system failure is what it has all been about. The fixed percentage pay raise method needs an indexed, equal amount adjustment to keep the market measuring device--the income scale--viable and potent.

That is not apparently what Keynes was all about, or Milton Friedman, or the Swedes--and their "prizewinners(?)"

35 years ago, the Ivy League educated said "Nyet," "Nein," "No Way, Jose," and even, "Oh, Fuck You, Kid," when confronted with the whole thing at Indiana University, Bloomington.

The last remark probably made it into their journals. There is their outcome certain, at this time. Mostly, the first main presentation of the geometry was in the "Free Venice Beachhead," 1985-1989. Famously, they thought of themselves as "A Poem(?)!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(Actually, The Coast does seem more into the prescriptions side-of-life: Than anyone else might have openly suggested! Is this so wrong?!?)

 

[Oddball]

Depends upon how we're going about defining failure.

If your aim is to create a system of recurring credit and and price bubbles, thereby also creating a "need" for know-it-all politicians and economic technocrats from Old Ivy to ride in to the "rescue" of the hoi polloy, the Keynesian model is a smashing success.

 

[mascale]

Since its inception, the United States has been able to bloat the credit market without recourse to Keynes. When FDR began adapting the priming of the pumps: He was reversing the imminent collapse of the U. S. way of business--but also the history of panics and Depressions of the history of the United States. They were simply less notable in an agrarian history which mainly didn't care much for them, or about them.

Jesus had adapted the religion of the far more successful pantheon civilizations--and eventually, the local Ivy League of the time--and Jewish, would eventually care. Slaves were prized and had value. A story about casting out a slave from a household was more likely a horrific nightmare scenario, of a dysfunctional household, of that time, than it is now.

The accounting of the failed household--with no credit market at all--easily, likely made sense.

Keynes was an advocate of priming, not deficits. "The colonies" rarely paid off their deficits, but that was not being suggested for the the Imperial Budget. It is not even suggested that Keynes made that distinction. It is not immediately apparent that Keynes knew much about "the colonies."

English he was. And Jesus was easily said a Blasphemer--who eventually even created the famous(?), Jewish Caesar in Heaven, an idol, at the trial.

Failure is actually what the recent past is all about. Others may harbor different opinions, even of history.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Or Again, There is the True Message of Christian Love in Our World. Far Better a Caesar In the Heavens, than a Caesaress!)

 

[editec]

Our economic systems are not failing us.

They are designed to give wealth every advantage and to destroy this nation and they are working perfectly.

 

[mascale]

General Systems Theory itself, of David Easton fame, of the 1950's time-frame: Created the need for a zero in any such analysis. To counter, Canadian media theorist, Marshall McLuhan, set up the ridicule of the whole concept. The tribal, and oral, and tactile, television-world would be alleged to have no clue about a "nothing." An inclusive sense of participation would be created, more intense of feeling.

"TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence."

Law aside, there is a very inclusive sense of participation, more intense of feelling, in the concept "tort," as shown above. The Ivy League may want to contend that, "It wasn't us," and then the "torts for negligence." part of the program can apply.

The Ivy League--and the wannabes--either intend outcomes, or they do not. If they say, "It wasn't us! That intent is not in the statute or the contract at all:" They are still easily said liable--for it all. Any business or investing personnel, acting in any manner on any such advicements: Would easily be said liable, for it all.

Arithmetic has outcomes. Two Plus Two creates an outcome, and any user of the (shown entirely logical) system of mathemtics is clearly an intender of the outcome.

And so there can even be criminal behavior alleged.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Noting that the Communists, as it were, saw the plot thicken: And abandoned the entire Revolution! Someone likely explained to them: About the Divoirce Courts, and Family Law matters--in our Western Civilization of Jesus Christ!)

 

[mascale]

In the Soviet Union, more likely the Tax Court filings, from 1975 and 1976 tax years--finally in court by 1985--or the "Ocean Front Weekly," Venice, CA, late 1970's or so letters, or the "Free Venice Beachhead" ads and letters, 1985-1989: Helped to bring the abandonment about. They did fixed percentage income raises, also.

In our World of "Prescriptions On The Coast:" Anyone notices the pace of social change, even then.

Essentially, it seems to have finally dawned on the Politburo that the people needed to know that their Premier was, "Not A Crook!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even though Nixon did this--Still the Ivy League was unaware that anything was wrong! Nixon signed the fixed percentage COLA into Social Security in 1972. The Politburo, or whomever, had the same penchant. Arithmetic is. . .universal on the planet. . .except at, well. . . .The U. S. Federal Government Mainly Understands That. . . No doubt, said coincidentally!)