---
Yes, this comes from the Time Person of the Year article which does paint him in a better light than many might suppose. To wit, he wears off-the-shelf suits, doesn't party like King Alan, says that he is outraged by the 'fat cats' benefiting from his largese (sheesh, Ben, show some understanding of moral harzardness and jawbone about it, at least), owns a small Ford, and more.
Yet, Ben has to know that he is clumped into the elite set by his position and to realize that this position has questionable necessity. Why? As we've seen this past year, it's mainly casino capitalism that has benefited from his actions, though Ben says that he feels for main street.
How about this? Let's stop the financial games and then restart with monks/nuns (yes, those who have taken the vow of poverty) keeping the playing field level. Think that is idiotic? Well, according to how the Time describes Ben, he's close to that anyway, except the longer he has the trappings of power, the less like the ideal personality he'll become.
By the way, Congress is not without fault. Let's impose term limits there and get away from the professional politician (see Zen Koan for the day). Errors by the common citizen are much less burdensome than what those in power currently impose on the folks.
So, where did Ben go wrong beside apologizing to Milton Friedman? Well, he is, at least in part, a son of Samuelson. That is, given his time of academic introduction, he could not but be influenced. Mind you, this is no criticism of Paul Anthony. His work predated the mess that computation has wroth.
And, we've only seen the beginnings.
Back to Ben. He ought not have gone below 1.0 in his slamming of the savers. Granted he showed creativity, but going off willy-nilly (oh, theoretics, without a proper hypothetical and test framework - sorry, folks, that sham of a stress test was pure spin, do you not think?) with instruments that are piled on a heap (whose dimensions we do not know) of toxic assets laid on the populace by the best-and-brightest was throwing good money after bad.
Tsk, tsk, Ben. You know that those at the top, who you interact with more than the lowly, have essentially mortgaged us (yes, the US) to outsiders while 'hollowing out the country' (thanks, American Prospect) through financialization (ah, such a purty concept yet mostly flim-flam) and globalization (as we've said, another form of colonizing with a new form of colonialist).
Enuf, for now. But, congratulations, Ben.
Remarks:
01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.
09/02/2010-- The FED just had their hoe-down.
01/07/2010 -- We need to look at capitalism, closely.
01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.
12/30/2009 -- Tech Ticker responds to their mailbag, one of which says that Timmy et al bailed out and then talk tough.
In the Time article, we have this quote from Henry, "I shudder to think what the world would be like if Ben hadn't been running the Fed ..." (italics added) Yes, Henry, it was on your watch. But, no, we do not know and cannot now, due to the bailouts which confounded the issues beyond understanding. The article goes on "but there would be far more joblessness, foreclosures and hunger were it not for Ben Bernanke." (italics added) Oh, give me a break. Of course, this is journalism at its best, so what ought we to expect?
12/29/2009 -- In that same article, Timmy Geithner is quoted as saying that this was war. With whom, Timmy? Only your friends, the best-and-brightest who had to be bailed out. Then, they quote Henry as saying that Ben kept us from disaster. Well, Paulson, it was under your watch. Has anything really improved with the worldview of the brains in regard to economic fundamentals? Or, is it a reality that the gamers (casino capitalism) are now the drivers? They seem to have the politicians (those, by definition, who salivate when a buck is passed under their nose) in their pockets. The main fact: things froze because the players know their own ilk and did not trust their own kind. What the FED did was just reinforce the bad behavior and greed. We can really do better, folks, with a dedicated bunch who isn't in it to take your money.
Modified: 01/27/2012
01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.
12/30/2009 -- Tech Ticker responds to their mailbag, one of which says that Timmy et al bailed out and then talk tough.
In the Time article, we have this quote from Henry, "I shudder to think what the world would be like if Ben hadn't been running the Fed ..." (italics added) Yes, Henry, it was on your watch. But, no, we do not know and cannot now, due to the bailouts which confounded the issues beyond understanding. The article goes on "but there would be far more joblessness, foreclosures and hunger were it not for Ben Bernanke." (italics added) Oh, give me a break. Of course, this is journalism at its best, so what ought we to expect?
12/29/2009 -- In that same article, Timmy Geithner is quoted as saying that this was war. With whom, Timmy? Only your friends, the best-and-brightest who had to be bailed out. Then, they quote Henry as saying that Ben kept us from disaster. Well, Paulson, it was under your watch. Has anything really improved with the worldview of the brains in regard to economic fundamentals? Or, is it a reality that the gamers (casino capitalism) are now the drivers? They seem to have the politicians (those, by definition, who salivate when a buck is passed under their nose) in their pockets. The main fact: things froze because the players know their own ilk and did not trust their own kind. What the FED did was just reinforce the bad behavior and greed. We can really do better, folks, with a dedicated bunch who isn't in it to take your money.
Modified: 01/27/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment