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.

Friday, July 15, 2016

FED-fed balloon

Moral: Wherein, we see how Janet is following Islam.

Last time, we looked at the Fed mania. After (many of) the Brits said that they have had enough of the high-falutin' folks of Brussels, and who can blame them, Janet talked goo-goo (like Ben, of old) to the addicts. Oh, no increase in sight. We might take away little bit of change that we gave to the savers last year, she said.

So, then, we got this inflated event on the chimera. It is well-covered in this blog just how much of a crappy game is that whole bit of things.

But, Janet ought to realize that Islam says no interest. She is almost there. Except, the bankers want to steal the money from people who have scrapped and saved over decades. They want to move it to the pockets of the fat cats.

Now, if Janet wants no interest, she ought to consider other laws of Islam. It's called Sharia Law. You can find reference to Islamic Finance in this blog, too. How do you think that would go over, Janet?

What are the impacts of negative interest rate policies currently in effect on the global financial market?

With this latest little bubbling, Janet could raise to 1%, let's say. Let the ball drop and see what the heck happens. After all, the Fed has been flying blindly for years now. Why not try a different angle?

So, savers continue to be flayed. Thank you, bankers.

Remarks: Modified: 07/15/2016

07/15/2016 --

Friday, July 1, 2016

FED mania

Moral: Wherein, we dawdle.

It's a holiday weekend. But, a new month.

Last week, Janet talked to Congress. The usual dancing about with words. Then, last Thursday, the Brits voted for Brit-exit. That is, they told the bureaucrats of the EU that they're tired of carrying the ball. And, that they, the Brits, would be better on their own.

So, on Friday, the gaming system fell. You see, addicts ran amok. Then, too, Monday. What is new about that? Janet? She was heard murmuring that she may have to take back the rate raise that she did earlier. Earlier? Let's say last year. This year, she had dawdled.

We only do it on holidays.

Guess what? Now, we are back to the same inflated state of the gambling system. To a rational FED, that would say, it's time to put the rates to something realistic.

When might the FED awaken? So, is the FED really tied into feeding the addicts? If so, when would we ever have a mature economy?

Meanwhile, savers are still being flayed as we have been for almost a decade. Thank you, FED.

Remarks: Modified: 07/01/2016

07/01/2016 --

Monday, June 6, 2016

World without Wall Street

Moral: Wherein, we imagine a world without Wall Street.


What a wonderful thought. Thanks, Nitin Nohria of Harvard.

The good professor, among other things, bemoans that his father did not buy a house until he was 60. Ah, poor guy.

Listen, professor, I did not buy a house until I was 62. As well, I, specifically, picked a bank that did not sell the mortgage. Albeit, they did buy into that mania after the crash as they thought that they were going to pick up a diamond for nothing.

The reality? They got a lump of coal. Yet, me, great customer? I have been paying my mortgage all of these years despite Ben and Janet.

Now, if you abstract'd types want to hear about reality, I am here.

Wall Street? We could run this with the discipline of the military. Look, Professor. You ever think of those who are dutifully protecting those Wall Street idiots?

At one time, I thought monks. Say, those who would take a vow of poverty. Listening, Zuck?

But, being that this whole thing is a utility, we need to run it thus. And, that would mean non-profit. Then, we would need some sense of service, discipline, order, fairness, and so forth.

Cambridge had that early on before things went awry.

Oh yes, financial engineering is gaming of the worse sort since it is unfair from the get-go. I am still looking for the scientific basis for this "engineering" (tsk, tsk, MIT).

Remarks: Modified: 06/06/2016

06/06/2016 -- 


Friday, May 27, 2016

Janet in the news

Moral: Wherein we get back on track.

Janet is in the news in a new light. Janet will raise rates for bankers. Janet will have to deal with the results of Ben's "Faustian" deals, called QE. More and more.

Well, savers were flayed. I was slapped silly the other day in a bank. Again.

So, what is a sane person to do?

Go to Quora. All of these are my answers to very good questions.
Not an answer, by any means. Yet, does distract from the pain of an almost decade (thanks, King Alan, Ben, and Janet).

Remarks: Modified: 05/27/2016

05/27/2016 -- Later in the day. This headline, at Yahoo, indicates the stupidity of the current situation. This is the capitalism that we are all supposed to adore, bow to? Chimera, insanity, ...

Sunday, April 3, 2016


Moral: Wherein we wonder about the morale of the savers (poor dears).

Janet is coddling the jerks. That is, these guys handle billions (trillions). They play games all day with other people's money. Live high on the hog.

Yet, they tantrum'd when Ben merely mentioned taper. Janet continues that kid-gloves treatment.


This is a real brief look.

However, going back to the beginning, say 2006, we can come forward and note some lessons learned. We saw it better than Ben. We are of the savers who have been flayed.

Just last week, I went and was slapped silly again. The banker telling me that they don't want deposits. You see, they're not really banks anymore.

Janet ought to bounce up to 2%, quickly. Forget the little baby steps that she and the Fed talked about last year. Then, they reneged this year.

And, what have we now? 18K is way to high for the DOW. Oh yes, I know. The whole thrust is to have someone like me go into that silly game. Who will bail me out when the suckers pull out all of the value?


There could be links here on all of these topics, but I have been ranting along this line for awhile. With reason and a rationale.

The Fed and its ilk need to be thinking of some type of platform that would allow more stable value'd looks than this market thing (Adam rolls over in his grave, continually). Somehow, the money'd crowd got their way. I don't know of academics who want to see stability.

That is because no one (elites, okay?) has really been done down here where we get slapped around all the time. But, the economy is for us, too. Actually, it is more for us. We are millions. Janet, you and your crowd, are a very small minority.


Stable value. Yes. You float a bond. Then you pay the holder some bit of interest. Not talking a lot. Enough of these would then be sufficient for some little person to have a future.

Forget the big names and brains, like Jamie and all of the rest mentioned here.

The use of computers to play financial games is one symptom of deep problems. Yes. I can talk that.

How about taking that power and applying it to tracking stock? Yes, each one an entity. Who bought, sold, etc. Oh, get rid of the magical multiplier? You bet.


Enough, for now. I'm coming back to work here and will lay out the strategy. I'm old. Janet will probably still have no interest during my final years. But, I'll describe how it could be, if those whose input to the whole situation has been warping things for years were constrained, seriously, like to a sandbox with diapers. Then, the mess that we have to clean up would be smaller.

Yes, we changed their diapers and are still dealing with their crap.

Remarks: Modified: 04/02/2016

04/02/2016 --