Moral: Wherein we celebrate getting a little dew on our heads.
That is about the right analogy, one might think. Or, from another view, for $100, that little quarter coin might buy some penny candy. But, you don't get that nowadays; only a 75-year old mind like this one can recall that.
So, guess what happened a month ago. Shock for some. There were snowflakes coming about mid-fall, way before winter set in. Things seem to have settled a little. Though, some group has 4M vote on-line to monkey with those who do the voting in the Electoral College. And, that's 12 days away.
So, who knows? Well, Janet ought to. The markets boomed. What gives there? Bubble? You bet. The whole apparatus is faulty. But, the Fed seems to want that.
Savers? We're still getting slapped silly. It's a wonder that we don't have concussion, by this time. But, we do have hard heads and well-tempered brains. Unlike those who are running after data-driven nonsense augmented by sophisticated computational systems.
The Vienna School still does not see any use for the quantification euphoria that we find here.
Today is election day. It's 10 pm, EST. So, we're an hour from CA finishing up.
Who will win? Nowadays, the web allows some nice tracking facilities. That may be seen as progress.
After all, the computer is for the good of all of us. One might think.
Speaking of which, the Fed is into some type of modeling that seems to be oriented to evidence-driven mindsets. Well, philosophically, that has problems. Anyone in the Fed care?
We, the savers, say show the results of the many, many years of being flayed. Why is that not in the equations? Or, is it ignored as mere noise? There are many other negative things that be attributed back to the largess of low interest plus the various easing thoughts and actions.
DOW of 20,000? Who would have thought? Yet, Janet does not raise the rates.
In one country, the rates were lowered. This to get people to spend. What happened? People cut back, said "this is crazy" stuff, and saved more.
In China, traders make a mint off of playing with these things. Traders? Well, they are not moving any product or such. No, just fiddling with bits in some warped space related to monetary markings of an arbitrary nature.
What is a sane person to think?
Remarks: Modified: 08/15/2016
08/15/2016 -- One of last week's WSJ (which day?) had an article about the rates. Can they go lower? Which rates? Are you awake? ..., I hear that negative rates seem to correlate, somewhat of late, to rising savings. This being seen in various countries. One woman who runs a small business, in Germany, increased her savings. At the same time, she says that looking at her savings account makes her want to cry. ... I know the feeling. To me, it's the getting slapped silly by the banks that grates. ... Now, in that same article, Miles Kimball of Michigan says rates ought to go lower. Who is this guy? Well, he is Miles Spencer Kimball. Here is his blog (supplysideliberal). I just ran across this Harvard educated guy; but, I'll get back to you about why he thinks the flaying of the elderly is a good thing.
Moral: Wherein, we see how Janet is following Islam.
Last time, we looked at the Fed mania. After (many of) the Brits said that they have had enough of the high-falutin' folks of Brussels, and who can blame them, Janet talked goo-goo (like Ben, of old) to the addicts. Oh, no increase in sight. We might take away little bit of change that we gave to the savers last year, she said.
So, then, we got this inflated event on the chimera. It is well-covered in this blog just how much of a crappy game is that whole bit of things.
But, Janet ought to realize that Islam says no interest. She is almost there. Except, the bankers want to steal the money from people who have scrapped and saved over decades. They want to move it to the pockets of the fat cats.
Now, if Janet wants no interest, she ought to consider other laws of Islam. It's called Sharia Law. You can find reference to Islamic Finance in this blog, too. How do you think that would go over, Janet?
With this latest little bubbling, Janet could raise to 1%, let's say. Let the ball drop and see what the heck happens. After all, the Fed has been flying blindly for years now. Why not try a different angle?
So, savers continue to be flayed. Thank you, bankers.
Last week, Janet talked to Congress. The usual dancing about with words. Then, last Thursday, the Brits voted for Brit-exit. That is, they told the bureaucrats of the EU that they're tired of carrying the ball. And, that they, the Brits, would be better on their own.
So, on Friday, the gaming system fell. You see, addicts ran amok. Then, too, Monday. What is new about that? Janet? She was heard murmuring that she may have to take back the rate raise that she did earlier. Earlier? Let's say last year. This year, she had dawdled.
We only do it on holidays.
Guess what? Now, we are back to the same inflated state of the gambling system. To a rational FED, that would say, it's time to put the rates to something realistic.
When might the FED awaken? So, is the FED really tied into feeding the addicts? If so, when would we ever have a mature economy?
Meanwhile, savers are still being flayed as we have been for almost a decade. Thank you, FED.
The good professor, among other things, bemoans that his father did not buy a house until he was 60. Ah, poor guy.
Listen, professor, I did not buy a house until I was 62. As well, I, specifically, picked a bank that did not sell the mortgage. Albeit, they did buy into that mania after the crash as they thought that they were going to pick up a diamond for nothing.
The reality? They got a lump of coal. Yet, me, great customer? I have been paying my mortgage all of these years despite Ben and Janet.
Now, if you abstract'd types want to hear about reality, I am here.
Wall Street? We could run this with the discipline of the military. Look, Professor. You ever think of those who are dutifully protecting those Wall Street idiots?
At one time, I thought monks. Say, those who would take a vow of poverty. Listening, Zuck?
But, being that this whole thing is a utility, we need to run it thus. And, that would mean non-profit. Then, we would need some sense of service, discipline, order, fairness, and so forth.
Cambridge had that early on before things went awry.
Oh yes, financial engineering is gaming of the worse sort since it is unfair from the get-go. I am still looking for the scientific basis for this "engineering" (tsk, tsk, MIT).
Moral: Wherein we wonder about the morale of the savers (poor dears).
Janet is coddling the jerks. That is, these guys handle billions (trillions). They play games all day with other people's money. Live high on the hog.
Yet, they tantrum'd when Ben merely mentioned taper. Janet continues that kid-gloves treatment.
This is a real brief look.
However, going back to the beginning, say 2006, we can come forward and note some lessons learned. We saw it better than Ben. We are of the savers who have been flayed.
Just last week, I went and was slapped silly again. The banker telling me that they don't want deposits. You see, they're not really banks anymore.
Janet ought to bounce up to 2%, quickly. Forget the little baby steps that she and the Fed talked about last year. Then, they reneged this year.
And, what have we now? 18K is way to high for the DOW. Oh yes, I know. The whole thrust is to have someone like me go into that silly game. Who will bail me out when the suckers pull out all of the value?
There could be links here on all of these topics, but I have been ranting along this line for awhile. With reason and a rationale.
The Fed and its ilk need to be thinking of some type of platform that would allow more stable value'd looks than this market thing (Adam rolls over in his grave, continually). Somehow, the money'd crowd got their way. I don't know of academics who want to see stability.
That is because no one (elites, okay?) has really been done down here where we get slapped around all the time. But, the economy is for us, too. Actually, it is more for us. We are millions. Janet, you and your crowd, are a very small minority.
Stable value. Yes. You float a bond. Then you pay the holder some bit of interest. Not talking a lot. Enough of these would then be sufficient for some little person to have a future.
Forget the big names and brains, like Jamie and all of the rest mentioned here.
The use of computers to play financial games is one symptom of deep problems. Yes. I can talk that.
How about taking that power and applying it to tracking stock? Yes, each one an entity. Who bought, sold, etc. Oh, get rid of the magical multiplier? You bet.
Enough, for now. I'm coming back to work here and will lay out the strategy. I'm old. Janet will probably still have no interest during my final years. But, I'll describe how it could be, if those whose input to the whole situation has been warping things for years were constrained, seriously, like to a sandbox with diapers. Then, the mess that we have to clean up would be smaller.
Yes, we changed their diapers and are still dealing with their crap.
Moral: Wherein we mention, again, to Janet, that coddling the jerks is not the thing to do.
Ben had his taper tantrum. What do we call how Janet's actions are taken? She appears to have some rational basis. But, not, really. It's a mishmash that is post John Nash, unfortunately.
Yesterday, I was slapped silly, again. Yes, the banks laugh as they don't want small depositors. No, they would rather play the games that Janet is enabling.
Now, one problem is that we all want to see what is rational with regard to computer prowess. We know there are some things that the artificial beast can do better than can we humans. However, winning at Go (see Google's joy) is not to applaud.
After all, all of those Go masters were of an old culture. They embodied the cultural memes, to the extreme. Some little bit of neural equivalents (supposedly) hosted on silicon-embedded circuitry does not even come close to what those human represents.
Will not for a very long time, So, could not have asked for a better Good Friday gift: ranting bot. There will be subsequent analysis after a little time to see the reactions.
Too, on Quora, I saw this. Big-daddy data. Gosh, if only Janet would pull the plug on this mania by raising the rate. Janet, you are coddling moral idiots in their trashing of our economy.
Moral: Wherein we stop to look at the passing of time.
We started this blog in August 2009. So, this will be our second Leap Day. However, it might be interesting to see what was going during each of those earlier times.
2009 A year into the 4-year cycle. We started out by looking at basics (such as, Money). We also were making use of earlier posts about Ben's panic. One of our most-read posts was titled "Computation, finance, and engineering" and dealt with important issues that are still needful of attention.
2012 By now, everyone (of rational age) was looking for some remission of low interest. We got our surprise, as Ben unleashed QE (infinity, some said). Then, he did his lectures (which we started to watch real time; but, it is more fun to do it later, with a pause button).
As said, lots pending more attention. Too, all of this is coherent over time. We'll persist in laying down new tracks as well as spend some effort in pulling together themes, appropriately.
Moral: Wherein we start a process of analysis and reconstruction, from a new viewpoint.
In SV (south of SF - coddled lot with starry eyes), we see a growing emphasis on causation. Why? At the same time, one hears a lot of the usefulness of econometrics. That esteemed field is quite careful about using the "cause" word. What gives?
Not only do we hear of causation, as if infinite correlative associations are observed, we see a great emphasis on modeling. But, then, SV is about computers albeit one would hope that some wisdom would arise there.
For instance, what about being a little sensitive to issues related to causation? One example would be the triad of qualification, frame, and ramification that came out of advanced logic. That is, pre-conditions, event, post-conditions are still a gnarly group of things despite the seemingly magical nature related to our displays of prowess.
The Fed has its head in the STEM-sand. So, the analysis would have to pair our predilection to think that silicone reigns.
Now, to the interest rate. The Fed and its ilk need to agree on some floor for interest. It is not zero. Japan's penetration of that (following talks in Europe of the same thing) is wrong for several reasons.
One thing that we could do then, with such a floor, is study liquidity issues. I mean in the sense associated with the analysis of Keynes and others. Elsewhere(What-is-negative-interest-rate-adopted-by-bank-of-Japan), I suggested that we need to identify two groups: gamers and savers. The former are running things (into the ground). The latter are really interested in long-term issues of which a big factor is investment.
Somehow, some (Nash, et al) have caused (there I go - causation is a multi-faceted affair of which we never remove the residue - except via chimeric means) a descent toward perdition, as measured by turbulence.
How this all works out (Janet's unwinding from Ben's positions) will be something to watch. But, the underlying models and methods are worthy of attention from a different angle. This work is imperatively important.
Disclosure: My degrees in Economics had a focus on Econometrics and the underlying discplines of Mathematics and Statistics. However, I spent my career working real problems in the areas supported by Engineering Computing. Now, I am getting back to the dismal-ness of Economics.