Sunday, March 28, 2010


I’ve been jumping up and down, having a fit about the Wall Street folks who created those diabolical instruments which caused the global recession and the collapse of  banks, brokerages and other companies.   But nobody else seems outraged, Why is this?
Knowing that I can be wrong when it comes to numbers or anything at all related to them, I decided to do more research.  I'm not wrong about this, even if I did cast aspersions on mathematicians and physicists in a recent blog post and some articles I’ve subsequently read suggest they can’t be blamed for everything.  Economists were asleep at the wheel and many bankers and traders didn’t understand the risk they were taking.  But surely the devisers  of these instruments did?  If you’re a mathematical physicist who is paid to devise a WMD for your boss, who then uses it to cause mass destruction, does that exonerate you from blame?  Why would it?  Just because you’re smart?  Bof.
    It seems that Wall Street is bristling with mathematicians and physicists, even mathematical physicists.  Not only are they not in disgrace, they are in great demand.  These are the people who devised the sub-prime mortgage securities, as well as secretive trading operations within banks.  Known as QUANTS (far too dignified a term, I’d spell it differently), these folks, along with computer scientists, used super computers and mathematical formulae, to provide complex instruments in pseudo-scientific language for their banker bosses to finagle the market.      Finagle, you say, is that a banking term?  No, but since you and me and millions of other people have been affected by the actions of these quants--homes, pensions, as well as more than a trillion dollars lost and banks, brokerages and other companies bankrupted and credit tightened globally--we can politely say finagle.  To state the obvious, finance is not the area of expertise of mathematicians and physicists, so what are they doing on Wall Street besides wreaking havoc and making money?*  Has a Ph.D on Wall Street become a license to steal?
    If Michael Burry, a one-eyed man with Asperger’s syndrome, could see that the unregulated Wall Street bond market was “losing its mind” and invent Credit Default Swaps to take advantage of this, why did economists, the SEC and other regulatory bodies not notice what was going on?  CDSs were, in essence, bets that the bond market would collapse, which it duly did and Michael Burry made a lot of money for his perspicacity.  Here’s a discussion about the subject with the author of the book THE BIG SHORT, Michael Lewis, who seems to know what he’s talking about.  Here he is again on 60 MINUTES Lewis suggests that it’s too easy to conclude that the people who caused the near collapse of capitalism are criminals, he feels that it’s a case of “mass delusion”.
    That may be true, but the widespread suffering caused by these people is quite real.  Many highly intelligent, educated, people, even Nobel prize-winners, did something wrong to cause this suffering.  It seems the main reason these clever, amoral people have not been held accountable is that they’re the only ones who can unravel the mess they’ve made and are now demanding a whole lot of money to do it and immunity from possible prosecution.
    As Bill Mahr says, “I’m outraged that you’re not outraged.” Let’s not be intimidated by amoral smarts, let’s call a crook a crook even if he or she is deluded.  Let's demand banking reform.  Let's demand that the government stop subsidising banks and financing obscene bankster bonuses.
    Learn  more about BLACK BOXES, HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING/ ALGORITHMIC TRADING and QUANTS by watching this excellent and informative VIDEO.   As Emanuel Derman, a theoretical physicist and early QUANT says: “If people don’t complain now, it serves them right when the next financial crisis happens.”   

* Quants are apparently essential to modern banking because the latest thing is algorithmic trading/High Frequency Trading, which require maths skills. But do we need HFT and algorithmic trading?  Do we really need quants?  Do computers  and algorithms make it easier to be a crook?

Sunday, March 21, 2010


It’s not often I get a feature length documentary
to go with my blog but, 
on the 26th of March 2010,  
you’ll be able to see
a feature-length documentary called
a filmed account of Disney Feature Animation’s
Warehouse Years
which you’ve been reading about on this blog:

Eyvind Earle’s stunning background paintings for SLEEPING BEAUTY 

Sunday, March 14, 2010


In 1995 construction began on Jeffrey’s Dreamworks campus. . . 

The content of this post can be found in 

Sunday, March 7, 2010


Without villains, there’d be no literature. Or cinema or television or theatre. Even in non-fiction and documentaries there’s usually a villainous disease, political power, corporation or philosophy to overcome.  

We love our baddies. The badder the better.
We like their swirling capes, high cheek bones, thick moustaches and husky baritones.

We're entertained by evil, cruelty and mass murder. Have you noticed how many successful TV shows are about crime and criminals, i.e. villains?

Neither literary nor cinematic, those vile QUANTS or financial engineers (mathematicians and physicists working for bankers) who invented the sub-prime mortgages for Wall Street, must be mentioned here. Are they evil or were they just obeying orders from their Wall Street employers? By the way, why have those people not been named and shamed, not to mention, ARRESTED? Someone knows who they are, why are they being allowed to get away with causing global suffering? Is it because they're they only ones who know how to fix the mess and are using that to escape punishment?

But, back to show-biz villains. We seem to like formulaic and fairly sanitised bad guys with colorful personalities and lots of redeeming qualities. Have we been brainwashed by Hollywood in this respect? Even Tony Soprano, a cold-blooded killer, has been made cuddly and audience-friendly.

An exception to these run-of-the-mill villains can be found in Annie Proulx's writing. Her characters are almost never evil. She mostly lets cruel circumstance and accidents be the villains in her stories and they are far more cruel and implaccable than any fiction.