Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Ben, da man

Moral: Wherein we put looking at the human conditions on the table and get back to Big Ben.


Ben who? Ben Bumblebutt. Obama had a chance to give us someone new. Oh well. That opportunity passed.

Thanks to Bloomberg, we see that Ben had a conduit from which the big banks could extract as they wanted, without much accounting, and enjoy as a privilege, since they are so 'special' (too big to fail, being a culprit is stylish, I suppose).

So, rather than 'nationalizing' these types, as he ought to have, he played funny games with us, the taxpayers and the savers, and our money. Savers? Those whom Ben has sacked for over three years now.

Yes, he likes to rub elbows with the likes to Jamie and others. Too, he likes the Tetons. Well, he has provided to the jerks the biggest nipple possible (ah, we had to see them get suckled, plus we had to clean up their messy diapers - no wonder the OWS).


All the while, the banks froze up. Main street suffered. What we heard about then were the precious bankers missing their big bonuses (which, many times, were based upon gaming techniques that are not necessary for a sustainable, international economy).

And, savers got 0.2 % or less for their monies. Think of the myriad retirees who had to trim their belts; and, this for no reason other than the foolishness of those who seem to be so Lordly (give me a break).


Let's pause for a brief look at numbers. Say that some retirees have $500,000 (amount used for its nice rounding features -- too, it's a basis for discussion, see Remarks: 11/29/2011, below) with which to fund about 30 years, or so, of whatever is needed to sustain their lives.

As well, let's look at three interest rates 5% (about what Ben had to start with), 1% (Ben, this ought to be your basis -- big guy, talk to someone outside of the Washington and the academic crowd, please, get your head out of the '30s -- by the way, you need to temper Jamie's influence on you -- too, Ben lose your love of that market chimera whose sirens can allure, big guy), and 0.2% (using a larger number than Ben wants paid).

So, using 5%. That $500K start would accumulate an additional $78K over three years. Not a lot, but sufficient to help with the bills. Guess what was the reality 0.2%? A whopping $3K. That is, the savers paid Big Ben's pals $75K (now, people, multiply that over all of the savers -- we have given a lot to the likes of Jamie). At 1%, the accumulation would have been a mere $15K. Yet, Big Ben could have used his moral arguments (albeit, hypocritically since he was rewarding morally hazardous behavior. Ben, do you know the word or concept of morality?) to persuade the saver that they were helping the economy.

But, Ben's jawboning runs empty (or worthless) when he continues to only confab with the rich and powerful (hah, they have no power over the human spirit).


This post depicts renewed zeal to bring to fore a better method. Who has defined such a thing? Everyone, it seems, has wandered off after the chimera. How do we get back to the basics of banking?


By the way, the WMDs are still there even though Warren has looked away. In fact, he's jumped into the pool, it seems, with the rest. Shenanigans, indeed.


08/27/2013 -- Ben has slapped the savers silly for years now. At the same time (or during the while), he has played goo-goo with the nursing addicts who line up to his large teat (conduit).

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.

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time. 

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

02/08/2012 -- Ben has fed the stock market recovery.

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this.

12/09/2011 -- See Taken to Task series.

12/08/2011 -- Shocker? Not really. Also, Big Ben has our interest near 0%. Then, he gives this to Europe. Their low point? 1%. Does Ben want ours to be negative?

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

11/30/2011 -- I wonder what kind of thrill Big Ben gets when the markets move like today. The DOW is up over 400 points just because Ben offered to give them newly printed dollars (mind you, the savers here are being further sacked). As this article describes, it looks legit (is somewhat), yet the whole thing is a shell game of moving numbers around. The ploy here is to keep people's expectations up, even though the reality is that we're kicking the can down the road for future generations to worry about. Where is 'value' brought forth? Not with financial gaming.

11/29/2011 -- One wag is saying that 5% on a portfolio will be what the upper echelon sees for some time. The old adage was 8-10 percent. And, hedge funds want 20+, even up to 40%. Returns, like 40%, are only done with very illegal (illicit in any reasonable society) means (this we could (and will be able to) show at some point).

Now, as to the $500,000. It has several uses which are listed below. Actually, it can help us discuss requirements for planning for future payouts. Bankers were supposed to help with this; but, they, and the insurance bunch, wanted more to line their pockets (forgetting fiscal responsibility).
  • Some will have multiples of this; others may have fractional amounts.
  • For any, you can think that this is what you'll need for $1K to $2K, per month (depending upon what rate was used). In other words, your future demand will require current assets.
  • As opposed to the strategy of small assets, expecting big returns. Usually, this is attempted through leverage. We've seen the downside of that.
  • Those who push to pay low lump sums will try to push upward the expected return. Why? The higher the return, the less the payer has to put out.
  • Or, as we're seeing with many pension funds (mostly public), less is in the coffers now than will be needed to cover the requirement. The Post Office is caught in the reverse situation where Congress is asking them to have too much on hand, now, which lowers funds available for operations.
  • These things are easy to figure mathematically. What is hard is setting up the model. Now, if you add in malfeasance (or just plain bumblebutt-hood) on the part of those who handle the technicalities of money and distribution, all bets are off. That is very unnecessary, folks.
  • How did it come to be? Computationally enabled gaming, yes, the ca-pital-sino. Plus, a mindset that has put this type of idiocy as the foundation for our world view (give me a break, again). Why have they been allowed this success? Flim-flam mathematical ontologies that essentially snow any rational discussion (limited management views using sophisticated schemes that are way beyond their comprehension except from a mere operational (meaning, me-me-me) stance).
  • ...
Modified: 08/27/2013

No comments:

Post a Comment