Moral: Wherein we look at what will change in the future.
Of course, Ben will go; someone new will come in. Janet? My question is, will that person know the importance of savings? Right now, we can find high-class pawners who get 200% or so for providing money to people who need it. And, people who generally pay it back. Why is this necessary? Bankers are not doing their business. Where the hell is the old banker who was the upright citizen of the community and who helped people with cash flow?
He has gone the way of Jamie, I'm afraid. Or, the way of the Jamies of the world. Which brings up the first point: Made-off's two-decade reign. Hey, King Alan was there. USA Today reminds us that some are still looking for a payout. Is JPMChase culpable? Them and who else? Made-off could not have pulled this off, for so long, without some one somewhere smelling the crap. You see, though, money filters the bad odor. The more money, the more perfume comes in.
But, that perfume is deadly, for several reasons.
Aside: In the King Alan post, note the Remark (yesterday) that considers how Ben broke the buck. USA Today also copied a Fools article about what not to do with your money. Buy into a CD's strangle'ment is one (as Ben will slap you silly). But, we ought to be able to get a good CD. Ben prevents this. Let's take $100 that we would put out as a pawn broker (high-class type). We could get back, in a year, around $200. Nice, right? Except, ill-begotten, for several reasons. What would Jamie pay us for our $100 (the last man standing)? Less than a buck. Coins, to be exact. How many? We would be lucky if it were more than a dime. Ben, Ben, what the hell economic world are you inhabiting?
We have another point. USA Today's Wolff talks about CEOs not knowing technology. Of course, we have all sorts of technology a lot of which is loved for its own sake or for its ability to be cool. Even Obama falls into the trap. Mind you, Obama is more than a CEO, yet the attributes of those realms are similar. Obama has a nation under his feet (what about the servant thing, of the people?). CEOs might be geographically spread, but their domain is different.
Still, those in the upper echelons expect others to know the details and nuances, as says Wolff. But, Wolff also quotes the Google guy as saying that Obama smugly (quote-unquote -- we'll get back to this as Obama might be used to represent the realm that needs more explanation - than has been done to date from a techno-fluent viewpoint, okay? ) asked about something. Yes, hubris abounds in the CEO realm, even among some in the tech world. Why wouldn't it with people laying money at their feet (like twit-ville's 1B plus evaluation, some think)?
Aside: King Alan bemoans the lack of rationality. But, don't throw in the towel, guy. Get a grasp of the situation with the proper approach which we'll help you lay out.
But, technology is like a ball and chain, to boot. Ah, let me explain this ad infinitum (I am old and have years under the belt of this stuff - hands on, mind bongle's, etc.). You see, Wolff uses clueless. However, in a sense, we are all clueless - it is quasi-empirically imperative that we are so. Hubris gets people to run amok (and, Facebook, et al, needs more scrutiny in this fashion) despite their failings. Hugh accumulations of money seem to smooth out rough spots, somewhat.
We'll have to point to 7oops7 discussion where the original impetus was related to an extremely challenging set of technologies going toward something real (not bits on a screen - mobile device - that mainly titillates - in many senses of that concept).
These are a couple of points motivated by recent articles. The tone seems to have changed in many cases so that necessary ideas can be expressed and that concepts can be discussed. That is, we have to get beyond rhetoric, grandstanding, and such.
Why? We have let several genies out of the bottle; handling these appropriately will be crucial. What genies? For one, letting the Internet loose (we'll have to do an exhaustive look at the associated billionaires - as in, those whose fortunes come from exploiting that which was let loose) without sufficient thought to consequences. The besieged DOD is one example (tsk, tsk).
Remarks: Modified: 10/31/2013
10/30/2013 -- USA Today, recently, had an op-ed piece about the website issues and how expectations were too high, partly due to inordinate pushing by the political agenda. They use the experience of South Park (which missed an air time deadline) and GTA (release being delayed). But, there are many others (just recall all of the delays that we have seen, over the years, with MS). Nowadays, some things are pushed out with the user community expected to adapt (but, the whole thing of requirements is another issue). The fact, though, is that computation has a shaky basis that we work hard to keep stabilized. For one thing, trying to do complete testing (proving) is prohibitively expensive (if not downright not possible) due to inherent complexity. But, we can all learn to live within the limitations; also, we need to know when limits are coming into play (safety nets, for example, come about from knowing these). For one thing, phasing in can be a good strategy; too, hard dates need to be met way before they occur (as in, you fuel the plane long before the scheduled take off time). In general, it's nice to see these considerations being presented in a public forum so that we can have a discussion that removes us from finger-pointing and other worthless stances. Hardness (of problems) is what it is; we need to respect that. At that rarefied level of managers, saying that something should be does not get the thing done (those at such heights are "clueless" of more than technology's details).
10/31/2013 -- CNBC article on the aerated market situation.
10/31/2013 -- Finally, a voice of reason. Just the headline tells the tale: Tapering without tears - how to end QE3 - by Ronald McKinnon, WSJ, 10/28/2013 (PDF is at Stanford - the WSJ version is locked down for subscribers only). Essentially, going to zero was an error. Thanks, Ben. There are too many negative effects. Besides, trying to control unemployment with that little knob (which Ben dialed to the maximum, early on -- see "out of bullets" discussions from 2008/9 -- which, by the way, was untrue as Ben creatively ventured into new areas, taking us down the perdition path). Actually, what Ben is trying to do is push string (try that for ringing a bell -- push needs to be changed to pull). McKinnon uses 'fetish' in relation to the monetary illusion related to interest rates (that, essentially, have been used the past few years to slap the savers silly).