Oh, some have benefited from the chimera's increasing heftiness. This is not unlike the house raking in the dough due to how odds are set.
For some reason, Big Ben has not pulled his head out of the '30s and seems to think that the ca-pital-sino is it. Sheesh, big guy. Will you learn?
Most people's lives are in the crapper. Many get by on scraps. The fat cats (less than 10%, the new aristocracy -- where is our Magna Carta?) are gaining more weight. Those same fat cats are raking in over 80% of the takings (will not use profits, as stock rising in prices means nothing of value, folks, let's get that straight - future topic -- for now, recall near zero, please).
Well, Big Ben's two targets (for which he has controls that supposedly help him aim) relate to unemployment (ah, that is one rub) and inflation. The first we all know is problematic (even, though Big Ben panicked early, supposedly worried all along, and wants to help), so we'll ignore that for now. Taking the second one, he has removed the chance of deflation. How? He trashed the savers, essentially junked the US Bonds (gosh, again, Big Ben, where is your head?), floated his QEs, and more. Liquidity, it's called.
From where I sit, looks like the banks got impacted (yes, think hose: high, hot, and hell of a lot -- old timers ought to know what this means) due to their improper diet.
Aside: Jamie? My jaw fell when I heard that some think that he ought to replace little Timmy.
Big Ben has another thing going against him. Fake money. Yes, he's been allowed to print without restraint (oh wait! that's little Timmy whose presses have been running overtime). Big Ben's role in this is that he determines what is the balance that is related to money (how much, of each type, etc.).
Big Ben and little Timmy are two peas in a pod.
What is this all about? Well, that which is termed 'chimera' has tenuous links to the bulk of the economy. How did this come to be? And, in a sustainable economy (yes, with an global focus) to what extent would the gaming called the market have a gambling flair? That is the question, folks. Mind you, there are many suited, lobbyists who do not want the game to be fair.
Of course, what would be fair? After all, it has been interminable that we have the upper class (a small set) and then the masses who are there mainly to be exploited. Even the phenomenon of those who may be meritorious and who arise from the teeming-ness of the masses, forget their past real quickly. Human nature, 'tis.
Given that we're just past the Fourth of July, let's, at least, not be pretentious that those ideals mean anything to the few who make the decisions. Oh yes, they mean a lot to those who need to think that things will get better. Or, to the idealist. ... Or, to the saint (yes, there are those).
There is a firm (not to be mentioned by name) that is so much an example. It in part deals with jetting, that bailiwick used by the rich to keep their little selves out of the fray. Oh yes, by using private means of transportation (that is subsidized by our monies -- oh, if this were not true, why do you not see the masses lining up for fractional jet time? -- that is, let the rich pay for the 'real cost' of their chosen method (to keep from rubbing elbows with those who fly first class using their earned miles or to keep from hobnobbing with the working class who might also be million milers) ... oh yes, this is equivalent to costing out the expenses of a private suite -- how many day-to-day work traveler can do that?), these types can work faster to keep those teeming masses in chains. Well, there was a sell-out from public to private that left oodles of debt on the books. Oh yes, monies flowed to a few pockets. That debt's service cost has been just debilitating on the company. Yet, who pays? They cut people, move (or try to move) to places of cheaper (more exploitable workers), trash worker benefits (of many types), get the local community to belly up with tax breaks, and so forth.
Why are they in this state? Well, it isn't that Obama questions why tax breaks are necessary for the rich's flying toys. No. There is the fact of the deal (in which, golden sacks made oodles -- set up the details, reinforced the notions - yes, they're the best), plus there was a downturn. You see, the firm was not able to IPO yet. It had a sister company that did partly get to IPO (enriching a few pockets), yet it has debt, to boot.
Well, that firm may have been of a sustainable mode for years. But, it's current turmoil ought to be studied very closely. For many lessons, such as leveraging's pitfalls, worker exploitation, limitations of pursuing the luxury market (except, what will be the reality of personal jets - strap on - equivalent to the flying bike?), and more.
So, 'chimera' it is whose sirens seem to strongly allure. Even Big Ben has been seduced. What is the way out of this debacle?
12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.
10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.
08/04/2012 -- I can hear it: with the DOW over 13K, what are you talking about using 'chimera'? Well, look at the dire warnings, for one. Are you looking at FB as a poster boy? We'll get technical and explain the problem. Do we have a solution, at this time? Yes, essentially.
03/11/2012 -- We'll use Alan more this year.
08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?
08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?
08/03/2011 -- Today, the DOW is at 11.7K (hey, let it go to 8K) at mid-morning. Ah, what irrationality lurks? Yet, Big Ben wants to continue to sack the savers while being ultra-charitable to bankers (like Jamie).
07/13/2011 -- QE3? Sheesh, Big guy. The article says that stocks went up 6% during QE2. Let's see. How did the pockets of the savers diminish? More than that, it seems.
07/12/2011 -- See Salem Commoners for a continuation of the theme. Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).
07/07/2011 -- Oh yes, Jaime probably wants a 0.01& reserve so that he can take even more due to supposed income from churning. Have to give Big Ben credit to standing up to the guy's rant. Let's put Washington Irving's theme to use.
07/06/2011 -- Yes, to get monies to service the debt, without the opportunity to sell more, what does the firm do? Take it from the workers, squeezing out the last drop of blood, selling assets, and such. How could they then be nimble enough to actually be effective in the future? Why is it that cuts seem to take on some equivalence with an anorexic drive? For all this, consider that no amount of cuts would come close to servicing the debt (where did that type of thinking become the paragon to which we all are supposed to bow?). Could they even sell all of their assets and pay the debt? Yet, when they do push out an IPO, it's supposed to be a great investment?