Saturday, December 31, 2016

Summary, 2016

Moral: Wherein we show most-read posts.
Prior years:  20092010201120122013, 2014, 2015.

Remarks: Modified: 12/31/2016

12/31/2016 --

Friday, December 30, 2016

Trickle by minuscule drops

Moral: Wherein we celebrate getting a little dew on our heads.

That is about the right analogy, one might think. Or, from another view, for $100, that little quarter coin might buy some penny candy. But, you don't get that nowadays; only a 75-year old mind like this one can recall that.

Meanwhile, the ca-pital-sino rages.

Remarks: Modified: 12/30/2016

12/30/2016 --

Friday, December 9, 2016

And, we wait, we wait, ...

Moral: Wherein we wait and wait and ... (wait, we wrote this last month)

So, guess what happened a month ago. Shock for some. There were snowflakes coming about mid-fall, way before winter set in. Things seem to have settled a little. Though, some group has 4M vote on-line to monkey with those who do the voting in the Electoral College. And, that's 12 days away.

So, who knows? Well, Janet ought to. The markets boomed. What gives there? Bubble? You bet. The whole apparatus is faulty. But, the Fed seems to want that.

Savers? We're still getting slapped silly. It's a wonder that we don't have concussion, by this time. But, we do have hard heads and well-tempered brains. Unlike those who are running after data-driven nonsense augmented by sophisticated computational systems.

The Vienna School still does not see any use for the quantification euphoria that we find here.

Remarks: Modified: 12/08/2016

12/08/2016 --

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

And, we wait

Moral: Wherein we wait and wait and ...

Today is election day. It's 10 pm, EST. So, we're an hour from CA finishing up.

Who will win? Nowadays, the web allows some nice tracking facilities. That may be seen as progress.

After all, the computer is for the good of all of us. One might think.

Speaking of which, the Fed is into some type of modeling that seems to be oriented to evidence-driven mindsets. Well, philosophically, that has problems. Anyone in the Fed care?

We, the savers, say show the results of the many, many years of being flayed. Why is that not in the equations? Or, is it ignored as mere noise? There are many other negative things that be attributed back to the largess of low interest plus the various easing thoughts and actions.

Remarks: Modified: 11/08/2016

11/08/2016 --  

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Waiting

Moral: Wherein we wait.

We don't know what Janet's waiting for. So, we cool our heels, as we have for almost a decade, now.

Gosh. It has been years since anyone made anything on a CD. Oh. That old contraption?

We are supposed to go to the ca-pital-sino and bet our money. If we lost, who would bail us out?

Health insurance premiums are jumping next year. Jumping, as in, at levels we have never seen with CDs. Not even during Reagan's time, when the guy raised the rates up high. We remember those days.

Janet said that they are not political. So, why not do something now, before the election?

Remarks: Modified: 10/26/2016

10/26/2016 --  

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Tetons weep

Moral: Wherein the Tetons reign, as Janet ponders further ways to skin savers.

That is, those wonderful peaks that overlooked Janet and her buddies.

This time around, we understand that she had someone talk about negative interest rates. So, let's see. The Kings used to tax. Our first protestation about that was early as the 1680s. That's right.

So, the Queen of the Fed wants to tax us. By having negative rates.

Given this situation, business can get money from us and pay us less than we gave them. Oh yes. That is smart for people trying to save for their futures.

Then, given their take from the largess of the Fed, what, pray tell, do the business people do? Sit on it, buy equity, pay dividends, and such. Pay bonuses.

Ah, I have said that savers have been flayed to within an inch of their lives. We must have more than the nine lives of the cat. We'll survive.

Thanks brains. The Tetons weep for its people.

Remarks: Modified: 09/11/2016

09/09/2016 -- On Friday, did we see the start of a tantrum? Ben started one with his taper talk. 

Friday, August 12, 2016

Gone to the dogs

Moral: Wherein, we loll in the dog days.

DOW of 20,000? Who would have thought? Yet, Janet does not raise the rates.

In one country, the rates were lowered. This to get people to spend. What happened? People cut back, said "this is crazy" stuff, and saved more.

In China, traders make a mint off of playing with these things. Traders? Well, they are not moving any product or such. No, just fiddling with bits in some warped space related to monetary markings of an arbitrary nature. 

What is a sane person to think?

Remarks: Modified: 08/15/2016

08/15/2016 -- One of last week's WSJ (which day?) had an article about the rates. Can they go lower? Which rates? Are you awake? ..., I hear that negative rates seem to correlate, somewhat of late, to rising savings. This being seen in various countries. One woman who runs a small business, in Germany, increased her savings. At the same time, she says that looking at her savings account makes her want to cry. ... I know the feeling. To me, it's the getting slapped silly by the banks that grates. ... Now, in that same article, Miles Kimball of Michigan says rates ought to go lower. Who is this guy? Well, he is Miles Spencer Kimball. Here is his blog (supplysideliberal). I just ran across this Harvard educated guy; but, I'll get back to you about why he thinks the flaying of the elderly is a good thing.