Ben's blog II

Gosh, Ben is finally starting to sound like a blogger: Say it ain't so, Jack. In fact, I have to admit that I'm impressed.

Aside: I would be more so if he could see that some of us are "appalled" at some of his decisions from which we are still (and will be for awhile) suffering.

Now, you see, Ben's early things looked more like publications. How much help did he have? Well, actually, did he actually use the keyboard on this last effort?

From the beginning, here is the post count (all 2015): March (3), April (9), May (1), June (4). I read the first few (see my Remarks). In April, I had asked how long he would do this (well, he did wind down shortly after). But, as all bloggers know, this stuff takes work. Unless, one is just spouting off (to what audience?).

---

Wait! I started going back. He wrote on baseball, yesterday. Okay. But, then, the prior one is related to a story that I read. Yes, unfortunately, people have to spend oodles of time trying to second guess the oracle who has no clothes. What a sham!

But, he know the technicalities. Thanks for setting us straight, Ben.

---

Now, in the prior post, Ben talks inequality. Does he even know the word? I would argue that, from the position of near-zero, one cannot consider these matter without first addressing the conceptual basis of investor and stockholders as of primal concern. In my post, I skirted around many issues; with time, I will get to the proper discussion (for now, Ben says that he got stocks back to their trend; nice, Ben, but you did throw savers under the bus - this paragraph admits that).

In the meantime, keep converging toward blogger-ness, Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/27/2015

06/27/2015 -- In his post on inequality, Ben gloats, almost, the he got stock back to their inflated state. Earlier, I had said that he liked his index fund, way back in April of 2011. But, surely, Ben knows of the chimeric nature of the ca-pital-sino; or, does he? With his remarks about savers losing (which he admitted), he said that the pain was relatively less. Oh gosh. Ben, if you have $1, it would hurt worse to give up $0.50 than if you had $10, or $100, or, like we see with the fat cats, $1,000,000. What does 1/2 a buck mean to them? Ben claimed that interest bearing income was a small percentage of a retirees mix. Given that, then he could make his policy take that little bit. But, Ben, the future? Heard of that? Nice steady returns can build (to wit, my experience with Savings Bonds - 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. ). But, Ben nipped that. Fortunately, those bonds had been almost 30 years in existence before his ways drained, or started to drain, off the gains, minute as they were anyway -- Ben, gambling for the future? - Nash, you know, is not the oracle of all.) ... So much more to say. Ben really needs to consult with the likes of me (I know as much economics as does he - too, my world experiences are far beyond what he, nestled in the realms of power and academia, ever faced. --- Yes, the real world, Ben, that suffered under the downturn and then under your policies.).