Talk:Harry Markowitz

Autobiography
Umm did i come to wikipedia to get info here, or did i come here to get a link redirecting me somewhere else? 142.157.56.138 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

RAND Memorandum, RAND, PRC, CACI.... sources cited in article
Note: most RAND Memorandum and Papers Cited are Posted/Linked to RAND on www.theRANDmemorandum.com. Those cited and not posted are, presumably available elsewhere and will be posted at some point.

My father worked with Dr. Markowitz. My folks always spoke so highly of Dr. Markowitz. As of this writing, I am Blessed my folks and many of these great people are still with us. Their work created the modern world of computers and computer programming just as Paul Baran's work and all the RAND space work that few know about these days.

The early RAND memorandum (RM) give another view of the use of math to predict or control future outcomes. The RM were a place to write down concerns. The bottom-line people who put together the modern world had a lot of concerns and most only got much worse. Primary concern was the mathematics underlying the models. It is complex, arcane, and much of it is still used intact unchanged via code conversions and being embedded in code modules used all over. "Progressive Response" is an example. The mathematics SOLD the early computers and the methodology of using computers while they became ever more powerful. Math=FEAR. RM-365 (for example) was (arguably) an example of how Fear/hope manipulation can be used to SELL pretty much anything.

My father specialized in inventory theory in the later part of his career and later worked with Dr. Markowitz, that is beyond scope, can be googled, same name as mine. He and Dr. Willis Ware (oh my gosh, read p-3313, it is so funny). Both told Truth but it later caught on...not then. The cost of inventory management with flawed input and questionable assumptions was generally not worth it. They both recommended keeping 5% replacement and keeping the parts as large as possible. Dr. Ware in a 1965 RM (can't put my hands on it, will find/update) it makes more sense to figure out WHY parts break and correct the problem rather than making a science and industry out of stocking small parts rarely needed for airplanes (for example) when an actual war would change all the variables anyway. Since then, RFID, just in time production, and now 3-d print/manufacturing have replaced the old ways.

If you stop to think about it...the goal of it all was to predict the future, whether it was what the Soviets would do, inventory, or what a particular investment would do. It made sense then, if it was good enough for the Air Force, we better support it. Charles Zwick was good at selling that (opinion based on interpretation of p-2152, p-2754, and RM-3744 and other knowledge). A lot more than meets the eye with Charles Zwick (metaphor).

Math was a great way to scare a manager into buying the product. The mathematics is based upon: atomic decay math (entropic systems), mutually assured destruction built into the progressive response systems, but mostly...they were deliberately designed to yield results that did not vary by more than 10% of known reality. Now add this concept: the mathematics was designed around an abundant and random number of players and the flawed command/control systems still operating in the mathematical space (mostly financial and human management, including court systems and methods) very rarely have operative real-time feedback loops. Example being the esoteric mortgage backed securities that if studied on a borrower-collection basis real time would have surfaced the structural problems in the mortgage industry after the first small portion of the loans were originated on a no-income verification/no down payment basis and changes would have been made.

This is where it all went wrong and it badly affects us now. Around 1964 the method of programming systems was turned over to 'users' of the various systems. RM-4460-PR (Markowitz et al)is an example of that. Users obviously want to make money fast and easy....referring to the bottom line workers who actually sit in on the design meetings. So, they innocently build features into the systems that somehow can benefit them in their lowly job. It was and is the blind leading the blind in corporate system development.

Of most concern was the "command/control" systems. RM-3155PR, RAND p-2967, p-3159, p-3409, p-2941 are examples of musings at that time...concerns. The RM are significant. Papers (p) are not as scientific. What most people cannot grasp is how many different systems there actually are. Each one of them may look good, most are totally secure from hackers. All are easily 'pretexted'... it is easy to trick the infinite bottom line workers into making a seemingly innocent entry into some little system that feeds another, and another....

Mortgages are a good example. Without getting into detail: imagine if the government required mortgage servicers to FOOT the cash collected monthly to all the derivatives and tranches, many of which are accounted for using data as input the designers had no comprehension of effects. Financial systems are so arcane, so dependent upon input from other systems nobody really understands, often code conversion after code conversion. Given that most currency is digital, that perhaps should be of concern at this time and in the future. The RM were supposed to get reviewed later to see how it worked out. Of course nobody read the RM then, but we best look right now!

RAND memorandum Tell All. They buried all Truth there. (metaphor that is basically true). If not at RAND, go look at Planning Research Corp. They had facilities that nearly ended the world (metaphor that may be basically true). That is inside knowledge from around 1964. Seems they invited certain people to participate in experiments involving the nuclear response that were real or could have had real consequences via misunderstanding. Seems the Air Force was not happy so they moved away somewhat. At that time, more critical top secret data was held at RAND/PRC than in "Washington". Yes: Washington had more but the actionable material was at RAND/PRC. That is based upon a first-hand account of what they were told while working there. I can describe a lot more of that aspect but at this time it is beyond scope as it is poorly evidenced by me. It is reliable hearsay essentially but could have been crap told to the employees for various reasons.

I put some of the RM or linked into RAND on www.theRANDmemorandum.com, they have lots on the RAND.ORG site. They are mostly pre-word processor. You can tell just when RAND received its first IBM Selectrics. Suddenly, the RM became bigger and they started using a lot more underlining. :) Andy Clark Eugene Oregon  Andy Clark in Oregon (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Andy Clark in Oregon (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Andy Clark in Oregon (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Andy Clark in Oregon (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Allen's comment on this article
Dr. Allen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I think this a balanced entry which conveys the essentials of Markowitz's theory and its limitations in practical implementation."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Allen has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : David E. Allen & Michael McAleer & Shelton Peiris & Abhay K. Singh, 2014. "Hedge Fund Portfolio Diversification Strategies Across the GFC," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2014-32, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Analisis Economico.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)