Ill-begotten gains

Moral: Wherein we consider the gains of capitalists as more ill-begotten than otherwise (and jaw-bone a little).

---

Ill-begotten, in what sense? We'll get to that. Last time, we looked at ideological issues related to capitalism. Let's continue along one vein.

Given the concept of near-zero, we can see that gains, such as many on Wall Street and their hanger-ons have made the past year (supported by Ben's largess), do not have any rational support. These have come at the expense of the taxpayers and Main Street.

We have been hollowed out, said one author (Harold Meyerson, Wash Post). Actually, is it not more that we lost our backbone? Somehow, our best-and-brightest have been given the leeway to lead us to paths of perdition, along which most happily went. To where? To our demise, leaving China, and others, with the upper hand.

Thanks, you jerks (yes, as in the third-derivative). Okay, let's change the tone to that which is more mature.

Earlier, we said that no train was leaving the station. Of course, since then, some have continued to find what they call 'gains' via equity. Let's forget commodities, at the moment, as many of those have real substance behind them, albeit that interlopers abound across many levels who stack cards in their favor.

Charlatans have been allowed to sustain a casino that sucks us dry. Gosh, thanks, politicos. By the way, where are the term limits that we really need to get the Main streeters their chance to serve the country? Most of the politicos actually just like to salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose.

Except, Mr Obama seems to be coming around, finally. We ought to have nationalized the banks last year, kicked out the best-and-brightest, and allowed Main streeters to have more say. We'll see how much success Mr Obama can have, since the Ayn Rand'ers seem to have ad infinitum ways to continue to muck things up.

Bonuses, from a game funded by taxpayers, many of whom have been economically enslaved this past decade, are not ill begotten?

Remarks:

07/22/2015 -- Some of these are, now, poster boys.

12/05/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow.

01/20/2013 -- What ought to be the spirit of the thing?

12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

03/29/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.

10/12/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about. 09/20/2011 -- This will be used in our constructive effort.

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug of the rogue table), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker. 

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash. 04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back. 02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind).

04/27/2010 -- Need to add the political set of truths, such as cat and mouse.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

01/22/2010 -- Bankers IV. Plus, Lordly Prince.

01/19/2010 -- Gosh, Ben, why did you have to sack the savers? Oh, I know, the banks (and their supposed best-and-brightest) mean more to you than do we, the lowly citizens and taxpayers. Have you considered our lot? I go into the bank (it's a big one whose big guy is on the list of rogues -your friends?) to see what they will give me for some money. Oh! Less than 1%. Who would have thunk it, Ben? Look, at the same time, they've made oodles and are looking to payout big bucks to their workers. What? Ought not some of that go to account holders? Others say to pay the shareholders. Well, that is a balance that your position is supposed to help. From the looks of it, your bias is toward those who want the train to nowhere. From where I sit, your stance is not only one-sided, it's actually counter to the benefit of those who are dependent upon your actions (the larger group (cardinality), big guy, not those (larger in the fat cat sense) of the ilk who think that their money gaming is the essence of reality). Solution? Look at the problem of fiat money, argue for your position to be modified, then work for some realness behind things that are valued by what is called 'money' (many meanings, I know).

01/17/2010 -- Simon Johnson has it right.

Modified: 07/22/2015