I guess this means no more stories about Bank of America going out of business any day now.

It’s Marginal Expected Shortfall that gets blown out by,
well, what looks a heck of a lot like self-deluded bank
managers who think it’s smart to reward their people for
accepting larger risk for a smaller price than will their
competitors.
http://vlab.stern.nyu.edu/welcome/risk

What Bernanke, Greenspan et al. ignored:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11728

With right decision makers shafted, with war for
car cultures based only on oil taking priority
over even the fracking that’s spoiling our water,
the very “ultimate economic recovery” from that
is actually a losing proposition.

If you’re going to frack, at least roll out
cars that can use it, I would think.

But it’s Just Wars Just Oil and Just Near Free Reserves
for Big Banks – R – Us.

When the banks get essentially free reserves and lend it
back to Treasury, and when you get otherwise a half point
on the proceeds from your house, for a negative real return,
while the bank charges several times that, though the nominal
rate doesn’t look like much, on that capital that’s otherwise
available to lend, that’s gangbusters net interest margin
indeed. In fact, I think from memory that’s even made
Cramer bullish on the TBTF banks on a recent show (pre-Facebook,
pre-Whale?)

We’ve never seen $US trillions in free reserves before any more
than we have credit guarantees multiple 10′s X bank net assets.

So after how many $100 billions in interest income has been
surrendered to these bank favors (for anyone to be surprised by
these bank results, I’m sorry, you’d have to be a sorry individual.)

and $US trillions have been extended in near free reserves (raising
reserve requirements is simply a way of saying shaft employment now,
we had to feed the banks but we can’t let that ignite “velocity,”)
I think we’re all part of their crap shoot, though I think Nassim
Taleb would put it differently (self-serving reckless possibilities?
Yaha! economics?)

A little background you might find interesting:

Before Blaise Pascal added coefficients to Yang Hui’s “Triangle,”
(one choice leads to two, leads to 4, etc., in a triangle-like fashion,)
he and a correspondent mathematician pretended they wanted to unwind
a card game of chance such that each players relative strength and
biddings would be fairly settled.

It’s my guess his coefficients were inspired by a coding within
Nostradamus’ quatrains, running first vertically, then horizontally,
but with Nostradamus’ work, I’m further guessing, having conveyed to
Pascal that choices over time mathematically reflect (as in the web
bot, iChing, digital forensics, the like, this being funky now and salient, so I’m sparing persons’ names) moral decisions, which of
course is in and of itself obvious and almost meaningless. But
then again, it’s not. It says morality is math.
(Economists look at “tails,” historians “periodization.”)

(There’s potentially more. Parallel events but for slight
alterations in moral choices (as in, say, identical East – West,
but for one item here or there) seem to then offer actual
meta-experiment value, which would be handy if someone
cared to convey something through history.)

It sure looks like there’s a morality of life vs. one that’s not.
We’re obviously headed toward imitating the mistakes of the
inhabitants of Easter Island. It looks conversely like
freedom, equality and love are the path to life, though I
personally try seeing those now as generalized states, rather
than think of them in terms of the confines of my particular
language (which I think you’ve guessed is English.)

That triangle actually becomes spherical, though I’m
capable of taking this to a funkier level and suggest the
pyramids are confirmational. So if something imparted
character rather than blink out, it would have become morality,
math and history all by itself.

This decision pattern is very similar looking to those experienced
with fractals (ultra simple concept: repeated iterations of one thing
to many of the same until it forms a forest, with life the building
block.) I wonder if the two can be connected, as I also wonder if
probabilities and relativity can be connected in parallel. If they
can, can it be seamlessly? We actually have that already, somewhat,
in economics, such as in Taleb’s work. In fact, that’s now glaringly
obvious. I happen to think (factual characterizations subject to my
mis-characterizing them) what with the game of footsie with the employment
participation rate, the playing with the real estate statistics
by virtue of loss sharing and toxic mortgage sales subsidized by the
taxpayer, and thus a bubble bought by you and now distorting in myriad
ways, we’re in a much worse place with much worse probabilities. Heck,
it’s not just the M.E. that’s had it with the dollar, the Asian states
are struggling to break free too. All for avoiding bank holding cos.’
holders being the losers. (The interesting question would be do
probabilities and relativity provide a theoretical fixed point.)

And, if it should be Nostradamus saw the future in “real time,”
then surprise! Morality teaches us how to travel through
space (that time is distance thing.)