My love

2B continued

The door

You all know about dimensions. 3 to 4 is the limit of our thinking....

Suppose you live in a 2-dimensional world and you had brainy people like a 2-dimensional Newton, a 2 dimensional Einstein and so forth. Would THEY be capable of transgressing their reality by assuming there are more than 2 dimensions, suppose 3? (Stupid of course because 2-dimensional thinking implies 3 dim. things, because 'ad infinitum' the third dimension of 2-dim. thinking involves a 3rd dimension, cause 2 dim. pictures have a depth of at least 1 atom, which makes them 3-dim people.... although they may think of themselves as 2-dim. people...)

(re-read the last sentence and STOP when the () appear.....). Sure they can, but they do NOT experience 3 but only 2 dimensions. Then came the theorists. They imagined more than 2, even more than 3, they imagined N (N > 3) dimensions. They had computers, they had IT specialists, they even had math wizards that projected N dimensions (where N > 3).

Now what.

There come the neurologists.

They had their own ideas. They said: we treat patients that experience 6 dimensions (although we have a hard time finding out what it is that they think the 4th, the 5th and the 6th dimensions are all about.....)....

Suppose, we -in our three-to-four (including time)- dimensional neuroframe thought about entering the 4th/5th/6th dimension.....

Could we cope?

Are we ready to comprehend?

Is our mind sane?

I think it has to do with doors..

Our mind is accustomed to a certain number of dimensions. To introduce a 5th dimension (never mind the record), we have to invent dreams.... A 5th dimension will only come into existance in dreams... and in dreams..... everythig is possible...

OK, we dream......

Even in our dreams we think in (a maximum of) 3 dimensions...

But ....

Our minds are not fully explored or exploited...

We have a lot to learn about our own functionality....

Suddenly, we find ourselves bumping against the limits of our own (3dim.) understanding,

and,

THERE IS A DOOR.

Which we do not know about,

But it is there....

Let us -all together- try to open that door.

It may be the one we're looking for....

CU

New Panic Signals?

There is a sort of down spiralling, 'we are not there yet', doom scenario spirit going on in the periphery of the financial world that has bothered me a lot lately. For example: Precious metals hoarding is supposed to be skyrocketing, where today (090909) I only see precious metals (or to be more correct: the value of precious metals measured in US Dollars!!!) depreciate in value. What I DO see is nothing more than could be expected, i.e. a slow but steady downfall of the US Dollar (1.45 US$ = 1 € as measured today. A week ago this was 1.41 US$ = 1€, so the US$ is losing ground).

A year ago (about) I predicted a US$ fall to 3 US$ = 1€. Ridiculous right? Well, we're nearly halfway there, but do not despair and keep remembering 'I told you so'.

As the US$ depreciates, the price of gold will rise, as will the price of oil and all other -traditionally- $-denominated commodities. To then conclude that 'everybody' flees into (precious) metals or into other simply marketable commodities is -IMHO- a too hasty conclusion. There is not enough gold to hide in anyway and investors will be the wiser to remember that while 'fleeing'.

I do not claim to be the world's foremost predictor, I only try to reason out my thoughts:

• fact is that the US$ is overvalued given its nearly immeasurable debt,
• fact is that China is more and more hesitant in financing US debt,
• fact is that US mass production industry is nearly bankrupt,
• fact is that older US citizens need to be employed. There pensions have evaporated,
• fact is that the US financial system is still very unstable,
• fact is that US debt is (still) steadily rising and wars are still fought,
• fact is that not one of the items above applies to Asia and/or for Europe.

So,

The US$ depreciates and I honestly think the IMF has to raise its voice and has to restrict the US economic policies as they did for all other countries that got entangled in similar positions.

Obama will not like this, not with all his reforms to be introduced this fall season. He will need a lot of persuasion capabilities, nationally as well as inter- and supra-nationally.

Sheer Size

My most favourite
subject is SIZE.

In economics
better known as:

QUANTITY or Q.

In most microeconomic 'models' we encounter 'quantity' in relation to 'price'. We -historically- came to understand these models to represent 'supply and demand' models. The intersection between 'supply' and 'demand' came to be known as the equilibrium state, where supply meets demand at a given price and a given quantity.

In financial economics, especially the 'Eugene Fama-Efficient Markets Hypothesis/Theory'-variant aka the EMH, 'price' against 'risk' (however defined), has become (until recently) the only dinner financial economists have learned to eat and get used to.

Within this EMH-world, prices have been set by the all encompassing market, given the measure of (financial) risk, through a process of arbitrage. The market for any security which is traded, so the new-born legend tells us, has come to rest (=equilibrium) given a certain price and an accompanying (measure of) risk, given a specific set of 'known' or market-wide information. Noone in his right mind (so the legend continues) would pay more or less for that given security than this 'equilibrium' price (given the risk).

The current financial crisis has everything to do with the above!

During the nineties and the first decade of the 21st century, real estate (mortgages) and every financial product related to it, has become (and in many cases still IS) the primary security traders within the financial community have favoured. The origin of this 'faith' has always been the historical 'proof' that real estate was a hedge against inflation and a safe way to invest in.

Banks are the primary sellers of mortgages. House owners and owners of commercial real estate have turned to banks for mortgages on their property. In turn banks were very willing to underwrite these loans, because of the 'real' value of real estate (the bricks-have-value religion).

Because of regulatory restrictions banks could only sell so-many mortgages. But they found a trick to circumvent this restriction: they sold their portfolios of real estate mortgages to the market and insured the risk of this portfolio defaulting. In short they sold against cash and could start selling mortgages with this received cash (flow). This procedure -which is called 'securitization' went on numerous times with the same money being invested dozens of times and (re-)insured dozens of times. All went went well for decades.

Remember one thing: although banks (re-)insured their securitized mortgages every time they sold mortgages to the market, the risk for the bank remained. That is: in case the (re-)insurer defaulted, security owners could claim the value of their securities (=shares) at the securitizing bank. This proved to be very important, so take good notice of this!

Given the size of real estate (mortgage) portfolios within the, or any, bank, the resulting situation dramatically tilted the bank towards a very substantial default risk. As more and more money within securitized portfolios was (re-)insured the portfolios of the (re-)insurer also got tilted towards real estate risk.

And then real estate prices did not rise anymore....or even declined..

The home and office owners could not pay their debts (interest and amortization payments) anymore. In short the (re-)insurers went broke, which in turn made the originating banks the owners of these risks (which of course they could not bear), in short the banks also defaulted or at least had to write-off many defaulted loans and or related securities. To their relief, governments stepped in and bailed them out (with different bail out plans per country involved).

The CDO's, the CDS's and all the other financial products related to this real estate drama suddenly had no price anymore. The market, the Heaven of traders, exploded into nothingness. Simply because nobody was interested in them anymore, in fear of defaulting themselves if they would be the responsible party....

I have arrived at the point I wanted to make with this story: Whenever specific securities are dominating the financial community, as was the case with the internet bubble at the turn of the millenium, the market gets out of its 'equilibrium state'. The 'buy-buy-buy' interest that parties show whenever a specific (financial) industry is promising good returns is extremely dangerous. The reason is that the whole market gets focused on this specific industry, by selling securities that do not bear any resemblance to e.g. 'internet' and buying securities that DO! A so-called 'tilting' or 'quantity' effect overwhelmes the market. Everybody wants 'in' and prices rise as a consequence of this. We've seen this numerous times. From the dutch 'tulipmania' via the 'itc-mania' to the 'real estate-mania'. It is all the same.

Finance theory should finally recognize that this lemming behaviour of market parties is an immanent factor they MUST give weight to in their models. If there is anything that can be learned from the current financial crisis, it is the FACT that financial models since Fama, do not pay ANY attention to sheer size, or quantity.

In my view the finance Nobel Prize winners should return their prizes, enter monasteries, never to be heard form again, beginning with Eugene Fama,

for their utter stupidity of forgetting the simplest of economic laws:

prices relate to quantities.

Hope to meet you again tomorrow.

Laura

Ja inderdaad (idd), het is te lang geleden: juni vorig jaar en we beginnen meteen met een nieuwtje: voortaan is de voertaal engels.

So here we go.

I've got a lot to tell y'all, but I'm patient, as long as you are. A lot has happened the past year+ and I'll cover it all if you give me some of your time. Just tune in to 'Jan's Blog Theme Hour' and you'll be satisfied.

So, it's about LAURA today. Laura Dekker to be precise. This evening I watched a rather sentimental movie about Amy, who flew (YES she flew!) her self raised geese from Canada to Florida in a mockup Mother Goose-like plane. She was 13/14 years old when she planned/started this trip (BTW, the movie is called: FLY AWAY HOME, and you can find more info here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116329/

A rather sentimental story as said, but it tells a story about a young girl that planned to raise her orphaned geese the best way she could think of....

Now we in Holland have our own contemporary heroine: Laura Dekker, also 13/14 years of age. She wants to sail around the world solo in her boat 'Guppy' (what's in a name).

The Dutch Child Protection Agency (Kinderbescherming...) won a law suit where the verdict was that such a young girl (=Laura) must not be allowed to persue her dream. She might get robbed, pirated or worse and so she was temporarily found insane (for 2 months) untill doctors could evaluate her case in order to find out if she WAS sane (or NOT).

I read a commentary on this story/news that had the following message (I adapted it a bit):

Is a parent qualified to be a qualified parent in one or more of the following cases?:

• allow your 13/14 year old (dutch) daughter to go to a beach party in -let's say- Hoek van Holland on a bright summer's day (remember the riots there only a week ago: 1 killed, a dozen wounded)?

• allow your 13/14 year old (dutch) daughter to visit and spend the evening/night in a disco in downtown Rotterdam (fill in your own -distrusted- domicile and/or metropole)?

• allow your dearest youngest daughter to fly to Ibiza, Sitges, Lloret del Mar, and other places, on her own, or only accompanied by her dearest girl friend, to spend a fortnight of holidays among drunken british, scandinavian or other hooligans, in order to be raped (90% probability), killed (2% probability) or be happy (5% probability)?

• allow your daughter to fulfill her dearest wish to go sailing solo around the world, including frequent stopovers at well-known harbours to catch up on her school homework, pass (or fail) exams, but continue the trip?

We have come so far as to only wish our children to grow up H.A.P.P.Y.... whatever that means. As I experience it, happy means 'without any worry in the world' which, I would like to stress, is the most harmful way to raise your baby. As if the world consists of H.A.P.P.Y..

Laura will raise a lot of money. Her father planned well. He knew/forecasted the child Protection authorities to do what they did. He received the bonus of global news attendancy for his little girl. Sponsors will now pay millions for their brand to be printed on the boat GUPPY. Laura, be she 13 or 14 years of age, is already a very rich woman.

I hope she will show insight in the choices of life that count: spend that money well.

I bid you: sleep well and wake up same time tomorrow for more of the same.

Anti Rook fascisme

Weten jullie waar het gezond is in Nederland (qua lucht dan)? Juistum, in Almelo en in Epe en in Den Helder en in Appelscha. Maar NIET in Rijnmond (ivm Europoort) en/of in Zuid Zuid-Limburg (ivm Ruhrgebied).

Waarom bestaat de kassencultuur in Nederland nog, terwijl er daardoor 1000-en mensen gediscrimineerd worden die daar vanwege hun pollen- of andere allergie NIET kunnen werken?

Waarom worden schoonmaakdiensten in kantoren, of erger nog, waarom worden kantoren in Nederland getolereerd, waar stof-/mijt-/ en pollenallergieën 1000-en mensen ervan weerhoudt banen aldaar te KUNNEN accepteren?

Waarom bestaat Europoort en het Ruhrgebied nog, waar duidelijk is dat de zich aldaar bevindende fabrieken ZOVEEL vervuilen dat bewijsbaar veel long-, kanker en andere ziektes daar -meer dan elders in Nederland- floreren?

Waarom hebben niet-rokers de laatste 200 jaar geen 'eigen' cafe's, bars, hotels, restaurants en dergelijke opgericht, opdat zij aldaar hun zogenaamd frisse omgeving aantreffen (muv Rijmond en Zuid Zuid-Limburg, want roken aldaar draagt minder dan 1 promille bij aan de -slechte- luchtkwaliteit aldaar)?

Waarom zijn parlementsleden altijd EEERRG bezig met het feit dat in een democratie ook MINDERHEDEN mogen funktioneren op eigen wijze, maar zijn ze ineens een andere mening toegedaan als het roken/rokers betreft?

Waarom weten europeanen (want het gaat ver, deze moderne fascistenvariant!) niet welke bijdrage rokers leveren aan de staatskas, waardoor wegen worden aangelegd, scholen worden gefinancierd en nog zo het een en ander? Zijn al deze niet rokende europeanen bereid jaarlijks ca 200 euri aan belasting EXTRA te betalen, vanwege het feit dat er niet meer gerookt wordt in Nederland, maar er nog wel wegen moeten worden aangelegd en scholen moeten draaien? Nooit over nagedacht? Ja, dat is het kenmerk van fascisme: NIET NADENKEN!!

Waarom mogen zzp-ers niet voor zichzelf uitmaken welke klanten ze bedienen? NEE, want Brussel (=EU) bestuurt, dus hobbelen we mee met deze incompetente, nooit ECHT nadenkende, belastingvrij opererende EU-sukkels. die ons leven bepalen (LEVE DE IEREN!!!!). Weg met de EU qua regelneverigheid!!!

Wat is er mis met mensen die huis en haard verlaten, ten gunste van de kroeg? Ruzie thuis? En roken thuis? Beide = ja! Dus? Niet meer die uitvlucht mogelijk maken, dus meer huiselijk geweld? Is dat het doel? Kennelijk!

Waarom dat gedoe met afgescheiden ruimtes voor de ECHTE kroeggasten en 'de kroeg' voor de plassers, de zeikerds en de theedrinkers? Wees een wijf en kom gewoon naar de kroeg omdat je je daar thuis voelt..... en NIET omdat je daar gepurificeerde lucht opsnuift (lukt in Zuid Holland sowieso niet maar alla {allah?}...

Roken is slecht...? Hoezo??? Voor degenen die er 3 pakjes per dag doorheen paffen en na 40 levensjaren de longarts tegenkomen die zegt dat ze nog een half jaar zullen leven. Ja, voor hen is het slecht. En voor de stress-kippen (M/V) en voor hen die het leven niet aankunnen en..... (dat nicotine-onderzoek uit 1995 is sowieso verdacht, omdat het van de Erasmus Universiteit komt).

Maar is vetzucht dan zoveel beter? En moet McDonalds dan ook een rook- cq vetvrije ruimte maken voor hun NIET-obesitas-cliënten? Dacht ik wel, maar Europa kan niet denken, laat staan op termijn, dus de vetten veroveren de wereld (kost wat, maar 'who cares???). En zit er accijns op slechte vetten? Ook al niet, dus de vetzakken kunnen zich dicht vreten en de kosten worden verdeeld over wel en niet-rokers.... Rechtvaardig? Dat woord is al dertig jaar uit het vacubulaire van de gemiddelde advocaat/jurist verdwenen.

Waarom wordt eicelselektie niet toegelaten? Omdat 4% van de stemmers van 2 jaar geleden dat vinden.

Waarom wordt roken in openbare gelegenheden verboden? Omdat 40% van de stemmers kennelijk geen belang hebben in de door politici bepaalde werkelijkheid. Over 'maakbaarheid van de samenleving' gesproken. Shell WEL en shag NIET.... WAT een werkelijkheidszin.

STEL we verbieden (slecht) vet in Nederland. Ter plekke is 60% van onze medelanders over de kook. Die eten alleen maar vet en dan nog SLECHT vet OOK! Waarom zitten die niet in de gevangenis, wegens het proletarisch vegeteren op de staatskas, de ziekenkas en de WAO-kas en de WW-kas en de Bijstandskas.....?

Waarom mogen (net als in Duitsland) de zzp-ers onder de kroegeigenaars niet ZELF bepalen wat ze doen? Waarom mag in Spanje een kroeg waar maximaal 25 man in kunnen een eigen beleid voeren? Waarom is in Nederland de politiek heiliger dan de leer?

WE WORDEN BELAZERD!!!

Eu - ro - pa

Europa,

Is helemaal niks.
Begon al met die Euro
Helemaal niks.



En nu ook nog het songfestival
Helemaal niks.
Ik ben al BIJNA Rita
Scheelt niks.
want, kijk naar dat PauldeLeeuw-nichten-Festival
En je weet: Nicht (duits) betekent NIKS
Het was dus weer niks.

AzerbeidjanServieMontenegroSlovenie
BelarusRuslandArmenieBosnieHerzegowina

Gaat allemaal nergens over
tZijn net de Antillen
Stemmen op elkaar
Wat een lol
Maar WAT een Boevenbende

Je stuurt er wat Chicago-economen op af
en het wordt meteen Chinatown
Boeven overheersen Oost en Centraal Europa
in ieder geval wat betreft de liedjes...

Maar dat gaat West Europa merken
in de komende jaren wordt Europa overspoeld door boeven van achter het vroegere ijzeren gordijn.

Bedankt Chicago!!

Ja uiteraard ben ik (het) zat
vandaag was het 'Western Gold' uit Canada of DANACA (vlgns Freek) voor 4.50 EURO PER FLES, weliswaar uit Duitsland
Dus niet 'van' hier....

Want hier hebben we accijnzen en de BPM en de BTW
en de WW en de WAJONG en de Bijstand en de WAO
(ik ken die laatste, krijg ik nog steeds geld van)
Elke maand hetzelfde, behalve in Mei
want dan krijg je je 13e maand


Joepie