Kinda Blue Ray

Mob

sxray — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:16:03 +0000

The mobile telephone is a great educational tool.

On contradiction

sxray — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:47:25 +0000

Another behaviour I have noted: When you assert something, invariably your interlocuter will contradict it.

The Chairman would have approved.

Recent CHF Libor

sxray — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:39:46 +0000

Swiss franc libor rates have turned negative. CHF libor overnight 22 Aug 2011, -0.02000 %,; 19 Aug 2011, -0.00333 %; 18 Aug 2011, 0.00000 %; 17 Aug 2011, 0.00000 %; 16 Aug 2011, 0.00250 %.

Source: http://www.global-rates.com/interest-rates/libor/swiss-franc/swiss-franc.aspx

An inventory of types

sxray — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:41:19 +0000

The American hegemon has introduced a slew of new words into what used to be a fairly expressive language before its corruption, to capture the American version of social reality. Let me list out the ones that come to mind.

Wimp

Nerd

Geek

Jock

Preppie.

I heard of a fraternity party at which there was a guy with various rubber stamps, stamping these descriptions on the backs of hands of the guests, thus slotting them into controllable categories. I feel I have left out some of these new types, and if you, patient reader, can supplement my knowledge, I’d be most obliged.

I think it is in sociology departments that such such typologies are worked out. I once knew of a chap, nice in most other ways, who had done a Ph.D in sociology. After that, ostensibly to round out his education, he did another Ph.D, this time in economics. Obviously, the degree in sociology had not quenched his thirst for true knowledge. And if all the sociologists do is characterise otherwise harmless people as geeks and nerds, one can quite sympathise with above mentioned professor, now tenured.

Need a name for a behaviour

sxray — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:00:37 +0000

I first noticed this behaviour when I was little. It enraged me even then. It still does, but these days I control the reaction. The behaviour, I found widespread in women (though it may occur among effiminate men or men who like to play games.) My first early memory of this behaviour is with my mother, but since that time I have encountered it with my wife, my female colleague and female boss.

The behaviour in question: The female initiates a conversation, asks a question, or asks for an opinion. Then, right when you start to reply, she diverts her attention from what you are saying, to something that is (demonstrably for you) more important or pressing, thus cutting you off in mid speech. If she is especially kind, after the interruption, she will turn to you, and resume with “and so you were saying?”.

I badly need a name for this behaviour. I bet the Americans, who incorrigibly study all and every phenomenon from a “scientific” standpoint, have, in one of their many classified reports, already given a name to this. I just don’t know it. I was thinking of calling it the “cut off” as in “she gave me the cut off” as in “she gave me the go by”. But perhaps there is a more appropriate term.

I would punish the perpetrators with, what, a year of solitary, or have their tongues paralysed. But I still can’t enforce my curses or make them real, so I’ll just keep practicing and hoping for the best.

A Post

sxray — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:47:50 +0000

Google understands.

US T-bill yields

sxray — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:22:29 +0000

On the 5th July 2011, the bid yield for a US T-bill with 23 days to maturity was 0.015% p.a and the ask yield was -0.015 % p.a.. Using the discount formula for calculating the price and assuming a face value of $10,000, we get bid price=$ 9990.50 and ask price =$ 10009.58. Since the ask price is the price at which the market maker sells, and the bid price is the price at which the market maker buys, this makes sense since he sells at a higher price than he buys.

This also means that on 5th July 2011, investors were willing to pay $10,0009.58 to get back $10,000 after 23 days.

More hats

sxray — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:12:00 +0000

I had white hats for the owners of the means of production and red hats for the workers. But I discovered that the red hats actually own some part of the means of production via pension funds. So now I need red hats with white dots and white hats with red dots (because some of the idle rich labour). Now I’m losing my grip altogether, and giving each man a unique hat.

Margins

sxray — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:42:45 +0000

We are in a perfectly linear world. The single commodity produced, in the words of the immortal Powelson, we call “Brothausen”. So the scene is set thus: Capitalists (White hat) own firms (empty shells at night, throbbing hives of activity by day) which produce GOODS to be consumed by those they employ, the workers (Red hat). But here is where the going gets tricky. Some part of the saving of the workers is onlent to the producer sector. I speak of the pension funds. I don’t know much about this. I know some part of my income, with a matching contribution from my employer, is put away, wisely invested in safe government securities, so that I can draw down this balance some day. This is where the fuzziness comes in. Every-bloody-one -seems to own a bit of the pie. Well, not everyone, but well over, what, at least a million people? A billion people, or do I go too far?

Let’s stop here and backtrack. White hats for the owners of equity. Red hats for those they employ. But the Red hats own some companies by virtue of their pension fund being invested in them.

Corporation T-shirt

sxray — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:20:59 +0000

When I was young, there were no lettered T-shirts. People used to wear plain, patterned clothes. Somewhere along the line, the corporation T-shirt. With messages. Can’t decide whether this is altogether a good thing.