Indy Telecom & Industrial Media

Mere words cannot describe this.

And of course, her smashing intellect can be seen in action elsewhere, too.

A list of interesting articles from the past couple of weeks:

• Dear AIG, I Quit! — To quote a friend, a very John Galt-ian response, the likes of which we haven’t seen in some time.
• Rethinking the American Dream — Excellent essay on how the American dream has changed.
• The Big Takeover –Interesting article, if you can ignore the obvious partisan bias.
• Goldman may return TARP money — Hey, if you had to face questioning by Maxine Walters, so would you.

Well, it turns out that people aren’t happy with just the real world being overvalued.  Coming up next – how to win Scrabble games quick!

Since there aren’t enough worlds in the English language with Qs or Zs (which of course have 10 points each), Za, Qi and Zzz have been added to Scrabble to help people rack up high scores easily!

A trio of words — one that’s slang for pizza, another defined as a body’s vital life force and a third referring to a snoring sound — have conspired to change the game of Scrabble. “Za,” “qi” and “zzz” were added recently to the game’s official word list for its original English-language edition. Because Z’s and Q’s each have the game’s highest point value of 10, those monosyllabic words can rack up big scores for relatively little effort. So now that those high-scoring letters are more versatile, some Scrabble aficionados would like to see the rules changed — which would be the only change since Alfred Butts popularized the game in 1948.

Why stop there? Hey, if you are going to make up rules, why not go for the big ones? Personally, I’d just change all the vowels to be 10 points each. Makes everyone’s life a lot easier, you know? Evening out the odds and all that.

Well, these aren’t particularly great looking nor classy, but they certainly are unique (and quite steeply priced than, say, silk knots).

Bizarre exchange between an Adelaide man and his utility company.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.19pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Our records indicate that your account is overdue by the amount of $233.95. If you have already made this payment please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles
From: David Thorne
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.37pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
I do not have any money so am sending you this drawing I did of a spider instead. I value the drawing at $233.95 so trust that this settles the matter.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.07am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Thankyou for contacting us. Unfortunately we are unable to accept drawings as payment and your account remains in arrears of $233.95. Please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles
From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.32am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
Can I have my drawing of a spider back then please.

Regards, David.
From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.42am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear David,
You emailed the drawing to me. Do you want me to email it back to you?

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles
From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.56am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

Yes please.

Regards, David.
From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 12.14pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Attached

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 09.22am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Whose spider is that?

Dear Jane, Are you sure this drawing of a spider is the one I sent you? This spider only has seven legs and I do not feel I would have made such an elementary mistake when I drew it.

Regards, David.
From: Jane Gilles
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.03am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David, Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the email you sent me on the 8th. David your account is still overdue by the amount of $233.95. Please make this payment as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.05am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Automated Out of Office Response

Thankyou for contacting me. I am currently away on leave, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Regards, David.
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.08am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Hello, I am back and have read through your emails and accept that despite missing a leg, that drawing of a spider may indeed be the one I sent you. I realise with hindsight that it is possible you rejected the drawing of a spider due to this obvious limb ommission but did not point it out in an effort to avoid hurting my feelings. As such, I am sending you a revised drawing with the correct number of legs as full payment for any amount outstanding. I trust this will bring the matter to a conclusion.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 2.51pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David, As I have stated, we do not accept drawings in lei of money for accounts outstanding. We accept cheque, bank cheque, money order or cash. Please make a payment this week to avoid incurring any additional fees.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 3.17pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

I understand and will definately make a payment this week if I remember. As you have not accepted my second drawing as payment, please return the drawing to me as soon as possible. It was silly of me to assume I could provide you with something of completely no value whatsoever, waste your time and then attach such a large amount to it.

Regards, David.
From: Jane Gilles
Date: Tuesday 14 Oct 2008 11.18am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Attached

A rather excellent piece in the London Review of Books on situationism the situationist movement by Hal Foster.

One of the things that I’ve always found interesting about situationism has been how art and politics are deeply intertwined in their philosophy. Of course, the only other philosophy that I can think of which can be considered vaguely complementary (albeit opposing) is Rand’s Objectivism (yes, I can hear the cries).

While I disagree with the finer philosophical points (such as the tie to Marxism), I must admit that the idea of avante garde politicians and artists holding the fort against the bourgeois masses is fascinating in a very utilitarian way (I refer to John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, rather than the literal meaning of the term).

However, Situationism as such does not emerge very distinctly in these letters, largely because, in these early years, its definition was at once unstable for insiders and hermetic for outsiders. The primary thing to know, Debord writes in late summer 1957, is that ‘Situationism, as a body of doctrine, does not exist and must not exist.’ In part this occlusion was protective: ‘Yesterday, the police questioned me at length,’ he writes a year later; they ‘want to regard the SI as an association in order to set about its dissolution in France. I protested then and there . . . Not being declared, the SI cannot be officially dissolved.’ Yet this stance was also philosophical, in keeping with the Situ desire to be alert to the radical possibilities in any conjuncture. ‘Of course, never any doctrine,’ Debord reiterates in late autumn 1958; only ‘perspectives. A solidarity around these perspectives.’ This is inspiring, but how can solidarity be achieved with points of view that often shift and rarely intersect? Centrifugal in spirit, the SI was centripetal in design, and the letters show Debord struggling to inhabit – to embody – this centre. Only eight months into the SI he has begun to insist, ‘We should emphasise the centralised aspect of the movement,’ and by the time Constant resigns in summer 1960, Debord is defensive (albeit defiantly so) about his treatment of comrades (he has just expelled two Dutch architects for designing, of all things, a church): ‘I am with the SI and, as long as I am in it, I will keep a minimum of discipline that precludes all collaboration with uncontrollable elements.’ This prompts the question: if there was no doctrine, why so many apostates?

One of my good friends from college, Hastagiri Prakash, recently published an interesting book (as a co-author) on applying the concept of mechanism design in game theory to network economics.

The overview slides shed some more light on the details of the book, and I just started reading it. From what I could tell, extremely interesting applications and some really cool ideas – albeit a bit too arcane and academic to be of interest to the general masses.

That said, I am particularly eager to see if there are some interesting new applications of incentives and incentive compatibility to my favorite area – economics (since all life is one giant incentive, any way).

FT had an interesting piece written by the former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on reforming the architecture of regulation.

As Paul Kedrosky so rightfully observes, the most interesting aspect of the article is how seems to be asking for “ample and flexible authority” for the FDIC to deal with failing banks (through the Treasury and the Fed, of course).

I notice all the buzzwords (moral hazard, risk management etc); but what does scare me are the phrases “explicit federal authority” and “power” and “exigent circumstances”.

But of course.

Seen on NYC Craigslist last week –

(Via Dealbreaker)

Lately, everyone has been abuzz about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer showdown.

I know lots of folks who know Cramer personally, and he’s supposed to a good, sharp guy, even if I do hate his show. On the other hand, I also like Jon Stewart and think he’s a funny, intelligent actor and that we need more of his kind out there.

But either way, I found the exchange between them to be rather sad and quite distasteful.

First of all, who does Jon think CNBC’s customers are? The regular joe or the guys on Wall Street? To answer that, look at who pays for most of the ads that are shown.  So, does it surprise people that CNBC targets Wall Street?

And secondly, while responsibility on CNBC’s part is certainly a laudable goal, let me play the devil’s advocate here for a minute.  Why should CNBC have any responsibility? At the end of the day, they are a TV channel. If SEC regulators and corrupt politicians did not foresee the economic problems of the day, we certainly cannot and should not expect a for-profit organization to. If anything, expecting them to do so is unfair and hypocritical.

Jon was being an ass to a guest who was doing a mea culpa. And worse yet, Jon didn’t care about Cramer. He just wanted to use him as a platform for for this entire thing.

Yes, it is wonderful to look back and blame people — but remember, at the end of the day, some of the smartest folks out there missed this coming. That’s the whole point of a bubble. But let me ask Jon this question. What about all those people who were said this was coming? Nassim Taleb, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Nouriel Roubini and a ton of others? Where was the daily show when these guys were talking about this? I did not see Taleb on the daily show in 2006. Oh wait, Jon was busy making fart noises and funny sounds.

But more importantly, Jon must realize one thing — if someone knew that this was all going to come down, it was more than likely that they were going to try and capitalize on this. You see, not everyone has jobs where they can get on prime time TV and make millions making fart noises. It’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

Scary looking merchandise graph from a recent Reserve Bank of India publication.

[Source: RBI: Macroeconomic and Monetary Developments - Third Quarter Review 2008-09]

This happened earlier in the month, when the markets were sorta bullish.

Me: Bloody markets are up.
Friend: Yeah, don’t know why. Freaking annoying.

Of course, this was long before the current carnage.

I particularly liked ~7:36 and ~18:18.