Occupy Opinions?

[Ryougabot]

Originally Posted by Hahma

Well the elected officials aren't much better at figuring it out than the unskilled twenty-somethings, but they are getting paid a lot better.

A lot of politicians are out of touch at many levels and generally seem to be putting more energy into fighting against the opposite party than finding solutions to help the country.

Executives in big business aren't always qualified to do their job, but when they screw up, it cost many jobs and exec walks away with a big severance and on to the next company to start again.

Many people in general seem to feel entitled and want more of everything. They'll take two mortgages out just to pay for a huge house that they really can't afford. They'll drive Hummers just to look cool and drink $4 coffees every day on their way to work. Things seemed better 20-30 years ago, but people lived in smaller houses and didn't spend $1,000 just to have their kid in a travelling softball or volleyball league just so they can compete to make the highschool team.


People can protest a war but not know the intricacies of how to get out of the war, but they have a right to let their dissatisfaction be known nonetheless. I'm not an Occupy supporter or detractor, but I don't expect them to have the answer in getting Americans back to work and better educated. Ultimately the politicians can say whatever they want about educating our kids, but when it comes to spending the money it comes down to what city or town you live in the U.S. and not just living in the U.S. Add to that, a lot of people just want to party and have fun and don't care about schoolwork. But when they become adults and can't find a job, they cry unfair.

I don't have any answers, I just believe that at a variety of levels in this country, greed, selfishness and laziness is not a good formula for success.

I can see what these protestors are angry about. They seem overwhelmed by the greed of the "1%". The problem with their cause is that they are not helping the problem. This nation rose and collapsed on the attitude of the general population. The average citizen spends more than they make. You mentioned huge houses that they can not afford and $4 coffee. These items are symptomatic of an attitude of non-contentment. If we can not even keep our own houses in order, how can we expect the politicians and business executives to do the same.

Math was mentioned earlier in this thread. Did anybody actually walk through the math on a degree? Statistically, a degree will make you more money. The amount is set. If your degree costs more than the amount you are getting for it, that is a losing proposition. Also, certain degrees have a better lifelong ROI than others. A CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) degree will get you more per year than a BWS (Bitter Women Studies) degree. Students need to do the math, or have someone they trust do the math on their lives. People may have tried to trick these students into taking loans for educations they could not afford, but it was ultimately the decision of the students to take the loan rather than work for a year to pay for college. Ultimately, they made the call. High level math is not a necessity, but the ability to run you own numbers is a must.

That attitude extends beyond college. Personal credit usage has spiked and advertising has reached an unprecedented level. The average American is spending more than they earn. What it is on is not important, they are just not doing the math. And when the collector comes, they look to Washington for hope. The problem is that Washington is populated with people with the same fiscal irresponsibility as them, so they can't (or won't) solve the problem.

The end result is a generation that has stuck their neck out beyond their means and feel trapped. It is much easier to march than to actually change your life, so they are marching.

I may have one of those "nice degrees" but I was still spending more than I made. I was averaging 110% overages year over year. The only way out was to live on credit cards. These offered a temporary solution but mathematically, they were not helping. We came to a realization that something had to change. I made a budget, took on an extra job, sold everything that was not nailed down, downsized the "dream house" and lived within my means. The effort allowed me to cut the cards, pay for my car, pay the student loans and end this year with a net worth that was equal to a year's pay. It was hard, but I only blame myself for not doing the math. I paid a "stupid tax" and it cost me 10 years of my life. I am not out of the woods but I am better off now than I was 10 years ago. After the change, I have no debt, I save for the future, live at 90% of my income, and am ready for a layoff. This made such an impact on my life that I teach personal finance classes and am trying to actually change the USA from the ground up.

I sympathize with the plight of the OWS people (I was there), but I do not believe in enabling. I will never know, but I wonder how many of the OWS people would take a financial class if offered. I have actually had people tun down a free class because they didn't want to shred their cards and stop getting $4 coffees for a couple of years.

Combine this with the lack of any goals, I have little sympathy for their "cause". Politicians can not fix the system, they never have before and they can't now. Politicians can not offer hope. That is in the hands of the people to create. America does not seem to want to change on a personal level, and the OWS is the latest symptom.

I will most likely catch some damage for this, but it is an opinion. The OP asked for opinions, and this is mine.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Twice you've said that math is a frill. Can you please elaborate on that? Our entire society, from our financial system to our electronics to our movies and entertainment are dependent on the mathematical tools that have been developed over the years. I honestly don't see math as a frill at all. It's a necessity.

Heh. Ask me to talk more about math? And you thought I was longwinded before...

No mathematicians I know of work directly in the areas that you list. The people in those areas use math and apply math, but a mathematician is someone who creates math (similarly, I'm not a mechanic just because I can drive a car).

That states things perhaps a little strongly, and there's definitely a nice big fuzzy area. However, the math departments with which I'm familiar (which is not all that many, and possibly not hugely representative) contain next to no-one who could be described as doing something of immediate (or even medium term) use to the practical world.

I think people have a pretty distorted view of what it is mathematicians do and why they do it. Here are a couple of examples, one tiny and one big.

The tiny one is a result of my own that's currently under peer review. I got sucked into the area of math in which I work---combinatorics---because the problems are easy to state but often require a whole bunch of ingenuity and technical know-how to solve. But sometimes a brilliant idea is sufficient; there's always the feeling that you'll wake up with a great idea that will solve the big problems in the area in one fell swoop (I have not yet done this). I'll put the problem in full in spoilers so that the math does not bog down (too much) the point I'm trying to make.

For the purposes of the post, it's enough to know that I'm looking for square grids of numbers with particular properties, called complete Latin squares. The properties in question originated from practical concerns in the design of experiments in agriculture and medicine. For example, if you have four varieties of wheat and you want to see which is best, a 4 by 4 complete Latin square could be the tool that makes your experiment most powerful.

New squares with these properties of size up to 20 or so would be of genuine practical interest. For all even numbers N, it's quite straightforward to construct an N by N complete Latin square. Exhaustive searches have ruled out the possibility of such squares existing for 3 by 3, for 5 by 5, for 7 by 7 and for 9 by 9. The case of 11 by 11 is still open, as are all other odd numbers less than 21. The smallest known grids of odd side have sizes 21 by 21 and 27 by 27.

All well and good---mathematicians working on a practical problem, right? However, here's is where we get carried away. Mathematicians don't really care about the practical implications and want to know whether such grids exist or not in general. I've proved their existence for a new infinite family of odd sizes. The smallest is 35931 by 35931. Does anyone have 35931 varieties of wheat they want to test? (And a field big enough to divide into 1291036761 plots?)

Here're the details. The problem is genuinely not hard to understand, nor is its motivation. If you can understand sudoku you can attempt this research math question.

Spoiler Alert!

A Latin square of order N is an N by N grid with each symbol from 1 to N in each row and each column (a solved sudoku is a Latin square of order 9). Here is an example of a 4 by 4 Latin square:

1 2 3 4
2 3 4 1
3 4 1 2
4 1 2 3

Suppose we testing 4 wheat varieties in a field. One might arrange the varieties like this to counteract the effects of natural features of our field (If drainage is better to the north, or there's a honking great interstate to the east, then each variety benefits or suffers equally---we don't even need to know what the potential benefits or drawbacks are.)

However, what if variety 1 grows particularly fast soon after planting? Then variety 2 which is immediately to the south of variety 1 three times suffers from being in the shade more than the others, which are never to the south of variety 1. We solve this with complete Latin squares: A Latin square is complete if each pair of numbers occur as neighbours exactly once in each direction. (So 2 will occur immediately to the south of 1 exactly once in such a square.) Here's a 4 by 4 complete Latin square:

4 1 3 2
3 4 2 1
1 2 4 3
2 3 1 4

Note that now to the south of 1 we have 2 (first column), 4 (second column) and 3 (last column) once each. Or looking at the pair 1 and 2 we have 2 to the east of 1 (3rd row), the west of 1 (2nd row), the north of 1 (4th row) and the south of 1 (1st column). You can check that these properties hold across the board for all directions or all pairs of numbers.

So the problem is to construct complete Latin squares of all possible orders. As I said outside the spoiler, 11 is the smallest unknown case (I might be wrong here---I wouldn't be surprised if someone with a big enough computer could crack this; 13 is definitely unknown) and 21 is the smallest odd number for which there definitely is such a square.

As an easier problem, if you don't feel like leaping straight into the unknown, you might try to construct complete Latin squares of orders 6, 8, 10,... (Hint: if you know modular arithmetic (aka clock arithmetic) that might help.)

That's a tiny problem in a tiny sub-branch of math. Here's the biggie. One of the most active branches of math through the 20th century (and still now) is "group theory", which formalises the idea of symmetry. Groups can be thought of as a little like numbers but with more structure. In particular, they can be "factored" into smaller groups much as composite numbers can be factored into primes. The unfactorable groups---analogues of the primes---are called the simple groups. All groups can be built from the simple groups in an analogous way to how numbers are built from primes.

The Classification of Finite Simple Groups is, arguably, the biggest, deepest mathematical theorem ever proved. There are a bunch of regularly-structured infinite families, twenty-six weird odd cases, and that's it. The proof takes 10,000+ pages in research journals across four different languages. It is currently been condensed into a 9 volume series of textbooks that probably take a PhD in group theory to even begin reading.

Group theory is very useful across many applied disciplines. But it's not that useful. The case that group theory (or math more generally) should be pursued on grounds of its usefulness is much like the case that the space program should have been pursued because of its potential benefits to kitchenware. Sure, there were benefts (teflon) and some people even make the case that the spin-offs are sufficient reason to pursue such programs. But it was the people who thought it'd be cool (even if useless) to go to the moon that drove the work; it's the same in math.

The difference in scope of those two problems can't be overstated. Ask the next mathematician you meet for the definition of a complete Latin sqaure and the chances are overwhelming that you'll draw a blank look. Ask about the Classification of Finite Simple Groups and you'll almost certainly get at least the potted summary above.

One last quick example from a different angle. A window onto the sorts of mathematical conversations that happen in a typical math common room can be found here. You might try browsing for useful applications. (You'll probably find lots of "applications", but they'll be to other equally useless branches of math.)

[SuperflyTNT]

But, using your example, there is practical application. Let's say one wanted to test genes, or pharmaceutical compounds, or wavelengths of stars, or any other huge fielded group. Maybe the work you did will result in being able to determine habitability of exoplanets, eventually resulting in the location of a planet.

Then, using your technique plots are achieved that would allow for the minimum fuel used and shortest time to get to said planet, with infinite possibilities of vector and trajectory.

Now you are directly responsible for the first manned mission to a planet outside of our solar system. Ollie, you're a f-ing hero. Well, potentially.

Practicality isn't limited to farmers wanting to test wheat, right? High level maths are applied to high level problems, and while it may take lifetimes to achieve their purpose, the fact is that every bit of new knowledge developed by man is cast into the overall pool of knowledge that man has compiled over the years in order to further man's understanding of nature.

Right?

[dok]

It's true that some of the seemingly most abstract stuff ends up being important in a variety of fields. I bet imaginary numbers seem like a total waste of time to most people when they learn about them, but I use imaginary numbers all the time in my work.

I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but I'll comment based on my guess about where this is coming from. It doesn't really make sense to argue that everyone should only major in engineering or accounting or other obvious trades in proportion to their demand in the workforce. First, plenty of the skills people learn in "useless" fields where they write papers about whatever end up translating just fine when those same people go to Business or Law school. So that time is not wasted.

Secondly, to the extent that those skills are lacking in some sort practical application, it's still not our place to label learning them a waste. This is not so different than me thinking that Lady Gaga songs are a waste. I might not like them, but in a free society, if people place value in that stuff, that's their business.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by dok

It's true that some of the seemingly most abstract stuff ends up being important in a variety of fields. I bet imaginary numbers seem like a total waste of time to most people when they learn about them, but I use imaginary numbers all the time in my work.

I use imaginary numbers everyday at work. It's just that when I do it, the IRS insists on calling it tax fraud.



Who says accountants don't have a sense of humor!??

Bannister

[Elven Lord]

Originally Posted by dok

It's true that some of the seemingly most abstract stuff ends up being important in a variety of fields. I bet imaginary numbers seem like a total waste of time to most people when they learn about them, but I use imaginary numbers all the time in my work.

Secondly, to the extent that those skills are lacking in some sort practical application, it's still not our place to label learning them a waste. This is not so different than me thinking that Lady Gaga songs are a waste. I might not like them, but in a free society, if people place value in that stuff, that's their business.

I used imaginary numbers once, in class. Then forgot about them, because I haven't needed them since. This is no big surprise because I'm a minor.

Things get complicated in this area. What should, and should not be permitted is always highly controversial. Just saying, "that's their bussiness," is often a very good approach. However, in some cases this is not so. Were Lady Gaga to start singing about graphic sex, and drug abuse, I would not let someone like my sister listen to it. I would encourage my close friends not to, and I would ask anyone who is playing it on loud speaker to stop it. That or just leave, depending on the situation.

Now into the context of the Occupy movement on Wall Street. The Park was a place where people liked to take walks, and enjoy natural beauty. Once the Occupy movement moved in the crime in the park went up, and the park began to get unsanitary. The park in question was not a park where you could just set up camp, and stay for however long you wanted. I think the government gave them a fair warning. The people who didn't leave were justly chased out by local authorities, and their property forfeit for disobedience to the law. I'd even venture that this was a kind way of dispensing justice. Were I the local authority I would have told the protestors to get out. Then those who didn't get out would not have a second chance. I would order the men and women on my force to arrest them, and fine them, then set them free. Those who resisted would be placed in prison to await trial by the Judiciary. That is justice, and that is a justified way of treating Occupy movements. Unless of course the Occupy movements are occupying shelter that they have paid for, or are staying with family, and friends. If they are crowding the streets, to sleep at night, they should be told to go, and if they don't; forcably removed.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Mombo101

I'm still a bit flabbergasted that many people here are completely ignoring the fact that we are more to blame than the banks are. Yes, I'll admit that the banks used shady means of approving loans, but people didn't have to go into these bad loans. Those of you who still feel the banks are at fault, are you telling me, truly telling me, that an entire nation of people is not at fault for not doing their research and buying what they couldn't afford? Are you telling me that the banks strong armed an entire nation by these shady practices? To me it seems many aren't willing to accept the fact that people didn't put the effort in to shop around, to do the research, and to truly look at what they could afford. We have a culture that derives someone's status on possessions, that's what's to blame for this. It doesn't take a lot of effort for someone to say, "Well, I only make X amount, I really can't afford Y house in the long run.". It takes effort, sadly something which many don't want to put forth.

I meant to respond to this when I first waded into this thread, but I got off on another track.

Anyway, there have always been people asking for loans that they couldn't pay back. That's as old as the practice of lending money. Yes, irrational exuberance about the housing market pushed more people in that direction, but that didn't create the bubble. What created the bubble was a change in lending practices.

I happened upon a good column on this recently.

[Son of Arathorn]

The practices of big players in the financial market, (like investment banks. Big investment banks. I mean really, really, really big investment banks. And I'm talking- nevermind), contributed heavily to how this whole mess started. When you repeal regulation, set in place in the aftermath of the Depression, which was meant to keep anything like this from happening again, you open a gateway for further and further crises, which will only get bigger, and bigger, and bigger as time goes on. The S&L Crisis of the 80's and 90's is a perfect example. Is it just coincidence that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1980? Guess who lobbied to repeal that? Hmm? Guess. I dare you.
And then we get the situation in which we give large investment banks (high-risk players) access to the money in banks that are local, that are meant to be safe, because these smaller banks and the money in them are separate from larger banks that take high-stakes risks. I'm not saying the concept of investment banks is bad. I'm not saying we ought to get rid of them altogether. But when you allow those large banks to get their share of the pie, out of small banks that ordinary people put their money in, well, you see the result.

And this is just one of the practices, dipping into this huge amount of small money (oxymoron, I know. I mean of course that the large amount of small banks adds up to a huge amount of cash). Let's think also of the way these people back up their practices. In a normal market, you have enough cash to back up a risky investment you make, which is the job of the large investment banks. Say you take a risk in which there's a 75% chance it'll pay off. Risky, in other words. But, you have money to back up that investment in case it falls through, say, about $50,000 to back that $75,000 you invested. With repeal of regulation, and the runaway de-regulation during the Bush years, banks started pulling down the amount of backup they used. So we go from having a 1:1.5 backup:risk ratio, to having a 1:30 backup:risk ratio. To say absolutely nothing of the dipping into customer funds to cover their own asses when deals fall through. And then you have a situation where somebody tries to prosecute the people who made these insane decisions (Eliot Spitzer) and the Obama administration asks him to back off. To lay off these officials who gambled with other peoples money, who commit fraud, who are in bed with rating agencies. I'm going to go off on another tangent for a sec, but we'll come back to this. I hate this ridiculous situation where the banks make a sub-prime loan (a risky loan with a high interest rate), the rating agencies slap a AAA rating on it, when it deserves far, far, less. So think about this. You bundle together these crappy, crappy loans that have a good chance of being defaulted on, and then you give them a AAA rating so they're all nice and pretty for sale. But it doesn't matter, because you'll still get profit from selling that bundle, so this toxic asset isn't your concern. Now this might not make much sense. Why in the world would a rating agency like S&P make this bogus rating on thousands upon thousands of bad assets? Well, think for it, and then do the one thing that is guaranteed to get you an answer, no matter how ugly it is. You follow the money. You look at "donations", at campaign contributions, and the like. You follow the money that links these institutions together, and you get a damn fine answer. And guess what? You won't like it.
Anyway, my rant is dying down. There needs to be serious regulation of the financial system before it can function normally. And we need to start prosecuting, really prosecuting, the people who commit these crimes that affect thousands of people, instead of fining them pocket change. It doesn't get anything done, and all it shows is that the big banks can keep engaging in illegal practices, and we will do nothing.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

But, using your example, there is practical application. Let's say one wanted to test genes, or pharmaceutical compounds, or wavelengths of stars, or any other huge fielded group. Maybe the work you did will result in being able to determine habitability of exoplanets, eventually resulting in the location of a planet.

Then, using your technique plots are achieved that would allow for the minimum fuel used and shortest time to get to said planet, with infinite possibilities of vector and trajectory.

Now you are directly responsible for the first manned mission to a planet outside of our solar system. Ollie, you're a f-ing hero. Well, potentially.

Practicality isn't limited to farmers wanting to test wheat, right? High level maths are applied to high level problems, and while it may take lifetimes to achieve their purpose, the fact is that every bit of new knowledge developed by man is cast into the overall pool of knowledge that man has compiled over the years in order to further man's understanding of nature.

Right?

Originally Posted by dok

It's true that some of the seemingly most abstract stuff ends up being important in a variety of fields. I bet imaginary numbers seem like a total waste of time to most people when they learn about them, but I use imaginary numbers all the time in my work.

I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but I'll comment based on my guess about where this is coming from. It doesn't really make sense to argue that everyone should only major in engineering or accounting or other obvious trades in proportion to their demand in the workforce. First, plenty of the skills people learn in "useless" fields where they write papers about whatever end up translating just fine when those same people go to Business or Law school. So that time is not wasted.

I guess my main point is that neither of these reasons, while technically true, is motivation to study math.

Whilst the existence of the slim chance that something I do will have an unforeseen effect on space travel is awesome, the odds are far too long for that to be the thing that makes me get out of bed in the middle of the night when I have an idea and spend an hour or two scribbling. If I care about space travel (or anything else practical) then math is not the route for me to make a difference. It really is like lauding Neil Armstrong for his contribution to frying pan technology, or assuming that a dream of better kitchenware was what was driving him to get to the moon.

Similarly, the fact that the skills might be transferrable is nice but not really motivation. If I wanted to transfer to do something else, then doing math first is probably not the best route.

This is much closer to how most mathematicians think of themselves:

Originally Posted by dok

Secondly, to the extent that those skills are lacking in some sort practical application, it's still not our place to label learning them a waste. This is not so different than me thinking that Lady Gaga songs are a waste. I might not like them, but in a free society, if people place value in that stuff, that's their business.

The whole mathematical edifice we are building with all of it's intriguing nooks and crannies is worth it (or not) for its own sake. Much as pop music is, or pretty much any artistic endeavour. When you meet someone who says she is a mathematician, the chances are that if instead of classifying her as a "useful" person such as an engineer or a lumberjack you put her in with the poets, historians and rock stars she will feel that's a better fit.



Hmmmm, if ever there was a thread screaming out for the socialist diatribe or two that I bring to every other Hot Topic Throwdown, it's this one, but instead I'm talking about math.

I'll leave you with something from one of the few awesome politicians working in US national politics these days:

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

The practices of big players in the financial market, (like investment banks. Big investment banks. I mean really, really, really big investment banks. And I'm talking- nevermind), contributed heavily to how this whole mess started. When you repeal regulation, set in place in the aftermath of the Depression, which was meant to keep anything like this from happening again, you open a gateway for further and further crises, which will only get bigger, and bigger, and bigger as time goes on. The S&L Crisis of the 80's and 90's is a perfect example. Is it just coincidence that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1980? Guess who lobbied to repeal that? Hmm? Guess. I dare you.
Anyway, my rant is dying down. There needs to be serious regulation of the financial system before it can function normally. And we need to start prosecuting, really prosecuting, the people who commit these crimes that affect thousands of people, instead of fining them pocket change. It doesn't get anything done, and all it shows is that the big banks can keep engaging in illegal practices, and we will do nothing.

Back in the 80's there was very little if any regulation for real estate appraisers. Mortgage brokers were a big influence in how an appraiser made their living. Immoral mortgage brokers told appraisers that they would either feed them a lot of work and make them a lot of money, or give them nothing unless the appraiser agreed to appraise real estate the way the brokers wanted. So a mortgage broker might say here's a property for you to appraise, I want it to come in at $170,000. The appraiser finds out that the property is only worth $140,000, but fudges it to come out at $170,000 to make the broker happy and so he can still get work from the broker. Over time the banks hold mortgages for a lot of properties that are way overvalued and then the banks have to bet bailed out. This wasn't a case of someone living beyond their means and getting themselves messed up finantially. This is a case of professional people in certain positions of influence that mess things up finantially for a whole lot of people.

I totally agree that those people that are responsible for such white collar crimes that affect so many people, really need to get some serious hard time. There seems to be too little of a deterent to keep some people from really damaging so many people's lives.

[LilMoochie]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

...bundle together these crappy, crappy loans that have a good chance of being defaulted on, and then you give them a AAA rating so they're all nice and pretty for sale. But it doesn't matter, because you'll still get profit from selling that bundle, so this toxic asset isn't your concern.

It's worse than that. Not only were they bundling these crappy CDO's (e.g., Timberwolf) that they KNEW were "s****y deals," but then they bet against them. All I can figure is that they knew it was going to blow up and hoped they could get clear of it. They probably could have weathered better if Lehman was bailed out.

[Son of Arathorn]

Originally Posted by LilMoochie

It's worse than that. Not only were they bundling these crappy CDO's (e.g., Timberwolf) that they KNEW were "s****y deals," but then they bet against them. All I can figure is that they knew it was going to blow up and hoped they could get clear of it. They probably could have weathered better if Lehman was bailed out.

Making it a huge conflict of interest. Gee, how many times do we see something like this? Like a person bouncing back and forth between gov. jobs and working for the private sector in the oil business, on Wall St., etc.