The Bankers II

Moral: Where we have several topics to discuss, yet, in regard to this ilk.

---

Why bankers? Well, it has been allowed to develop that these types rule the roost (see below). What? How can this be? Their derivatives are suspect, versus those ideas (of great utilitarian value) that are built upon the work of Newton. They maneuver the game's rules for their advantage (to wit, those letters now being distributed). That 'game' is used, in this context, suggests the reality of casino capitalism. That 'too big to fail' is a common concept points to bloat beyond any natural semblance, oh yes, the dead carcass of a beached whale might come to mind (but, they're still raking in the dough!).

Tech Ticker had someone from FT talking about the bailout that has unfolded in the recent year. To paraphrase, we, the taxpayers, have lent, via Big Ben and his infinite wisdom, to bankers by opening the pot of our gold; these bankers could not resist the temptation to extract (that's from our pockets - a less-than-zero reality for us, forget near zero) huge chunks (at zero interest). Then, these bankers make money off our gift and turn around with thoughts to distribute to their share holders and themselves (via bonuses) these smelly gains (they are not real gains, folks - new types of book cooking abound).

Too, they have not emphasized what might be needed to get the economy going which is one role for bankers. Somehow, the siren song related to markets (and their manipulation) has become the major focus (opinion, of course, but likely to be sustained through analysis).

Oh, wait, it's not the bankers' faults. No, they're just naturally exploiting the situation since they can! Yet, the situation has many factors of which some are very much related to what banks have argued for, and done, in the recent past.

Ah, twisted, indeed. How do we unravel the mess? It's not impossible, folks.

Remarks:

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/19/2009 -- Dead peasant, indeed.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/10/2009 -- It's interesting to see 'fiction' used in connection with banking. Old Karl, he who never left, would love that.

12/09/2009 -- The Street loves Ben who loves 'em back: The Street utterly loves the Fed's largess, earning massive profits from trading unstable currencies, the carry trade (borrow short-term dollars near zero, buy longer-term assets abroad), and the high-margin process of transferring America's capital abroad.

11/10/2009 -- Glass-Steagall, again. Why not? Also, more on the gab standard.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

11/01/2009 -- Goldman Sachs, bankers taking a low road.

Modified: 01/03/2010