Sunday, July 27, 2014

Data-driven purgatory

Moral: Wherein we pipe up, just to show the interest is still there.

So, what is going on? Well, we're waiting to see Janet's influence emerge. Right now, it's still a sampling stage, it seems.

The latest thing that motivated something here was Janet's talking about data-driven approaches (see the Bloomberg Businessweek interview, for example). As in, the data that she is looking at now won't get her to stop flaying the savers. Well, Janet, change your data goggles, for one thing.

Too, we all know that Economics is dismal. All of that data has so many faults (approach, viewpoint, ...) that any strict adherence to whatever comes from economic data can be categorized, at best, as irrational, especially if the exuberance at the data's wonderfulness is demonstrably obvious.

Savers are barely holding on to life. Who are they? Let's look at the other side. What rational society would indebted its future generations so heavily as we seem to expect now? Crazy. Of course, people needs jobs to spend and to save and to pay their debts. 

But, the gaming that is evident now, with the ballooning pockets, does not an economy make. Janet, have you looked at the infrastructural issues, of late? Near zero is the thing to bring forward in the discussion.  

Look, debt even at a low interest is still that. Debt is something to manage and control. Too, the whole model of thinking that the consumer drives things, requiring debt thereby, is suspect. 


Aside. Alan was king while Ben was a real nice prince. What can we say about Janet? Too early to tell. But, however this all unfolds, she will be bringing several unknowns to the table that we have not seen before. 

By the way, data driven implies computational system (which is so full of holes that we ought to be quaking in our boots) and many unresolved issues. Methinks that "data driven" brings along with it some type of blinders that are comforting to some folks.  


And, none of this ought to misconstrued as anti-science. Janet is right on one thing (perhaps, more). Rule-driven is chasing after silver bullets and is especially troublesome due to its reliance upon the computational. But, then her data-driven mindset is as problematic. 

Remarks:  Modified: 07/27/2014

07/27/2014 -- 

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Rules for the Fed (Yellen)

Moral: Wherein we let John Taylor, et al, do some talking.

Yellen, and her ways and means, is under scrutiny. What that might foretell is something that we will have to watch and, perhaps, learn from.

John Taylor says that the Fed ought to follow its rules. WSJ: The Fed Needs to Return to Monetary Rules (there have been other articles the past few months). That raises a question: whose rules? Well, Taylor's, for example?

Rules? Who runs their life this way? Oh, I know, many. But, free people have fewer rules than do those under someone else's thumb. We just celebrated our supposed freedom a few days ago. But, look closely at all of the ties that bind (some very insidious - yes, thanks to Zuck and that ilk).

But, you have to wonder if Ben (little Timmy) and that whole crowd loved playing cowboy and rescuing the economy from those that were let loose by largess to begin with. The solution? More largess. Cowboy (apologies to the real cattle handlers)? Yes, that has been used to denote those who shoot from the hip (which suggests running amok, so to speak, versus being methodical) as Ben seemed to be doing as he, creatively, went deeper into manipulating in new ways.

Wait! The Fed does claim to be data-driven. So, pending discussion lurks here.


There is nothing cynical to the viewpoint. Rather, we are in a mess for several reasons. For one, who knows what is what? Even if we did not have the fact of disinformation, there are all sorts of human foibles that we face. One of those is our real lack of insight, purported evidence otherwise notwithstanding. Secondly, we have a century-plus of mish-mash mathematics (ah, how to get this discussed) to contend with. Thirdly, the computer exacerbated, and spread the influence of, the second (just prior) note. Yes, several genies are out of the bottle. ... The litany is long.

Out of control, essentially.


We knew that unwinding's effects would be something to observe. Yellen's delaying this is only going to make things worse. But, then, however she and her kind unfold the future will result in the unexpected. So, we will have a show to watch no matter.

It is just that the savers were de-skinned as a result of Ben's ways and means. Anyone care? The consumption side would only work if debt is constrained. But, how? We can get to that. Consider, what kind of sustainable economy would impoverish future generations by loading them up with debt that is now being accumulated?

Say what? Yes, we'll get back to that, too.

However, there are many examples of debt being used to fill the pockets of some. As in, equity-biased folks stacking debt on a company (that debt allowing big payouts to the participants - to wit, if you doubt this, Hawker - 2008 post, want to discuss what ensured in the following period?) with the hope that an IPO would spread this amongst supposed investors.


We ought not envy Yellen (her limousine, big office, etc.) as she has (and will continue to have) to deal with Ben's gifting of the monied.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/09/2014

07/09/2014 -- Markets were down yesterday. Lots of talk of heated values. Then, Yellen talks goo-goo, or the markets think. So, we have an up day. Goo-goo? Actually a release of notes from an earlier meeting. Insanity? There is no way that all in markets can get their bucks when needed. That story needs to be told more clearly. Why? The cheshire multiple, for one. 

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Startling news?

Moral: Wherein we commiserate with Ben that he is not at the Fed desk as the results of his largess come to fore. Well, Janet can claim some credit; too, she'll have to handle the downside that is coming.

What results? Well, the DOW running sky high.

The headline says it all: Dow flirts with 17,000, but most people missed the ride. (emphasis mine)

It ought to read: Dow flirts, but most people cannot ride. (why not? to where does an illusion take one?)

---- This was brought from a Facebook post, dated 7/2/2014 ----

Most people missed the ride? Even those who got on that "train" will lose out. That is by definition how the system works. Its main purpose is to lure the hapless. 

Even under the best of situations, the "most" cannot get out of this type of market what they have put in. That message is never given. Rather, the talking heads say that people did not get on and missed the "train." It would be comical if it were not so sad. Ah, let's count our hypothetical wealth (and, arguing that the cash equivalents are as flaky is not proper - to be discussed).

Again, all of those on the train cannot get their booty (the Zucks of the world have and will). Why? The cheshire multiple, the chimera, and such.

Early sellers get the goodies. At some point, which is a lot closer to the top than you might expect, the majority of the rest become losers since they must sell below their cost. Oh, wait it out, is the adage? Not if you need your money (and a whole lot of other reasoned responses - these issues have always been known, but the gaming fills the pockets of those who run the system).

So, one big disservice, of many, of the FED, of late, has been not allowing a rationally sufficient return to those who want to preserve principal. No, they would rather push gaming (as if that is the proper mindset for a sustainable economy - to be discussed). 

Remarks:  Modified: 07/03/2014

07/01/2014 -- Euphoric territory? How do images and illusions attract so strongly?

Monday, June 23, 2014

Asset rich, income poor

Moral: Wherein we look at savings and savers, a little more (no reason to think that we are complete, at this point).

The WSJ (June 20, 2014) article, The Asset-Rich, Income-Poor Economy, was a welcomed change due to its reasonableness and to the obvious proper insight of the authors (for example, they note the problem of retirees straining to enjoy their golden years under the current regimen). Actually, I'm running into articles that remind me of 2006/2007 when I was first reading analysis about the state of the economy. Many analysts were seeing problems mounting up way  before the downturn occurred. And, I don't need to list those who kept up their headstrong rush all the way to their crash.

Must we have these silly crashes? No. Is Yellen helping? Not like she thinks. Is it good for her to continue to flay savers? We'll see, they are a hearty lot.

Back to the article which is worth a read. The authors provide a chain of relationships that support a sustainable economy. It is termed in the sense of "wealth" in the following way:
    A proper mix of labor, capital, and know now goes into productivity; productivity provides labor income; income goes, in part, to savings; savings becomes capital; capital supports investment, ... and so forth, recurrent-ly. (emphasis mine)
One can think of this as cyclic or even with a mechanical sense. But, if you want to get relative, that works, to boot. The thing is that we have never balanced these things in the manner to which they ought to be handled.


Notice, savings goes to capital (not the ca-pital-sino, per se) in a real sense. And, there are better ways to handle savings than with the chimera and its train. So, we will be describing further the chimeric aspect of the proverbial train (at the same time, debt's role needs to be considered - as in, pure debtors (that is, those with no capital) create an inner & inter generational drag on the economy).

Remarks:  Modified: 06/23/2014

06/23/2014 -- Yellen behind the curve

Friday, June 20, 2014

Sucker money

Moral: Wherein we consider how the Fed is setting up for losses by those who cannot afford such.

In other words, sucker money will (may) be flowing in. May? Perhaps, people are smarter this time around. The "sucker" post was from 2010. That was before Ben did some of his trickery.

In the meantime, savers were flayed to within an inch of their lives. Perhaps, they'll be like cats and have nine of these to give up.

You see, several things needs to be explained. We'll get to that. In the meantime, it will be interesting to watch how all of this unfolds. Except, the victims will be those who were pulled late due to all of the hype that has inflated as much as have the markets.

Those late buyers will buy from the early entrants (or even those who stayed in last time, getting what they expected Ben to do (and now Yellen), in hopes that the punch bowl would be kept full) who will have massive gains. Then, as things tumble, those late buyers are guaranteed losers (assuming they sell, if they do not sell, what type of trickery will be required for the next load of dope for the addicts?).

Minsky's notions, of course, will come into play as we look at this matter, again.


But, we can talk moral hazard, too. Lots to talk about there.

Then, we will look at how savers have been hurt, using numbers. Perhaps, it's time to re-evaluate the model that has consumer spending weighted so heavily. Near-zero's reality is lurking.

You see, our infrastructure is decaying all around us. The fat cats don't usually bother with such things (as we will show). Why? Their position (as in, they're the best, deserve everything they can obtain via exploitation, and a whole litany) leads them to believe in perpetual motion (we'll do a post on this - something from nothing, if you must ask - as we see with the chimera). Yes, idiotic, isn't it?

Remarks:  Modified: 06/20/2014

06/20/2014 -- Last fall, there was a flurry of activity, looking at Yellen's approach. Two examples: Folly of the Fed, P/E Multiples. That was last fall, who is looking now? Well, Smithers is still at it. Also, quote from the Economist (May 10, 2014) -- emphasis mine: Janet Yellen, the Fed’s head, rather bizarrely used the prospective price-earnings ratio, one of the weakest of all measures, to justify a statement that Wall Street was not overvalued. (This was doubly strange since her husband, George Akerlof, co-wrote a book with Robert Shiller, who has championed a much better measure, the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio.). ... From my analysis, we'll see something else: the earnings are less than expected just by definition (such that allows book cooking in order to reduce the influence of costs - see infrastructure allusion earlier). 

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Minsky, again

Moral: Wherein we say that Minsky still makes a lot of sense as he did before the bulls ran amok; but do we learn (or listen)?

Interest in Minsky?
via the New Yorker
Minsky? Yes, he of the moment. As in, the moment that is around the corner of this inflated, conflated state that we find ourselves in, for many reasons.

Piketty is the rage now. Either, his thoughts explain things to people; or, he is trounced upon by those who are avid capitalists (as in, near-zero exploiters - we will get back to the ca-pital-sino, as almost an essential result from misusing Adam's thoughts).

Well, earlier, a mere six years ago, Minsky was the rage, though long passed on.We invoked Minsky several times: FEDareated, Truth Engineering, 7oops7. Others did so, as well, but, earlier: New Yorker Feb 2008.


December, 2008: We asked, is finance, by necessity, Ponzi-like (er, actually, Made-off was in there as an example, too, so we ought to say, by necessity, Made-off-ish).

We're at a similar place, via different paths. Back in 2009, no one envisioned that Ben would reach into his bag of tricks and do his QE stunt. Look at the chart in the post, Ben's put to see what looks to be highly correlated graphs (not talking causality, at the moment). In the times of that post (2013), many would not accept that Ben was pushing us toward some Minsky state. Too, though, all sorts of revelations were coming about in regard to the malfeasance (mortgage issues and more).

So, Minsky was forgotten, it seems. Or, his thoughts put on the back burner as less relevant.

The gist of it: Moms and pops ought not get pulled into the current game. Not, let's say, until Janet gets interest back to where we can graft some skin on the poor savers who have taken the worse of it (so that the fat cats could be coddled, sweet/baby-talked, and the like).

Too, we ought to have better access to the neutral truth, rather than to the marketing material pushed by different viewpoints (money-making schemes that abound and that are harped about daily by the talking, screaming, and spitting heads).

Remarks:  Modified: 06/14/2014

06/14/2014 -- Review of Piketty's book

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

That old chimera, the train

Moral: Wherein we consider the train, again.

Train? Yes, we said that there was none such. But, today, someone says that the train is on top of the 17K mountain (DOW flirts with 17k). And, you are not there unless you stayed in stock.

Otherwise, you're back in the muck in the valley.


So, let's, first, look at the use of the train, in this blog (and related).
  • November 6, 2009 -- Back then, the thought was that getting on a "train" and riding on other people's money was not what one needs for a sustainable economy (still true). Now, I will argue about those who like a free lunch; too, though, is the troublesome pursuit of finance after the perpetual motion event (their market). 
  • November 6, 2009 (Truth Engineering) -- Some might have gotten on something and, in doing so, had gains (ill-begotten, in more way than one) to brag about. But, the discussion, below, will look at why gloating is suspect.  
  • November 6, 2009 (7oops7) -- What was behind the gains (see above) then? Who would have thought that Ben would QE us as in screw savers even more than he had done to that date? Of course, a whole lot of system finagling has been done to keep the down-side in control, so can we ever get back to where the proper grounds can be known?   
  • November 7, 2009 -- The train that is at 17K has the fat cat cars, up front, in which most of the value has been sucked. It is at the top, when the other cars can be let loose to fall to perdition, below. 
  • ... and references, thereafter, in other posts
Then, we would have to discuss the fact that all cannot be on top of the mountain, in the train. In fact, the train is on very shaky tracks besides being loaded with cars that have been sucked dry of their value.

Too, as those on the top of the mountain being to sell, it'll start (train and all) to tumble (built on faith).


At some point, near-zero will have to get attention (too, the fact that Ben's largess was required to get to this "inflated" state).

Remarks:  Modified: 06/14/2014

06/14/2014 -- The future is chimeric; actually, our view of the past, given what we know of memory has the same problem. For some reason, if there are mathematics (mis-used, to be explained) and computers involved, then people's mind close up. Ah, yes, the wizards know. Hah! Given the issues, still unresolved, with computation, we ought to shake in our boots as we let technology run rampant. If only we knew. ... So, changed the profile from a "mirage" to a long road to unknowns as those crossing the continent saw in the early days (say, 1800s - and still do). What was ahead (the road was not there, by the way; again, representative of our thinking that we have paved some way)? Daily sight increasingly looming as those people toiled over the landscape - trudging, foot by foot); and, what lies ahead is not known until one gets there. Yet, those unknowns were tamed enough to establish and to cultivate (through long years of work and struggle by determined people - whereas,capitalists want returns from sitting on their expansive arses while others do the work and sweating - sheesh -- and without pay - [for each $200 that is paid for a smart device (supposed - of a certain type), those who do the work, collectively, get $10 - oh, didn't know - all of you smart-device users?]. Never conquered, though. That's one point (our over-estimation of ourselves in terms of handling the future - risk, in some senses).