... chimera, chimera, on the wall, who is the fairest chimera of all? ...
(if you don't know, paraphrasing here - anyone can find the original) ...
But, to the meat of the issue. People, the DOW, and others, are soaring. To what end? Why? ... Silly games, for one (here is a link to an earlier post - note the 2009 time frame). Ben has hocked the future. He has also taken $100Ks from many savers (altogether, oodles and oodles of hard-earned money so that the fat cats can play their silly games) and says that he'll continue the thievery (expecting us to laud his self). Why does he do this? We'll get back to that.
Too, I keep hearing "gains" used. These are ponzi-like (more madoff-like - again, note 2008) increases, folks. That statement is to be explained, but the upward movement is from less risky to more risky buckets for folks who cannot afford such. Forget exuberance and think mania.
The following to be looked at thoroughly: what is the percentage who actually obtain the "gain" in the long run? The fact? It's less than you would think. Silly games, indeed.
Ben has essentially taken away the proper basis which would be steady gains (yes, these would map to actual progress along prospective fronts) that would pay over time. The equity casino? Can drop off a cliff at any time for several reasons (for one, those who run the game can take their big cut, ..., etc.).
That above query deals with near-zero which must be looked at further. The alchemists (yes, look for the book) favor those of their kind. The myriads of people take in on the chin. Yet, finance could run for the benefit of the most (stated like this to offset arguments about largess of other types - you see, it's okay for Ben to fund his fat cat friend -- what with his big office, et al -- yet, any consideration of a sustainable approach is suspect from the get go).
Soar, DOW, soar! Do not bubbles, and kites, fly? ...
07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.
06/22/2013 -- So, how many traded their paper gain (chimera) to solid debt with the downturn? Okay, forget the size of the loser set, how much went from illusory gain (backed by a promise to pay later) to real debt that has to be paid with blood and guts? Wait! Some of those doing the margin calls, and ilk, have some way to weasel (not disparaging the grand animal) out, not doubt.
05/09/2013 -- Ben needs to take off the training wheels and let the markets go where they may (falling mode, most likely) and let the seniors have a little stability (Slapped silly, again, yesterday).
05/06/2013 -- Image disappeared (think balloons, tops, ..., things that go up, spin, need help to not fall --- yes, Ben's efforts at creating perpetual motion)?
05/03/2013 -- As a sacked saver, one has to look at the chimera's giant sucking action and wonder how did this come about. Yes, it was (in terms of the DOW) above 14.7K a little bit ago. The S&P is climbing to new heights. It's too bad that all those in that game cannot get their money. No, only the early sellers will benefit (for the others it's hot air and paper that will fly away from their grasp). Ben, you need a framework for future payouts that is more stable (ever heard of savers?). You know, at some point, you'll be like us and will need your money. Would it be poetically just if you lost just when you needed your money? The savers would have been happy had you put a floor of 1% or so (that is, not break below the last integer). Please leave instructions thereby so that your successor will know. Okay?
04/21/2013 -- The view from Saturday.
04/17/2013 -- At the Seeking Alpha article, two of my comments were deleted. That's a first, so I'm unsure of the protocol. In one, I quoted a WSJ essay by EO Wilson in which he argued that great people do not work by mathematics, alone. The focus on STEM might even keep some resourceful, and creative, people out of the mix. Now, to put an opinion here, the recent brain initiative ought to bring out how we wrap ourselves into viewpoints that are fostered by technology, thereby entrapping ourselves.
04/11/2013 -- See Alpha Seeking article. ... Also, rate of return fantasy.
04/10/2013 -- Housing bubble? Lots of evidence everywhere, Ben. Do you ever look? When rates do go up, all of those who are on the lending side of the equation will have to take a loss (immediately). What the hell kind of economy is that? Remember, folks, that loss is so that someone can have a low-interest, long-term mortgage. From whence comes all of this? Well, savers have been paying through the nose, for one thing. The turnaround will not bring back the losses given to the savers by Ben. Even in the equity markets, not ALL can recoup. It's a paper game (with chimerical "gains"), folks. Except, for those whose fingers are always pulling ill-begotten gains (and these people are considered by some as the smartest?) into their pockets.
04/10/2013 -- I was on the mark four and five years ago but with a little voice. At that time, I asked what would be the long-term effects of Ben's shotgun approach. You see, at some point, Ben may have wanted to have some semblance of being a scientist. When push came to shove, he succumbed to the lures of power (to wit, the necessity of corruption). The guy is probably to be more pitied than reviled. Obama could have changed the game four years ago. Oh well, hope went out the window at that time. Yes, indeed. Ben now has given us a wealth of data to look at ex post facto. Will it make us smarter the next time around? Do pigs fly? Wait, fat cats seem to fly, like those balloons used in the Macy parade.
04/10/2013 -- One professor says that a DOW of 18,000 or more may happen. Ben, no doubt, would gloat. Would (could) he consider the future side-effects? Those who are on the winning side would be gleeful, to boot. Yet, for each winner, there are many losers. That is the tale to tell. An economy cannot sustain itself without a solid basis that provides secured payments in the future. Gaming-centric approaches are bound for failure for all but the few. It's probably nice to be among the few who experience the bounty. Some views might say not, though. The other side (in want) has been the most common experience, by far.