First man (bank)

Moral: Wherein we re-look at Jamie (he deserves his own label) and his honesty.

---

Things have been quiet since Ben did his talking. But, you know that there is turmoil of several sorts going on. For one, a regional bank admitted that it sold mortgage-backed bonds for a big loss (millions). Better bite the bullet and let someone else have the 'toxic' asset, I suppose. And, the markets have been up and down, mostly due to Ben's largess and gaming. That whole scene (Chimera that it is) needs some toning down.

---

Earlier, Jamie bragged about being the last man standing. That raised some ire. Then, Jamie (see Jamie Posts) did an 'aw shucks' (see Remarks 01/16/2012) interview which seemed to brighten his image a little. At the time, was he looking for Timmy's job so he had to present other than his hot-shot, make-money-anyway-possible demeanor?

Then, today he steps up with some news. The tone was that they were going to look into this little problem of losing some money - heads will roll, he seems to imply. Jamie, why not use this as an opportunity to make Chase exemplary? Become the first bank to do so? Ah, bankers, class acts that they are.

Jamie and his peers at the rogue table

---

Let's look back at Jamie's bank and its history from another perspective. This is brief, but we need to deconstruct these modern (flim-flam) notions that are based upon an overly-confident attitude that we, through mathematics, science, and engineering (ah yes, STEM will save the world!), have made ourselves the master of the universe. Oh wait, it's only the finance types in their silly world, laying havoc for the rest, who think that?

Firstly, Jamie's bank (part of it) was named for a cousin-in-law (Salmon P. Chase). Wonder what the old guy would think of these modern shenanigans. Jamie talk his principles. What exactly are these (be first to the trough?, etc.)? Does he think that he could demonstrate these via Chase such that we can all marvel and exclaim Chase to be the paragon of banking virtue (yes, people, we need to run our money with monks, people of simple living, and the like -- betting, such as this news indicates, is adolescent -- wait, infantile is more appropriate -- did we not just clean up their dirty diapers?)?

Then, let's pick another old guy, cousin-in-law (George Peabody) who got the other part started. His piece of a common effort was taken over by J.P. Morgan after George retired. Of course, the Peabody connection went away (name, and all), but what else would we expect?

Again, what would George, who was beloved at death, think of the machinations that are allowed these days? And, this type of thing by what is, essentially, a utility (yeah, Jamie is the head of a service that is to provide for the commonweal)? Of course, even those utility types are acting up nowadays, too.

Both of these guys descend from early entrants to these shores. Are the dreams of their (our) ancestors (example) being fulfilled with the gaming of the chimera? Oh, some say, if we didn't, others would. Bogus argument, folks. American, the dream? Remember?

---

Again, why not make Chase the example of how banking ought to be done? These new instruments need to be under control and less opaque. Chase ought to help define the proper use (implying that there is an improper -- which is the current mode).

Jamie's little explanation hints at the casino aspect. Yes, hedges (on whose behalf?) gone awry. Where, pray tell, is the science of finance? Engineering? Looks more to be ad-hoc, playground activity albeit with the livelihoods, and savings, of those who most need a solid utility function (banking as infrastructure - not a source for exorbitant incomes leading to mansions, et al.).

Remarks:


12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

05/22/2012 -- We can let Jamie off the hook a little and for awhile.

05/14/2012 -- From several reports, it seems that Jamie is a talker, as in pulls the wool over "populist's" eyes. Too, he probably back-slaps, as well. That is one characteristic trait needed for those who would be 'kings' as we see with the CEOs. And, there was justification for the idiocy. Ah, they wanted to get returns greater than the cost of capital. Idiots. Ben is giving them almost free money. So, that's no excuse. As well, any take larger than a reasonable amount (already discussed and to be discussed further) is onerous to the 'populace' over whose eyes the wool has been pulled. 'near zero' is what it has been called here.

05/11/2012 -- Supposedly, the futures show some impact from the revelation. Yet, the big bucks (hedge funds, et al -- yes, Mitt needs to awaken to the issues) want opaque (they seem to love lemons - except for when these come back to bite, like this) dealings, and  more. Cover for shenanigans if truth were known (yes, fictitious - thank you, Karl -- too, Warren steps warily around these stupidities).

Modified: 01/02/2016

Last man

Moral: Wherein we look at one of the egos in banking. No, not Big Ben. (See Remarks 04/02/2011, about one future direction)

---

Jamie Dimon is at it again. Daniel Gross has a nice overview.

---

Okay, Jamie, I don't know much about you. That's my fault. I know people who have money in your bank, for their reasons.

You see, they are in the rank of the savers. The chimera, where Big Ben wants them to go? It's a casino, guy. But, then, you know that.

Too, you have taken in your share, as have your buddies.

---

The fact? You and your kind owe a whole lot to the saving type, except Big Ben has stacked things in your favor.

To what extent? Well, there are many in the saver ranks. For just one of these types of customers, you (and your ilk) are in the person's pockets for several hundreds of thousands during the time of these troubles. I'm not talking a stock-holder, either. So do the multiplication across the rank of the savers. The magnitude of what you, and yours, owe these people is tremendous indeed.

But, then, guess what? They bought your toxic assets, to boot, as taxpayers. So, it's a double-whammy, at least.

---

What people need to remember is that, as the news of good things come about (namely, from the sunshiny view of your type), the loss by the most conservative bunch portends more about the reality of things than do those related to the glories of the financial idiots (and politicians) who are playing games with our future.

Many of the saving group are at the stage in their lives when they cannot recover the losses that your ilk have caused, and are causing. Of course, does that mean anything to you?

---

Wait! Did I not hear some notion that you guys expect big returns (almost, by definition? - see Irish article below)?

Yes, we need to get finance away from its belief in aeration and perpetual motion.

---

Folks, remember Ireland (When Irish Eyes Are Crying) and many other countries that bought into what the idiots were selling? Jaime must want to get back upon that leveraging wagon which rolled down the slope to the crash.

Did we learn the proper lessons from all this trouble of late?

Remarks:

01/15/2013 -- Force quiescence on the thing, regularly.

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time.

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

07/12/2011 -- Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).

06/22/2011 -- This is Jamie's bank?

06/14/2011 -- Lil Jaime is at it again. Nuance'd? Give me a break.

04/27/2011 -- Oh, poor Big Ben, so misunderstood (points to a blog). Look, guy, if you had not sacked the savers, you would be looking like a hero now.

04/20/2011 -- Simple living (see Remarks 04/15/2011 - game theory), as opposed to greediness.

04/15/2011 -- Boo hoo, BofA. You've been stiffing savers for the past few years as you suckled at the big teat of the FED. That is, we gave you free money. How will you survive when Big Ben finally tries to wean you and your ilk?

04/14/2011 -- We ought to have nationalized the bunch. Cowtowing to them (thanks, little Timmy) reinforces their egotistical notions of their necessity and worth.

04/04/2011 -- Gross seems to know (link gone -- remarks to Reuters) the bankers well. Note that Big Ben (from our pockets) gave them (while sacking the savers) oodles of free money.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

04/02/2011 -- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

If we're going to have Adam Smith as a Prophet of capitalism, we ought to listen to a (almost) contemporary, namely George Berkeley (ghost of departed quantities, indeed). Not April (rather, another type of) fool. Imagine this. Someone letting you have $900,000 using your $100,000 house as collateral (10% rather than the 7% thought reasonable by Jamie). That, folks, is an example of the type of thinking that is integral to our current, aerated, concept of what money is, or ought to be. Now, of course, stacking debt allows a basis for the casino activity (financial) that has become so pervasive, enriching the few (those who get bailed out) while impoverishing the many (those who bail out). ... The real rub? These people believe that their crap does not stink. Let me tell you guys the truth: to high heaven, tis!

04/01/2011 -- That these are idiots is not an April fool (unfortunately).

Modified 01/20/2013

Chimera, again

Moral: Wherein we stop to reflect, now that the chimera's sirens are calling again to the hapless to put their money on a shaky foundation since Big Ben continues with his sacking of the savers and with his infatuation with collecting toxic assets (see Remarks, 02/01/2011).

--

As such a move may imply more effort than the mere look back, to wit 7oops7 and truth engineering, which could be claimed to be a space-filler, though we did earlier succumb to the temptation.

--

There have been some recent developments that need to be considered. So, we'll be getting to those. For now, here's a list.

• From a technical sense (read Quants), the SOS approach looks to overcome a whole lot of problems involved with complexity which exacerbate some basic issues. Yet, using an intuitive approach (which is suspect in certain circles), one has to think that projections squish some part of reality (we'll get to how, and why, the best-and-brightests' overlay on the rest of the populace grates) while lifts trample (due to the assumptions that go into such -- oh, by the way, the chimera is an example of a 'lift').
• The FCIC. Oh, much to say about this (see 2008 (4 posts) bullet). Wait, did the committee finger the contributions of King Alan and Big Ben? Too, mania can be used; it was fostered by giddy belief in the gilded wizards of the modern age.
• China will continue to play a large role. The combined count of the impoverished there, and in India, is double the population of the US. Yet, we envy them. Of course, is our house clean (next bullet)?
• In November, the voters went red, again. We are now under the regimes thereby elected. Are any of us angels? On the other hand, does anyone even think about beyond reproach, anymore? This story tells many tales. It is 'nuf just to point to it.
• ...
• See Remarks: Also, the issue of value/worth (and money) is still open (Davidowitz' take). Anyone for culprits? Anything done for the systemic issues?
• ...

Remarks:

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

08/04/2012 -- I can hear it: with the DOW over 13K, what are you talking about using 'chimera'? Well, look at the dire warnings, for one. Are you looking at FB as a poster boy? We'll get technical and explain the problem. Do we have a solution, at this time? Yes, essentially.

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

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

03/23/2011 -- The hopes spring, again, forgetting, of course, near-zero, all because of M&M. See the real story. But, Big Ben ought to know better.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

02/01/2011 -- Davidowitz says that the Fed is driving people toward the riskier side. We know where that leads, namely bigger fill for the pockets of those who run the game. Granted, these types can then spend, yet with the majority of the populace enslaved by chains of debt (including that yoke which is on the whole country), does that a sustainable economy make?

Modified: 10/05/2012

Fragile, built on faith

Moral: Wherein we look at a missed opportunity that would have dampened high gains (greed), provided oversight to the best and brightest (Lordly Princes), and helped understand better some of the ideological problems of capitalism whose 'casino' is best evidence that this is not the way of reasonable folks, with all due respect for Adam Smith whose ideas have been used for building a Ca-pital-sino (the system migrates to inflationary schemes to the detriment of the people).

---

What was the missed opportunity? A chance to rein in the bankers.

Essentially, learning that the consequences of nationalizing the banks, at the time, may have been less severe than what we hear the experts argue. Why? The whole system seems to be for the fat cats.

Oh, now we learn that they are 'fragile' (chimera) and 'built on faith' (ours). Yet, pay, again, is coming forward as an issue (those fatties will continue their ways until we wake up).

It was said before, several times, that we missed a big opportunity.

• Big Ben, again --Remarks, 11/02/2010. Such would allowed time to audit, analyze, pause, listen to the wailing of the fatties, and then restart. There is, folks, no sane argument that says that such an experiment would not have given us a big empirical boost in understanding better the current imbalances.
• Suckers and sackers --Brief mention of what we might have learned.
• Big Ben reigns --Thoughts on the subject around the time of the State of the Union speech.
• Gravy train I -- Asking the question: how else can we get the sucking pumps to cease?
• Ill-begotten gains -- Noting that what actually happened was a collection of returns gamed with our money.
• Bankers III -- Since the current bosses showed their lack of clothing, why the hell are they allowed to keep playing their crooked game?

---

Now, to be aware of the ensuing discussions, what exactly is 'nationalizing' and how would it work? Well, there could have been many flavors. As we move away from the time of the lost opportunity, we can look back at what happened, rue the continuance of the shell games, and talk about possible re-fits that would make more sense.

Thankfully, the forums for this type of discussion are open. What is wrong and what to do about it are not easy issues. Yet, we need to stop and mourn the fact that we did not get to see any other way pursued than that already put into place by the fat cats (who have been given free reign, it seems, to influence the future through their monies).

Those at the top are the 'best' of humanity? Give us a break!

Big Ben got an audit. Isn't that nice?

Remarks:

12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. He's helped the chimera unfold in unhealthy ways. He could, at least, say a mea culpa.

03/11/2012 -- We'll use Alan more this year.

08/05/2011 -- In case there is a need to be more obvious (the meme: the chicken or the egg -- below), which is the oldest profession: head-butt or mate. Note, if you would, that the latter is usually preceded by the former, in many cases.

08/03/2011 -- There are several ways to ponder economics within an evolutionary framework. However, starting with the two (no, not one) 'oldest' professions might be of interest: head-butting (see Remarks 07/29/2011) and, then, that which is usually cast as the oldest. Which came first (the meme: the chicken or the egg)?

04/20/2011 -- Prof Black, UMKC School of law, on the immunity policy. If these guys' thing is so fragile, why the hell do they pull out (greedily - every bank, and financial type, ought to have to take an oath of simple living (proxy for a vow of poverty)) so much money in bonuses and other perks? Jamie, explain that to me, please! ... We'll get back to the nationalization bit, and what it might mean, as we expand the technical framework. After all, the whole definition of money is based upon a governmental view (as Big Ben will tell you). Pursuit of happiness by taking from others was not what the Founders meant (apropos since now the buck is the de facto standard, hence, our principles ought to weigh in).

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

01/19/2011 -- For the most, things are dire, not by necessity.

01/01/2011 -- One basic problem is that systems are in place, and in development, whose consequences are not scrutinized beyond their ability to fill certain pockets. Oh, let the boys play. Is that the attitude? While, all around, our butts, and those of our progeny for generations, are sliding further into the mud. Way to go, smart guys and gals.

Modified: 12/06/2013

Bankers IV

Moral: Wherein given that it's the year-end, everyone wants to reflects on what was and what might have been. Trouble is, it's a decade cusp, to boot, so figure that the reviews, of many types, will continue. Bankers are only one of several topics to cover.

---

Ah, bankers made it big over the decade, the fat-cat variety anyway. Those too big to fail, that is; all sorts of littler (and some not so little) banks failed.

Who are these bankers? Well, they are those Ben loves to help. Evidently, so does Obama despite his 60 Minutes little bit of rhetoric. Supposedly, bankers are the heart of the economy which doesn't exist, by the way. How? Oh, they move the money, thereby causing trickle down to the mere citizen.

By the way, did they stage their heart attack in order to screw the taxpayer? Why are they necessary?

Those are a couple of a very large set of good questions that could be asked.

So, bankers began their role as the bean counter and money exchanger. In the former role, they provided some type of security, except the bad guys were always good at riffling the safe. Too, what they took in and gave out was very much fluid (money, itself, an issue) due to political exigencies. Ben knows all about these issues. In the latter role, the banker learned how to play off differences (a type of arbitrage) between their clients and their monies. Also, they excelled at leveraging using that which is described by the grand old notion of multiplier effect (ultimately, we were all gab standard'd). Again, this thing is central to Ben's history.

So, in various ways, bankers became central. Yet, they lost their honesty. It became more important to get hugely monied so as to allow enormous bonuses and to support lavish lifestyles. The lowly saver was sacked way back. Remember, it was more important to allow the best-and-brighest a loose leash.

Not only are they central, some are considered too big to fail.

Have we lost sight of the utility aspect? Did we allow ignorance of near zero to eclipse a proper evolution of the function?

Modified:

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

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

Modified: 12/02/2010

Bankers III

Moral: Wherein one has to question if there is such a thing as an honest banker upon whom the consumer can rely and to ask this question seriously.

----

So, we may not have 'The Economy' but do have some economic reality to contend with. For instance, we know that there is the utilitarian role for banks that is necessary in a modern society. Then, there's the whole thing of banks being creative, misusing financial engineering, and then getting into trouble.

We also all know how the taxpayers are always bailing out the system and losing in the game, though the vast majority of those taxpayers have to scrape by on next to nothing in order to support the 'fat cat' (thanks, President Obama) lifestyle of the best and brightest.

What can be so hard about this stuff, folks? Where has gone common sense? Actually, in light of the current season, where has gone human decency in business?

Actually, in retrospect, we probably ought to have just nationalized these financial entities, straightened them out, and then re-started the game with better oversight. We'll be looking at that further, through time (hopefully, in a hypothetical sense only).

But, for now, let's just re-iterate some of the types of malfeasance that we see with banks. All of the below is paraphrasing but can be sourced easily by web searches.

• Big pay and bonuses - especially is this grating when one entity (actually several) would have been bankrupt without our assistance. Why then the pay for them? Do they not know that both bond holders and equity stackholders have lost oodles due to their manipulations that aren't any better morally than old Madoff's fun and games?
• Picking on the little folk - we all know about the $35 fine for a $10 overspending (those who push payday loans - $15 for $100 -- love this story). However, how about banks trying to rook widows ought of their due. What? Yes, manipulating the situation in order to keep money that may be in IRAs (and CDs) and that was left by the woman's husband for her.
• Hovering like vultures (over the dead peasant) - okay, that animal provides a prime role in clean up, however when did the Insurance industry get so crazy as to allow banks to hold life policies (from the 02/09 time frame, needs to be updated) for someone who does not even work for them any longer? Of course, it's not just banks, as there seem to be many financial minds that want to pick the bones of the hapless dead.
• Mortgage morphing - how about a bank (okay, a mortgage handler, yet of the same ilk) selling out to a 'shark' when the mortgagee is undergoing the trial by using a loophole in the Treasury wording? Here's an example. Home sold in the 300K. Now worth 99K. Sold for 78K to a shark who then is foreclosing. If the firm can take that loss, why not give the homeowner a new mortgage at an intermediate value? Like 150K, or so? Near zero says only close to win-win, but this would be a good example.

Remarks:

02/12/2013 -- We ought to have nationalized these guys' playground.

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

05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.

01/22/2010 -- Bankers IV. Plus, Lordly Prince.

12/21/2009 -- Never easy: Redos failing + underwater'd + some walk + should they? + can they?

Modified: 02/12/2013

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

The Bankers I

Moral: Wherein we have to ask: how hard can this role be? The banker one, that is.

--

Let us see. In the old days (1800s or so), the banker was the guy in the suit who exuded some aura of stability and who stood up for the right. You know, the backbone of the community. Oh, wait, that was some caricature from the movies. Actually, in some westerns, the bankers cowered as bullying bad guys shot up the town and ran off with the bank's safe (or its contents).

There are some real tales, though, of the town's people helping save a bank, such as Northfield, MN and Coffeyville KS. This is real stuff, folks, and there are probably many other examples from frontier stories. How many such stories will there in the future be about these times?

We now have bankers that think that their rates (way beyond usurious -- 29% and above) are not so bad because they're legitimate (that is a long story and will require more analysis at some point, gosh, thanks Lawmakers, way to go). For now, these same bankers are sending out their (somewhat CYA-ish) letters about the new rules which will be in effect soon. The tone of the letter is ominous, actually it's irritating. What makes them think that we want their money (or credit) anyway?

For instance, one may be on their rolls because some merchant company decided to out-house its accounts receivable processing. Oh, we know, that was considered a step up at the time of the decision. Except, it was not in many cases. Have we not heard, of late, that all sorts of decisions were less than what we would expect of those who (ought to) think about fiduciary duty? How much fraud has been associated with this type of out-housing? Does anyone know? What cut does the bank take? That is, are the merchants making as much as they thought that they would?

There are all sorts of banker types to look at. Even Big Ben is one, albeit somewhat indirectly as his academic self has been thrust into a role of managing our trust (yes, of the American people) and of trying to control all those who want their fingers to be in the pot. Sorry state of affairs, one might think, yet we supposedly have the best system, since the industry is so full of the best and brightest.

We'll get back to all this soon and look at how banking ought to be and not to be (not be involved, at all, with casino capitalistic gaming, for instance). Of course, there will be a look at what is, to boot.

Remarks:

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

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

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.

10/30/2009 - Of course, we're just doing a little jaw-boning, in the beginning. Listen to these following views from FT. Gives one pause.

• Banks borrowing at 0 and making oodles - some of which they want to pay out as dividends or bonuses (we know, two different types of payouts), yet, the economy is in the dumpers except for a few fat cats who are rolling in their take.
• Big Ben redefining profligacy - he ought to have unwound long ago, we thought. Ah, yes, someone said, oh, yes, Alan, finance is at the heart of the economy. Oh, that's the particular physiological piece? We thought differently.
  

Modified 12/24/2009