Moral: How long will (can) Janet keep the punch bowl spiked?
By looking at posts on this blog, one can see that we said "unwind" a long time ago. Then, Ben was talking coo-coo to the investors (what a misnomer! gamblers is more apropos) as he witnessed taper tantrums. Now, Janet has said and says: oh no, jobs.
So, we see, today, that jobs are looking up (in ways where there are problems here, the FED's little gaming is not the issue). Too, the DOW is touching upward to 17K.
For why? Whence this? Inflationary pressures (Ben's stoking all of these years) on those markets that do not amount to anything real for the people on the street (as in, most of the populace).
Yet, at the same time, Janet and her ilk continue to flay (de-skin, first, then starting on de-flesh) the savers. Yes, we, the savers, feel like those cattle cruelly collected who are confronting catastrophic endings.
To whom will the flesh be sold? Please tell us, Janet or any of your partners.
The Economist had a special issue on Shadow Banking. Seems that people want to get away from those types whom Janet (and, before her, Ben) so dearly loves to support.
Why moral? Let's talk "moral hazard" as it applies to the billowing markets (aerated to the maximum point). That is, the safety net (Janet's put) urges those who have the predilection onward toward risky behavior.
Remarks: Modified: 02/11/2015
Thursday: Unemployment Claims, Philly Fed Mfg
5 hours ago