What announcement? QE3, today, with low-level interest until 2015 or further.
Gosh, Ben, you've been sacking the savers for years now. Why are you running off after the chimera? It still stinks, even as it scrapes the stratosphere. Why? You know, Ben, that there is daily raking off, like cream being skimmed from the top, by those who run the casino.
If you would try to establish a monetary basis that had steady growth, acknowledging that we cannot have sustained economic prosperity when the mode for all (but the few - thank God for the Occupy mindset) is to pile on more and more debt, then we could see some semblance of sanity come back to the financial fiasco. But, no, your sweet digs there, at the Fed, are not much different than that of the fat cats at the Street (of course, Wall not Main). Go ahead, cater to the few. Just remember, it's the accumulation of the little people who make the economy.
By the way, Ben, to which of these Street realms will you go when you leave the Fed?
Now, what we're seeing is a flow from very many small pockets to a very few big pockets. You know, Ben, that flow eventually dries out those with small pockets who then become dehydrated shells. From whence can these have any energy to build back what your chimera overlays?
What future is based upon the chimera? At any point, those who can will pull out, leaving scrapings for the most. You know that.
Let's talk, please, about how earnings (returns) in this realm are really nothing more than movement of money between pockets. Okay. Some make out like bandits. All cannot do so, nor have they ever been able to do so. Yet, talking heads keep pushing the illusion. Publication of the success stories of the few (those who can take from the chimera) continues to lead more down the primrose path to perdition. What a debacle!
07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.
01/15/2013 -- Force quiescence on the thing, regularly.
11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.
09/19/2012 -- Added Truth Engineering link to 09/15/2012 Remark. Faults are one way to learn. The perfect reek with hubris and arrogance. Yet, systems are that which we ought to make perfect (measurable attribute, definitely amenable to scientific study and public agreement. And, in most cases, systems that we know were built upon people in positions (roles, essentially -- action, decision, etc.) pertaining to the system. Now, we have computers playing analogous roles. How do we handle this? Notice that computers (the artificial, at large) implies 'systems' as their motivating force. But, in the new roles, it's the computer as the performer that we're looking at, usually without concern for technicalities (left to the nerds). The quality efforts out of Japan looked to limit the scope of faults (prevent them, in other words) which is not perfection seeking. So, we'll just say, for now, that perfection, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. (wiki has a nice historical view)
09/15/2012 -- Laundrying? Yes, I know it ought to be laundering. However, it's on Facebook, to boot, so I'll let it stand. Why? Jungian, in nature, this type of oops comes about with technology (to wit, touch typing, fixups, et al) and will only get worse. I see it all the time in big-name, big-buck publications. But, this particular word brings to fore several interesting things. One is that 'labor' is seen to be like laundry. Get it to fit, use it, clean it, throw it out (almost like the proverbial tissue). Now, roles may be laundry-like; those who play the roles are not. In fact, that is one truism to bring forth. I've met a lot of smart people doing menial work. I've not met anyone of the upper crust that I would care to emulate (yes, indeed - I've seen a bunch). Of course, we're all human, with our faults. Yet, as history tries to do (or, that which is oriented toward indoctrination), we smooth over rough edges. Yes, those in power are without any sins; this is accepted for several reasons. From time to time, the human aspect shows. Why cannot it always be so? In the current context? No crapping human can ever attain the idealized state expected by voters (and dreamers and hopers). Faults ought to be celebrated. They keep us human and can help us be hubris-free.
09/14/2012 -- Ben ought to read Rick. Labor laundrying. Ben's continued largess to the fat cats will mostly go toward this type of activity. Read Warehouse Slave and weap [Jungian - as in, weep and reap your reward for allowing this to emerge as the supposed culmination of evolution (this is where our glorious State and its technology is leading us?)]. Aside: I've had (in my youthful times) several jobs that were remunerated with room/board and stipend (any aspersions of menial, etc. will just run off the back like water off a duck -- all jobs (of a legal variety) and the persons doing those tasks are worthy of respect (a lost adage - as everyone runs after accumulating moolah (sounds like ...) as if its represents the smarts that we ought to have -- yes, politicians are characterized by how much they salivate at the thought of moolah.). The first put a roof over my head, and the second fed me. The third, small bits to buy and trade used books. Fourth? Fifth? (yes, luckily, no illnesses - too young to consider retirement - et al). Too, I've seen the boardroom, and the posturing idiots collected therein (as a visitor, of course), and all steps in-between. When I say, folks, that we can run this crap (which it is, even with academic frills added -- ah, the bastardization of the glorious realms of mathematics rankles, to boot) with monk-like mentality (as in, fame, money, etc. not being of essence), I do know what I'm talking about. But, it's my duty, and challenge, to define how this would work. Somehow, the dream of America (where is Winthrop's city?) has descended monotonically, and sometimes exponentially, into the crapper. From whence the energy to get it flying again? By the way, if 'monk' is too religiously laden for you, we can use other metaphors. Take the military. Do you think that those who are being called 'heros' are remunerated (except for the O-class) adequately to the level of their service and risk? If you do, then you're part of the problem. Yes, we could keep the discipline level proper and the thuggery minimized. Or, we could use games played under rules. The whole economic/financial realm needs leveling (as in establishing playing field quality) and inclusion of referees sufficient to keep those in-line who throughout our thousands of human years have trampled over others (yes, fat cats might, at some point, turn to philanthropy -- does that balance their karmic effluence?). New royalty, these? Indeed! We need a sandbox (and, again, we could put golden sand in the box) for these people, in which they can crap all they want (they do the cleaning, to boot).