Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Big Ben, again

Moral: Wherein we consider that Big Ben's role is part of the problem; so too says the Vienna School.


Big Ben bought trashy, toxic assets before. He's going to again open up a landfill?

Big Ben seems to be getting to the star-role that Alan had for a long time. That he continues to sack the savers shows that something is awry with the current model.

We looked at money before (Money 1, Money 2). Right now, it has a basis not unlike some
game. 'Whose to blame' would be a set of large cardinality, yet we need to look at this before the buck dies (year old, yet it applies).

There are better ways. We have to hope for such though a lot of ink has been spent trying to define the way. If there is a better way, can we get there from here? Who would bear the brunt of the pain? Ah, something to discuss there.


von Mises, who has a lot more to offer to the middle position than he allowed himself to think, weighed in on how to get sound money. The trouble is that 'gold' is only one of many possible foundational elements. Also, gold has age-old, cultural problems (in use a long time; its extraction and processing is problematic to those who expend the labor; its storage is costly; ...).

It is solid. Trying to base a monetary system on something that is gas would give us what we have now: FED-aerated nonsense. So, we need something of substance that is beyond the arbitrary decision by committee, nowadays bolstered by advances in mathematics and computation, as the basis for money.


What might that basis be? Is it not worth discussing? Perhaps, a start might be to itemize the attempts, to date. We mentioned one earlier, a heterodox approach based upon energy. Trouble is, this method relies heavily on that which is suspect, heavy use of abstraction (and its main problem) and an elite (would this be problematic to Ludwig followers?) set for guiding all of the others.


03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino. Ah, guy!

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/26/2010 -- Continues the Greenspan Put (Rolling Stone).

11/21/2010 -- Need to remember John and Friedrich.

11/12/2010 -- Poor Big Ben, the world is beating on his clueless self.

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino?

11/05/2010 -- Early on, Ben blinked. Some thought that he was out of ammo. Is he tearing apart the structure in order to have something to throw at the target (chimera that it is)? Gosh, Ben, consider infrastructural issues, please. It's a house of cards. Trying to get the whole thing to collapse (note: the former collapse was because those who game money know what creeps that they deal with -- they only have to look in the mirror -- and, knowing this, they threw in the towel -- meanwhile, expecting (and receiving) their bonuses)?

11/04/2010 -- Oops. Does Big Ben consider possible negative effects that may ensue from his real-time experimentation with the systematics of what can be called 'the economy' as he ought? Or, does he know that he can have us bail out the situation, per usual?

11/03/2010 -- Fed's big gamble.

11/03/2010 -- The cost of safely moving products? Was this considered or did the model assume an ideal, and unrealistic, situation? Making it at home will become more feasible when the true costs are considered. Now, the goal? Define an economic model based upon all considerations required. Pure profit motives, and extreme cost cutting, has always been suspect and led to the current mode of colonialistic thinking. Ah, those CEO kings do want their unlimited kingdom and unfathomable bankrolls.

11/02/2010 -- One has to wonder how things would be now if Obama had just nationalized the banks when he took office. Why? It would have afforded a chance to look at the books, closely. Too, everyone would have paused. Those getting oodles of bucks would have screamed louder than they did (remember, bonuses?). The public has a short memory; just two years back it was the order of the day to rake in via trashy finance and then get a big reward. Yet, now the etiology of that expectation by the best-and-brightest has been lost sight of.

A related topic is the current state of the out-house'd, colonialistic framework of capitalism. That is, cargo coming into this country is wide-open, it seems, to mis-use. Wait! Was this not cost'd by the market as these methods were pushed out everywhere? No? Sheesh, is capitalism to always be short-sighted like this? That is, the pain is pushed to the hapless; and, pocket picking is not the only pain, folks.

What does that mean? Well, if you cannot guarantee safe delivery from across half of the world without expending money for security (which would then raise price, lower profit), then would not local development and delivery look more appealing? To think, the 'free' market people would evidently just let things run without security (how would the Libertarian handle security for other than themselves?).

Modified: 03/23/2012

No comments:

Post a Comment