The Wall Street Code

This blog entry is a place marker for my thoughts on this exceptional YouTube video.

Many things in the video relate to my thoughts regarding monetary systems and object oriented analysis.

One thought I want to express here is nature of "Flash Crash" as discussed in the video and "Tipping Point".  While "Tipping Point" is generally regarded as a 10% acceptance point at which a conceptual thing moves change forward through time with increasing inertia "A Flash Crash" is an event that movement causes change in objects or object state instantaneously.  Flash Crash is relate to "Flash Alert".  A Flash Alert is a message of the highest priority.  A "Flash Message" is the highest precedence of message traffic in the navy.  "Under Attack" would warrant a Flash Message priority assignment.

Here is the thought I want to explore.  In recognition of a concept approaching a Tipping Point of adoption that would gain momentum rapidly to establish a new and better system, a  "Flash Crash"might be engineered by an entity that would be disadvantaged by the rapidly increasing acceptance of new concepts for structural change.  The purpose of course is to nip structural change in the bud.

The engineered "Flash Crash" would operate to protect and preserve existing conceptual structures using the strategy meme:  "You can't change horses in mid stream".  A meme that has its essence in a process analysis which focuses on the action of change.

Horses can and should be changed in mid-stream if the primary focus is on the horse rather the peril of change.  If the horse is dead, a live horse is better.  That is the focus on the object.  Object Focus (orientation) as a primary, fundamental problem domain solution approach is always superior to a Process Focus (orientation).  As a matter of fact, entities that are defensive of Process faced with the realty of changing a Wrong Process with a restructuring of the object things on the Subject/Object relationship must defend their Wrong Process on the battle field of Process, not the playing field of Object.

Defenders of a "Wrong Process" that must change as a function of changing relationships between or among the Object Structure will immediately cry in defense "You can't Do that!". This frames the game in terms of Process and Process being the most important factor to perpetuate existing Process even if it is Wrong Process .  It is their offensive tool in defense of Wrong Process to preclude the Object Oriented approach where Process is a logical function of Object Logic structure.

That is exactly why Money is not an object in the current monetary system, why it must never be defined in object terms.  That would move the frame of analysis to the Object playing field.   Money must be kept in the Process frame by entities that benefit from that frame of reference.  A place where money only moves from one account to another as on hand balances increase or decrease.  Where money is created from nothing only to fill a process action purpose called debt.  Where money goes back into nothing when the purpose function is fulfilled.

What would be the Flash Crash that would assure that Money remains entrenched in the "Process Frame" when the Tipping Point of going into an "Object Frame" is approaching fast?  Changing the playing field is a big stakes game.  Playing on an Object Oriented field levels the Frame on which the game is played and dictates new Processes.

Change You Can Believe In??

That is a Process Oriented frame focused on the action verb word.

Two Chickens in Every Pot

That is an Object Oriented frame focused on the Subject/Object noun words.

In the Process Frame, what thing of Object substance can you believe in?

In the Object Frame there are not just one but two chickens in a pot.  A clever proposition when everyone knew that the a common default position then was no chicken in every pot.  The real meaning was Two Dollars in Every Pocket.  That was the object relationship on the Object Relation playing field that by the structure of the object relationships between money and government drove the function of government spending money into the economy.

Which is the better approach?  Depends on who benefits.

Qui Bono by driving the focus on Process Orientation?  I think the perpetrators of a Flash Crash.  Extremely short and sweet for them by return to business as usual the next day but instilling continuing mass public fear of losing everything.

Money is "made" on the "transaction" of money.  Two process oriented verbs that describe finance.  Can you guess the orientation frame of the playing field that finance wants to play on?  They will play where process is king up front but in the back office they are controlling the object model that makes stuff happen. 

Banksters must keep the coin of the realm an account process.  With every account trans-action (and I hyphenate transaction here for an illustrative purpose that amuses me) money is made on debt money.  The functional orientation of money creation in the world of finance must be maintained by the banksters at all costs.  Defining money as a debt free object class in relation to an account object class is a revolution that changes the banking system as designed by the banksters.  It does that by making money an object not an account process.