Playing for what? Insight?

Moral: Wherein we consider this: why does the banker (read, the new type as market player - where is there a real banker?) have so much power (besides having a pot load of money to buy power -- remember Jamie's recent little chat with friends?)?

---

I feel like old Rip again, except this time it was more disbelief (which can be outlined, in time). The Washington Post had an article on members of Congress using information that comes their way, evidently because of their position, to play the market (characterization based upon this point of view). As we know, the chimera of the ca-pital-sino has a very strong appeal, to many.

Not to all, and that is the message to expand here. But, Congress has given itself this right to play for a long time.

---

The dissonance comes from having worked for the government and for ethical companies. To see certain types (albeit stars in their own minds -- and in some others) keep their options (pun intended) open without regard to how it may be ethically is disconcerting, to say the least. As the one review says, Congress has seen to it that the Executive branch employees have had their scrutiny. Why not itself?

---

Well, in this case, there is justification due to ca-pital-sino's appeal. As we know, capitalism has descended to gaming, essentially.

The esteemed members of the Legislative branch can then claim that they will learn (about the lives of their constituents?) from playing the market. That might be partly true, after all the gamers are part of their citizen set. But, it sure looks like the classic example of pigs (ruling set, as one comment suggested) at a trough.

---

Of course, it's not the whole bunch, as the numbers seem to be less than a third. Since this group, for the most part, is open to public scrutiny, it's time for questions to be asked. Thanks to the WP for looking into the matter.

According to the comments, the article struck a chord with many. OWS ought to pay attention.

Remarks:

06/26/2012 -- We have citizens risking life and limb for the freedom of the few to game the system? A lot of the awry (obvious everywhere) can be directly attributed abuse of knowledge (power) and misuse of our mathematical advancements (actually, pushing them beyond their basis) in order to gain rewards for the few (meanwhile, spreading the loss to the most). The concept: near zero (any accumulation to one large pocket pulls from many more smaller ones).

Modified: 06/26/2012

Banker?

Moral: Wherein we consider, just what does a banker do?

Gosh, we've been giving Ben so much grief that we've seem to have forgotten the real culprits. Jamie brings this back to focus.

---

So, let me tell a tale, somewhat disjointedly. We'll pull things together, in time.

There is a local bank with whom I've dealt for over 10 years, that is until a few years ago. It was a nice little bank, locally owned and all. Then, about 2004, they got new management and started on the merger and acquisition trail.

Now, remember that 'M&A' still is being pursued but recall, too, that these types of deals diminished when the 'boys' took their balls home (as in, they all knew that the games were crooked; who could they trust (they knew that if everyone was like themselves, then the answer would have been nobody (lemons, essentially) at all) to deal with?). Well, the main guy loomed large with his photo in the paper. They're grabbing more banks and approaching an entity that has over $1B in assets (yes, billion).

My reactions were severalfold. For one, this same guy was arguing that they would become a State bank in order to get out from under certain types of scrutiny. Oh yes, be part of the little guys. Too, they hired someone from OCC to be part of their staff.

Aside: I found out that this bank had their proverbial thumb on the scale in calculating returns. I was only a depositor at the bank. Didn't even have a checking account. Okay, I was making money using their bank, yet they are the ones who advertised the deal. Anyway, for a few months, I watched as divergence built in accumulative returns, compared to several other banks with whom I dealt. Note, please, that as a retiree, I was being cautious in scrutinizing returns in order to firm up projections. Lo and behold, these guys were playing unfairly. I called them on it. They threw me and my money out. Without any forewarning. I received an envelope with checks written on all accounts closing them out. Hey, debtors get better (have more rights) than that! I made the rounds of the institutions that are supposedly supportive of the consumer (before the new deal, okay). The state org, FDIC, and OCC. Now, OCC got from them some diatribe about me as a harasser. What? I banked with them for 10 years prior to their reaction to scrutiny of a customer. But, management had changed. So, the whole atmosphere was different. Then, OCC says (essentially, acknowledging the validity of my evidence), sue them. What (again)? Me, a small investor take on someone who has (at the time) multi-hundreds of millions in assets? So, I let it drop and have been quietly watching.

Oh yes, it was gleeful to see them line up to the TARP trough.

Then, I noticed this year the thing about being a State bank in order to have less scrutiny. Also, I hear that they want to merge with a bank in another state? That is, is not that interstate banking and beyond one state's purview?

---

Oh well, I read the boss' explanation. Oh yes, he says, merging has benefit from his level. What about his lowly depositor? You see, all sorts of 'M&A' has been going on because the best and brightest know that they can do it and can pull the wool over the eyes of the Feds (yes, Ben, you) and others. Yet, what benefit is there to the depositor?

Remember what happened to this depositor?

There are many questions of this sort. From where I sit, these guys are using banking as a playground to tweak their ego. I liked the bank better when they were almost a county bank with a few ATMs and little branches.

Now, the guy is trying to be Jamie II. What gives with this? I'm serious, folks, in my questioning.

Is not banking a mere utility mostly, to help us handle our beans and need for beans? Of course, 'our' can be at several levels, yet even commercial banking does not require the 'M&A' mania.

---

Enough for now.


Remarks:

01/14/2013 -- Will Jamie be taking a pay cut? He was the highest paid last time around. He also was the one saying that they could "police" themselves, that was no need for oversight. He got one thing right in a recent interview. He said that with the "whale" problem, people were running around like children. Their concern was not fixing some problem. No, the worry as about the problem's impact on their career. Ah, career. We'll have to go into that. Most people are not effective a most things. Unfortunately, those who are effective carry these folks along. Always has been like that. Jamie needs to consider that he is not, as he may think in him mind, of the effective set.

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.

06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics. 

Modified: 01/14/2013

Money and technology

Moral: Wherein we let the IEEE Special Report on the Future of Money get us back to looking at beans and money.

---

After all, those subjects being covered by the IEEE collection pertain to all of ours' future (to wit, the recent stumble). Not just those with massive accumulations (ostensibly, the best and brightest). I will need to revisit some of those articles here (later).

---

Meanwhile, a few thoughts on the matter suffice.

• One oversight, about which I'll approach IEEE, is how to explain 'fiat money' and not. Yes, money is an abstraction. We modern folks like our abstraction-phile-ness. We have carried it to far, way beyond attachment to being (give me time, not a simple issue).
• Yet, engineers abstract about real things (or about models that are eventually about real things). Ah, like leveraging? Not really. Why? Any point, their work gets back to nature (or Creation, if you would - it's an either/or issue, as Hitch knows). Money? Purely flim-flam (we're get there, too; it's a fact the big people do not want the populace to awaken).  
• IEEE, why didn't you talk about some natural analog (for one thing)? Sheesh, you guys are engineers. Just because we now have computational modeling and higher-order gaming via technology behind our 'beans and money' (and the 'markets' based upon these) does not make it anything more than a very shaky chimera.
• Stiglitz says that the American Dream is a myth. He's right on the bifurcation that has formed. See Rick's thoughts on the matter (and some consequences). 
• Another dichotomous relationship is between those who want it all and those who can live within their means (evidently, we've seen that most of the modern countries cannot do this). Of course, from some angles, the former may look smarter as they play with the lives of the latter (ah, one definition of royalty?). 
• One has to appreciate Tolstoy's remark: (see Remarks, 12/02/07) how much does one man need (by the way, Lev Nikolayevich was a class act as opposed to some)? 
• It's good to see engineers (beyond those of the financial idiocy) think of these matter; perhaps, they'll bring in some needed rationality. 
• Might add that one grating thing was that there was nothing about additional properties of 'money' (oh, you mean like? Can't buy me love, etc.). Wait, engineers don't deal with those things. Yet, they're willing to allow computer support for what is essentially pilfering (high-speed trading)?  

---

One thing about the modern age is that about every aspect of life has been superposition'd with some abstract'd thing which then goes back to Turing's foundation'l view (this is Alan's year). And, do not many consequences ensue (such as, the stress on STEM and numeracy as if that were what we need, solely)? Ah, so! The following may be beyond the pale of IEEE, but not of the scientific foundations that underlie the work. Ever wonder why the recent infatuation with zombie'ism (and states thereof)? Ever consider that it is our computational prowess that has led us down this path toward perdition?

Oh wait. The topic is money. Note, one article briefly touched upon was a role for 'money' (whatever is it) that was beyond the 'economic' usefulness. Yes, very briefly. That ought to be expanded upon, to boot.

Remarks:

07/25/2015 -- We're about six weeks after the June look back at 800 years ago (Magna Carta). Too, though, poster boys have popped out of the woodwork, including Zweig.

07/30/2013 -- The future: economy and technology.

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.

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.

08/03/2012 -- So, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero). Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

07/21/2012 -- Another thing uncovered, gaming of LIBOR.

06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics. 

Modified: 07/25/2015

Got the crash wrong?

Moral: Wherein we try to see why tranche on tranche and bubbling did not attribute to the crash.

In particular, we'll use a The Atlantic article: How we got the crash wrong. William D. Cohan, the author, acknowledges, as do many of the comments, that the leverage ratio was high. However, he sees incentives as being more of a factor, as in providing a motivation for the 'gaming' which is so problematic.

---

Well, in a world of fiat money, what do we know anyway? The whole thing is mostly just blips on screens with databases as support. But, then, how do we get away from 'funny' money? Ben can't say.

Yet, even that the basis is nothing but 'promise' and such; we need to limit what types of limbs are defined and how far people go out them (as in, out on a limb).

---

This post is mainly for completion as we covered 'leverage' in all three blogs: here, 7oops7, truthengineering. It is the "perpetual motion machine" (in other words, farcically proposed and used to dupe).

So, the article provides another view to consider.


Remarks:


03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

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.

06/14/2012 -- The same issue had this article which we'll get back to (CSI: Housing Bust). It details some of the culprit'ry. Financiers are a whole other class. Evidently, the mania about risk forever hogtied left a lot of room for playing around (Jamie is still under its spell).

06/05/2012 -- Yes, something for nothing, essentially. Without limiting bounds (it seems), who can say this: stop, it's becoming unreal (meaning what?)? Fairy dusting. Except, we do see 'real' things being done despite all of the noise.

Modified: 03/05/2013

Facebook, again

Moral: Wherein we let Jamie be for a bit and re-look at Facebook.

Note (11/18/2022) -- FB, now Meta, is following predictable tracks. We'll be observing and commenting more closely, from outside the monolith, of course. See Remarks, below. Also, the posts that get references in this work will be cleaned up (normal little typos, stale pointers, etc.). 

---

In another context, we started to consider Facebook's potential for showing us the future. Well, the context changed of late. Notwithstanding all of the hype and criticism, there are realities to consider. It looks as if FB might be a better poster boy (yes, Zuck) than is that old thing run by Jamie (but, maybe not, if we keep seeing things like this blog post -- 31 billion?).

---

All along, we've pointed to articles in posts. Many of these, as we all know by now, can become stale, disappear, or turn out to be bogus and much more. So, we'll take a different tack from now on. The image shows headlines, today, on the Yahoo Finance page. Notice that it talks about other-than-clear activities. Yes, FB might want our information; how much is there that we ought to see beneath its opaque 'face' (pun intended to mean that we are all  much more than our faces -- FB's basic shortcoming)?

Well, given the IPO, we'll have to watch how these things unfold. The young guy ought not to have followed that ca-pital-sino route. Oh well.

---

One cartoon this weekend shows Zuck and his father gleefully filling a large bag of money. Didn't read the caption. Just thought about how so many (and, folks, these people have been arguing this idiocy for a couple of centuries now) see capitalism (and this type of thing as its greatest form) as the epitome. Of course, who says such nonsense (yes, Wall Street -- what you and your ilk propound) is 'capitalism' as it ought to be for a sustainable economy?

---

With FB as a focal point, we'll have a whole bunch of things to talk about.

• infrastructure - people, if you look around, you'll see that the physical infrastructure has decayed. It's frightening, from several angles. Now, FB (Zuck's little thing) is part of a new type of infrastructural entity. Look, its role is really very similar to what we expect from banks. They handle our beans and pennies. The computational thingees will handle our information, communication, and much more. So, Zuck, you believe that your thing provides more than sur-face value to our needs?
• IPO - or, milking the system. For any of these, those who are part of the system reap big rewards, usually (ought we hope that Morgan Stanley (yes, Peabody is on the ancestor list here, too) eats a little here?). Then, the hapless see the (legal, do I really need to explain this?) milking as justification for their type of mischief.   
• so what?  - FB comes from a mind not far out of high school. What is that thing we've read? Cognitive holes don't fill in until later, and with experience (actually, some never seem to fill in). I can only wonder how little Zuck's mindset has been influenced by his first big project's dynamics. You see, Google was more an exercise of a graduate-school level mind. And, it does operate some fairly sophisticated algorithms. FB? Perhaps, with added visibility provided by the 'public' ownership, we'll see more. However, look for this theme being explored further.  
• fictional money - nod here to an old guy from the 1800s who is vilified. But, Zuck's riches are paper, unless he can sell all of his holdings at his price to the lackless (hey, wait! -- didn't banks just do that to us the taxpayers?) who will then be left holding the bag. Think of the above-mentioned bag. First of all, the money is Ben's little faux set of beans. Secondly, even if it's removed by several degrees from reality, the 'money' represents some value that has 'reality' behind it. Just what is it about FB that draws so much of these bucks? That idiots and their money soon part, or such? 
• computability - and, I might add, issues of the singularity. From a proper view, FB is only a little step in a very long trek. Of course, a survey of all of the capable thingees that are out and about nowadays makes one marvel (look at ieee.org and the contributors, please). Yet, a whole lot of promise has not been fulfilled. Can it without some type of architectural viewpoint (to be discussed) coming into focus?
• yes, no - The USA Today editorial, and the opposing view, offer a nice look. Some things that FB provides: soapbox (love this), interaction (rather than passive consumption), representation (personal or even for an organization), ... We'll look at these things further.  
• ...

---

These thoughts are offered within a framework of looking at how we can sustain ourselves while at the same time leaving a manageable world for our offspring, more than one generation out (okay?).

Remarks:

11/17/2022 -- See Quora, Psychether for a discussion that will use these concepts as point-in-time observations. 

04/09/2015 -- We need to get back to the metaphor issue.

10/08/2014 -- Many, many metaphors.

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

10/13/2012 -- The FB experience is some analog of spectral (of the spectrum) experience that is beyond the visible. FB (and the delivering technology) handle the non-visible element. Or, do they?

10/04/2012 -- 1B users, give or take.

08/04/2012 -- So, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero). Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

05/27/2012 -- Cuban's take and $13.80 as the price

Modified: 11/18/2022

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

Response I: Ah, Ben!

Moral: Wherein we start a response series to Ben's (Ben, Ben, ..., yes, opinion from over a year ago - prescience?) re-look at the crisis (Lecture 1, Lecture 2, Lecture 3, Lecture 4) that he cast'd in the light of his own image and likeness.

---

Thanks to George Washington University for hosting the talks. The four talks were very instructive in that they allowed Ben to lay out his thinking for us to see.

---

So, it's time to begin a response sequence. The thing is that Ben has no idea from whence comes my criticism as I'm too far removed from his world. Perhaps, though, my efforts can help explain the issues in a manner that is amenable to most and in a way that is too much overlooked as the larger-than-life pursue what is more illusion than many would allow.

---

So, Ben, your little joke (Lecture 4) about the printing press not being used (there are moments, Ben, captured on video of you, yourself, joking about your virtual press) as if to argue that those who dislike his largess are off the wall (it wasn't amusing, Ben). You see, people, Ben does not have real money anyway. Look at your buck. It's merely a promise for the Fed, and Ben, to pay something. Of what value is that little piece of paper? Well, considering that Ben opened the flood gates for a credit deluge, it's worth a whole lot less than a few years ago.

Too, Ben waved his hands about 'unwinding' (response to a question, Lecture 4). Oh yes, he knows that he can force those with the money to comply. At what cost to the rest of us, though, is the question.

---

Ben, too, tells us that he'll continue the 'put' made famous by King Alan. He says that we can't overlay all of this creative finance with anything rational (beyond bastardized game theory). No, there is no chance to try to be scientific (of course, we all know how 'dismal' is economics) he seems to suggest. Ben, you need to reconsider that matter. Of course, in doing so, would you go beyond the little world of the Fed and its funny money?

---

There is a lot to cover, but, for starters, let's just go back to three and one-half years ago. It was before the elections. Bailouts had started. Things were strange. Yet, the writing was clear on the wall. All three of these were written during September of 2008.

• Fraud and truth -- based upon an external view, as in, other than finance. As well, a view from the trenches, with an engineering focus. So, there was none of the mucky-muck influence. In essence, there is reason to 'hedge' (we all do it, in one form or other). Speculation, on the other hand, is grossly inequitable and is not necessary (except for the fat cats who need to continue to line their pockets, mainly so that they can farm out handling their necessities -- as in, those who sh** on the world, and its inhabitants).
• Doers and speculators -- there is more than one way to partition this thing. The point? Somehow, the modern way with  money (whatever it is) has allowed very unhealthy, and very unsustainable, ways to develop. Actually, they have gone way too far (and for way too long), most likely due to people not knowing what was happening. Some of the rhetoric of the 'occupy' set, though, seems to suggest that there is a type of cognizance. Yet, we deal with the 'lords' (all types) and their power in these matters. The 2012 elections, with open-ended influence by the richer, are going to be telling to observe (to wit, these posts were written prior to the last election). 
• The times -- yes, a brief list that is not so hard to understand. Nor, are these items without some means for their accomplishment. The real barriers come from those who are already entrenched in their goodies (and ways to sustain them) and their machinations to prevent what is required to come forth. 

The other day, Ben just winked, somewhat, at the idiocies that he sees. I would like to be a fly on the wall to hear his real thoughts. Ben, admit it. Alan loved the glory of the realm's guidance. I sense that you see a bunch of nitwits acting in a manner that is unconscionable. You know, you'll need to bail them out again (student loans -- sheesh, what a mess!).

Why don't you sponsor some town meetings related to why the Fed needs to change? It was nice that you talked to students. What about you talking to people who are not within those professional ranks that are responsible for the failing? Well, not talking. Discussing (quasi-academically, as we're not talking prof to prof, either -- autodidacts know as much as you guys do).

Remarks:

04/01/2013 -- Ben as the new Central Planner.

02/26/2013 -- What? Ben doesn't have any influence with his put?

05/11/2012 -- Then, we have Jamie.

05/05/2012 -- Related theme to explore.

04/27/2012 -- Obviously, Ben is on a roll. In his latest statement, he said that he'll continue his ways until late in 2014. That, folks, is another couple of years of savers being sacked. Again, who are savers? Mainly, those who have lived within their means, have means, use their means wisely, look to have something for a rainy day, and all of those other good things. In short, those whose efforts are needed for an economy much more than the services (ah, from him?) from the likes of Jamie. Now, how do we wake up in this new world to the fact that an age-old ideal has been trashed? Ben, give me time, and I'll explain this issue to you.

04/10/2012 -- The thing that Ben is after is the 'multiplier effect' taken to an unreasonable extreme. Let's say that fiat money allows a 'buck' to be re-used multiple times in order to provide a base for an economy. This type of thing is especially easy when the underlying framework is computationally-founded aeration. The 'shadow' (depending upon the focus) amounts to trillions (yes) of bucks founded upon a speculation-motivated game (with little accounting to map to anything of substance - you see, it's the playing that is the thing). So, we have trillions of book-based 'value' under which is mere billions of something that could be considered real.

The real sign of insanity is that Ben has to argue for those responsible to pull back from the precipice to which they push all who are more reasonable. Somehow, these supposed adults have atrophied cognition (yet, those who 'win' lounge in 'wealth' that is beyond estimation - yes, we really have no way now to assess, in these matters, what is real from not).

Yet, Ben helped the game by inflating his balance sheet with fictional credit. Ben, ever heard of the thing called hypo-critical?

04/06/2012 -- Yes, keep that debt window open. Here is a post, from Phil G' blog, that has a link to a comical video related to our current situation. Trouble is that the window was closed for the common folk, after they were heavily laden with several lifetimes of debt. In some cases, people walked away from their debt (allowed, it seems, for some types of housing finance). But, the window was cast'd open, on a broader scale, for finance types (see Ben's Lecture 4). Earlier, there were remarks about largess.

04/05/2012 --  Jamie got $23M. Savers got sacked. Yeah, Ben. His credit expansion has debt as its balance. The goal is to expand debt (and, nationally, we've hit the bell there), yet we've seen what that does to the individual. In short, it's indentured-ness, almost ad infinitum. Talk about 'clever' (as Ben called those of the finance ilk). The ultimate 'perpetual' machine that keeps peoples' noses to the grindstone and monetarily handcuff'd.

On Jamie, we may have him replacing Timmy. Scary, indeed. 

Modified: 04/01/2013