Last time, we said that Ben has slapped the savers silly. Then, the EU tells Cyprus to take a tithing out of deposits in order to cover the shambles left behind by supposedly smart financial types. Who, by the way, we bailed out (still an open issue, as Ben knows; he won't let an unwind happen so that we can see the real crud).
Now that EU deal was last week; an article at Seeking Alpha (to which I commented -- Aroound the bloock) suggested that the equity markets would go down. The week isn't over.
As well, "tithe" is about 10%. We, the savers, have given much more (a multiple of that), and Ben tells us, with a straight face, that he'll continue to slap us silly.
How do we know? They, (the FED money printers) met this week. Someone asked Ben if he would pull a Cyprus. Evidently, he doesn't think so. Yet, he does not see the equivalence of his slapping savers now (and for the past few years) with the EU suggestion.
Today, The Daily Ticker, had on Jim Rickards who says that Ben is stealing, in a sense, from depositors. But, Ben must not see this, as I'm sure that he knows the moral issues (unless, he's taken the secular route to the extreme - screw the helpless - that is what power leads to - corruption -- thanks, Lord Acton).
---
There may be another issue though that needs to be explained to Ben. He's heavy into mathematics and modeling. But, Ben doesn't seem to have insight into the issues related to quasi-empiricism that need to be updated to the modern context. In short: computational power has leveraged the misthoughts and misdeeds (of the financial ilks as they focus on unfair games, err "products" - can you imagine? almost implying some reality to these things - chimeras that they can be - almost if we can eat or wear the things) enormously so as to present us with out-of-control situations. The related notions may seem to be subtle and to be a stretch, quite frankly. But, that is one of the issues; these people run off (as did Ben) with new ideas spawned out without suitable foresight (unless it's to the amount that can be gained) into impact on the wider economy (we need a sandbox for these folks -- anyone trying to define this, Ben?).
One saving grace might be the new guy from Harvard. We'll see.
So, Ben puts out the message, No bubbles. Yes, we'll have an interesting look-back, at some point. At that time, we can also put a number on Ben's little negative impact (let's say, a 30% loss to date which has no floor as Ben continues to stumble along, albeit suavely, while slapping with both hands -- must be doing so in a sleep-walking mode).
Remarks:
03/26/2013 -- Let's see, some (many) who were under water on their house loans got bailed out (even to the extent of 6 figures), some in the equity markets have gained (a whole lot more have not - but, one could argue that it was their own misdeed - as stupid as that argument is, I'll put it here), banks are rolling in the dough (enough for some to get big paychecks, okay?), et al. Now, on the other side, there are the unemployed and the underemployed; there are those who lost without any means to recover; et al. Then, we have the savers who are saints. We've given up 30+% of our deposits to Ben's little scheme; many of us have no recourse or way to recover. So, think of it, folks, as a gift (that's why I used tithe - except that it's in the church of money - yet, money is the blood of the economy and has some spiritual value -- which does not mean to take a bath in it like old Scroog or whoever that comic character was who would fill the but with money -- what about paper cuts?). We would for Ben, at least, to acknowledge that he did wrong and that he ought to see that means are there in the future to offset his (the next FED aerator) harming ways.
03/22/2013 -- Imagine. WSJ using both chimerical and moral hazard in the same article, albeit with a twist that we'll respond to (that is, clarify what the notions mean -- has to come from outside the financial community).
Modified: 03/26/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment