Savings and savers

Moral: Wherein we use a simple example to start to talk the issues.

Granted that there are several factors involved, but the image shows the reality. That is, the backbone of the economy has been flayed. Backbone? Those who work, live within their means, pay their bills (including mortgages - as in, none of the saving class walked away from their debt: unlike some who, as adults, put on their back, knowingly, debt beyond their means, and then had the gall to just shuck off the burden (the old debtor prison came into vogue for such behavior) and walk away - still cannot find that other than unconscionable).

So, the likes of Ben, the past decade, and, now, Janet, care little for those backbone types. No, the ca-pital-sino (gambling, essentially - plus, illusory gains so that people can salivate about their 401Ks - which, for the most, will not provide what they think - all explainable) is the focus.

---

Let's start with a simple example. A set of savings bonds that was bought in the year of 1980 and cashed out in 2010 would have returned 422% based upon the purchase price of the bond. You see, those terms were the norm back in those days when bonds were still being sold under a patriotic guise. As in, every payday, whether you were already doing a payroll deduction for bonds, you would hear a spiel about the need for people working in the United States to buy and uphold the country.

Too, there had been inflation during that 30-year period (which is coming back, folks, despite the machinations of Janet - some are already feeling this, in many ways - as she fiddles with the definition of the measure). And, interest moved up and down as has become a regular thing until six years ago or so.

Three years of bonds
Note: figures obtained via the Saving Bonds Wizard
provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury

What happened then had all sorts of rationalizations attached none of which considered savers or their usefulness since "debt" seems to have become the preferred mode.

Now, the image shows three tables related to bonds that were bought in three different years. For each year, a bond was bought every month costing $150 which had a denomination of $300. So, the total cost for each of the years was $1,800.

The tables are evaluations of these bonds (using the savings bonds wizard) at five different points from February 2006, which is provided as a base, to August 2014. Now, by the time of the first evaluation - 2006, the value of the earliest set of bonds (top table - 1993) had already increased by 78% over a 23-year period (that is, 6% a year). Similarly, the 1997 and 2002 bonds had increased, 42% and 16%, respectively.

What we can see with the 2011 evaluation (1993 bonds) is a braking such that the returns reduce substantially. This is obvious for the other two years, with 2002 being the most dramatic (due, in part, to changes in the rules - necessary adjustments: some early I-bonds are paying 5% right now even with Ben and Janet trying to reduce that outflow).

The last column shows the difference for the bonds at maturity, that is, after the duration of the thirty years (after that, there is no more increment). For the 1993 bonds, the difference is only $6.00. However, there is a noticeable difference for the later bonds. This difference, folks, denotes unrecoverable losses due to the unfortunate reality that taxpayers had to bail out bankers who did not know how to do their job.

And, then, the fact that those who control the funny (fiat) money (have you heard, of late, about the Forbes guy talking some other method?) decided that they would set the interest rate at an unprecedented level. Why? Because they could; we still have to get this thing unwound with unknown consequences (by the way, will Janet talk coo-coo under the shadow of the Tetons in order to soothe the feathers of the addicts of easy, plentiful money?).

---

This is one little example. The other side of the coin needs to be seen. As in, the trappings of power in Washington puts serious blinders, many times. There is no reason to continue to flay the savers. In fact, the adjustments to the model that are necessary must be lifted to view so that we can get them discussed and, perhaps, understood.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/11/2015

08/12/2014 -- Leverage is balm for the banking, and finance, folks (but, then, the whole system seems to want to defy physical limits, say thermodynamics). They think that 22-1 is normal (whereas, in the olden days 12-1 was thought the upper limit).

22-1 means what? If someone came to you and offered you 4.5 cents for a dollar, would you not laugh? In essence, there are 22 demands upon the same dollar (so to speak).

Now, bankers make their money as they will take a dollar and give you paper that is supposed to be worth a dollar but is actually backed up with 4.5 cents. At the same time, though, they siphon off their take from the "real" and not their phony money.

Finally, for the economic wags, who will say that "real" money gets eroded by inflation. Yes, that is true; but, inflation denotes "real" pressure (meaning, something behind the phenomenon) on money. What we are talking with leverage (and, for the most part, the markets - that are behind everyone's 401K mania) is "aeration" pure and simple, Modigliani, notwithstanding. The equivalence is not there, as will be shown.

08/12/2014 -- Need to look at FAME.

08/25/2014 -- The Tetons visit might have been the time, but not. No, they want to push equity. So, will the S&P 500 at 2,000 be enough? Or, do you guys/gals want to  just aerated to where the mess is huge? Again, that is, so we can mop up the diapers of that market-playing class?  

09/17/2014 -- The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

02/11/2015 -- Wikipedia: Zero interest rate policy.