Chimera?

Moral: Wherein we say just a few words about the chimera behind the 'chimera' and its use.

---

First, here are the posts with 'chimera' in the name and the date: The big chimera (11/09/09), Chimera II (08/31/2010), Chimera, again (01/27/2011), Chimera IV (06/10/2011), Chimera explained (07/05/2011). For each of these, I'll have to do a recap (which ought to be fun to do as the posts parallel the climb out of the morass, helped along by Ben and his largess).

But, this post is basically to set (re-state) the tone.

Aside: chimera is mentioned in a whole lot (namely 64) of other posts. One has to wonder if it was an improper characterization. Well, wonder not. I knew what I was doing and will be explaining why we're still in deep dodo (Europe's PIGS are only one thing to point to).

---

Today, the Dow is around the 13.6K mark which is close to the high point before the drop. How can this be considered a chimera?

Well, there is another market that might be approaching, similar to the Dow, its value of our, or so, years ago. Remember, please, that this exchange's value is one-half, or so, of its peak around the 2000 time frame, before what was called the tech bust. Oh, you forgot?

---

The Dow is at the current level since the taxpayers are propping it up. Ben's balance sheet is at ridiculously full. Too, he has stiffed people who are older and who need more stable financial instruments. Ben is holding, and wants to buy more, toxic stuff.

Where is his head?

---

Today, too, one can also find an article talking about people who are staying out of the stock market. This would be anyone who needs their basis (and does not want to get on the dole or reliant on other people for charity). We'll not belabor the FB point (Zuck got his money), but it could be used as an example (there are plenty of other examples, so FB is off the hook, for now).


Remarks:

06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.

03/22/2013 -- Imagine. WSJ using both chimerical and moral hazard in the same article, albeit with a twist that we'll respond to (that is, clarify what the notions mean -- has to come from outside the financial community).

03/21/2013 -- Ben on Cyprus as a type of archetypal situation, or not.

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

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.

10/24/2012 -- Ben is sticking to his guns. Lucy people like myself will continue to pay through the nose. Thanks, big guy.

10/16/2012 -- Chimera has had many uses, from mythology on. Basically, the connotations being applied here relate several ways. For one, though, consider Bookstaber's use of 'demon' as he characterized problems with markets, hedgies, and such. Of course, many demons might be apropos for use, but chimera is up there on top, or close to it. That, folks, relates to the reality behind the other use. There, no doubt, are physical, and process, entities that can be pointed to (yet, are these under control?). No, we cannot even have a daily accounting (to wit, the realization on the part of some that things like the unemployment rate are estimated (albeit, with supposedly sound basis) and never really pinned down). So, anyone building upon this first type of chimera is impaired as to practicality (yes, it's that bad, folks). How can we have a sustainable economy with such flimsy mechanisms (you see, they are only effective in so far as they allow those who run the game to pilfer - the only real expectations, in short). Hence, the use of the mirage is not off, either. Okay?  The real question is what can be done to make things better?

10/12/2012 -- Chimera has been used for that which the ca-pital-sino pushes, including the mechanisms involved. What are hedge funds? Another set of tools. What we have is too much money running after too few opportunities. To boot, there are too many looking to extract more than what they deserve (yes, I'll venture there - my gripe with Harvard, the first school in the US).

10/12/2012 -- Hedge fund mirage. Chimera works, too. Harvard. Its big endowment is the envy of all (but the rational - who see the naked emperor). ... Harvard, talk to us, please, about how you feel that you deserve big earnings (what? earned?) in terms of near-zero (quite graspable concept, even for the heavily endowed).

Modified: 06/11/2013

After all these years

Moral: Wherein we consider what Ben's announcement means for those in the middle.

---

What announcement? QE3, today, with low-level interest until 2015 or further.

---

Gosh, Ben, you've been sacking the savers for years now. Why are you running off after the chimera? It still stinks, even as it scrapes the stratosphere. Why? You know, Ben, that there is daily raking off, like cream being skimmed from the top, by those who run the casino.

If you would try to establish a monetary basis that had steady growth, acknowledging that we cannot have sustained economic prosperity when the mode for all (but the few - thank God for the Occupy mindset) is to pile on more and more debt, then we could see some semblance of sanity come back to the financial fiasco. But, no, your sweet digs there, at the Fed, are not much different than that of the fat cats at the Street (of course, Wall not Main). Go ahead, cater to the few. Just remember, it's the accumulation of the little people who make the economy.

---

By the way, Ben, to which of these Street realms will you go when you leave the Fed?

---

FT image

Too, you guys run out and pollute the Jackson Hole area yearly. Boondoggle that it is! Ben, are you trashing the US dollar and building up the chimera for your friends in China? You sure are not helping the average American.

Now, what we're seeing is a flow from very many small pockets to a very few big pockets. You know, Ben, that flow eventually dries out those with small pockets who then become dehydrated shells. From whence can these have any energy to build back what your chimera overlays?

What future is based upon the chimera? At any point, those who can will pull out, leaving scrapings for the most. You know that.

---

Let's talk, please, about how earnings (returns) in this realm are really nothing more than movement of money between pockets. Okay. Some make out like bandits. All cannot do so, nor have they ever been able to do so. Yet, talking heads keep pushing the illusion. Publication of the success stories of the few (those who can take from the chimera) continues to lead more down the primrose path to perdition. What a debacle!

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

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

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

09/19/2012 -- Added Truth Engineering link to 09/15/2012 Remark. Faults are one way to learn. The perfect reek with hubris and arrogance. Yet, systems are that which we ought to make perfect (measurable attribute, definitely amenable to scientific study and public agreement. And, in most cases, systems that we know were built upon people in positions (roles, essentially -- action, decision, etc.) pertaining to the system. Now, we have computers playing analogous roles. How do we handle this? Notice that computers (the artificial, at large) implies 'systems' as their motivating force. But, in the new roles, it's the computer as the performer that we're looking at, usually without concern for technicalities (left to the nerds). The quality efforts out of Japan looked to limit the scope of faults (prevent them, in other words) which is not perfection seeking. So, we'll just say, for now, that perfection, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. (wiki has a nice historical view)

09/15/2012 -- Laundrying? Yes, I know it ought to be laundering. However, it's on Facebook, to boot, so I'll let it stand. Why? Jungian, in nature, this type of oops comes about with technology (to wit, touch typing, fixups, et al) and will only get worse. I see it all the time in big-name, big-buck publications. But, this particular word brings to fore several interesting things. One is that 'labor' is seen to be like laundry. Get it to fit, use it, clean it, throw it out (almost like the proverbial tissue). Now, roles may be laundry-like; those who play the roles are not. In fact, that is one truism to bring forth. I've met a lot of smart people doing menial work. I've not met anyone of the upper crust that I would care to emulate (yes, indeed - I've seen a bunch). Of course, we're all human, with our faults. Yet, as history tries to do (or, that which is oriented toward indoctrination), we smooth over rough edges. Yes, those in power are without any sins; this is accepted for several reasons. From time to time, the human aspect shows. Why cannot it always be so? In the current context? No crapping human can ever attain the idealized state expected by voters (and dreamers and hopers). Faults ought to be celebrated. They keep us human and can help us be hubris-free.

09/14/2012 -- Ben ought to read Rick. Labor laundrying. Ben's continued largess to the fat cats will mostly go toward this type of activity. Read Warehouse Slave and weap [Jungian - as in, weep and reap your reward for allowing this to emerge as the supposed culmination of evolution (this is where our glorious State and its technology is leading us?)]. Aside: I've had (in my youthful times) several jobs that were remunerated with room/board and stipend (any aspersions of menial, etc. will just run off the back like water off a duck -- all jobs (of a legal variety) and the persons doing those tasks are worthy of respect (a lost adage - as everyone runs after accumulating moolah (sounds like ...) as if its represents the smarts that we ought to have -- yes, politicians are characterized by how much they salivate at the thought of moolah.). The first put a roof over my head, and the second fed me. The third, small bits to buy and trade used books. Fourth? Fifth? (yes, luckily, no illnesses - too young to consider retirement - et al). Too, I've seen the boardroom, and the posturing idiots collected therein (as a visitor, of course), and all steps in-between. When I say, folks, that we can run this crap (which it is, even with academic frills added -- ah, the bastardization of the glorious realms of mathematics rankles, to boot) with monk-like mentality (as in, fame, money, etc. not being of essence), I do know what I'm talking about. But, it's my duty, and challenge, to define how this would work. Somehow, the dream of America (where is Winthrop's city?) has descended monotonically, and sometimes exponentially, into the crapper. From whence the energy to get it flying again? By the way, if 'monk' is too religiously laden for you, we can use other metaphors. Take the military. Do you think that those who are being called 'heros' are remunerated (except for the O-class) adequately to the level of their service and risk? If you do, then you're part of the problem. Yes, we could keep the discipline level proper and the thuggery minimized. Or, we could use games played under rules. The whole economic/financial realm needs leveling (as in establishing playing field quality) and inclusion of referees sufficient to keep those in-line who throughout our thousands of human years have trampled over others (yes, fat cats might, at some point, turn to philanthropy -- does that balance their karmic effluence?). New royalty, these? Indeed! We need a sandbox (and, again, we could put golden sand in the box) for these people, in which they can crap all they want (they do the cleaning, to boot).

Modified: 07/31/2013

Ben's precipice

Moral: Wherein we consider that Ben can claim a little victory with consequences that will only be known much later.

---

We remember Alan's put and its effects (still being unwound and analyzed). What will we remember of Ben?

---


Watching Bloomberg, with 1/4 attention, saw a momentary flash of a graph. On it, there was a sharp drop being displayed. What was being graphed? Well, it wasn't the coming chasm (or whatever is the label for what is pending coming next January). What was being displayed was the long-term rate for Treasuries.


---

Well, Ben has been after that, for a while. So, does he have a sense of accomplishment? Does he have any qualms about putting a whole set of nails in the coffin of the middle class, and the savers? He's been putting it to the latter for a bunch of years now.

---

As Ben pushes toward the chimera (yes, bulls notwithstanding), things become even more dire for a whole bunch of folks. Who is not in dire straits? Those (some) playing games with the chimera, usually from a position that has plenty of backup (including, ultimately, bailout from the FED -- namely, we the taxpayers).

---

He wants things to be based upon this shaky platform that enriches the few and impoverishes the most. The notion of steady, and stable, seems to have gone with the wind. Yet, each who reaches effective maturity has had more elements of the stable than not. The rich know this (see 21 ways - at Business Insider); some try to keep the proper lessons from being learned by those who are most in need of the insights. Oh, find your own bootstraps is the message to one who doesn't even have boots, or if there are boots, the straps have been stolen.

---

On the 21 ways, it might be interesting to look at these in the context of the blog's viewpoint. Take #17, for instance, where the focus is on earnings versus savings. You see, the chimera, above, is thought of as earnings. Okay. Tell me truthfully, did those who rode on Zuck's coattails really earn anything (as in, what of value did they contribute besides big pockets, being at the right place at the right time, or some other pseudo-contributory role)? Yes, you guys, come explain this taking to us. What ought we call those 'gains' whose influence is mainly gaming that is meant to up the take of those who can (when the time to pull the plug arises) exploit these types of situations? Earnings? Remember, too, these 'gains' (even if very short term in nature) receive preferential tax treatment (thanks, those responsible for this). Ah, we'll have to look at that in more depth. 'earnings' can range from the hardscrabble income (can be characterized by so many examples -- from subsistence upward) to thievery (modern earnings, many times).

Ben, you really know better than to stoke this fire.

Remarks:

03/17/2013 -- The metaphor ought to be rats in the grain bin.

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

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

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.

10/24/2012 -- Ben is sticking to his guns. Lucy people like myself will continue to pay through the nose. Thanks, big guy.

09/13/2012 -- So, Ben, backed up by his cronies, is doing QE3. As well, they're talking low rates until mid-2015. Why? So that the casino will continue with its chimera! We're going to end up with savers being sacked for more than 1/2 a decade. Preposterous. The main tale? Those with are doing fine and growing larger. Those without are more dire. In the middle, squeezed. The first class is a small subset, as we all know.

09/08/2012 -- Thanks are owed to Larry for being one of the few who stayed on message.

Modified: 03/05/2013

Middle class

Moral: Wherein we consider what Ben, and company, has done to a diminishing set.

---

Which is? The middle class. It's broke, a headline said at Yahoo Finance. Oh, really. The articles quotes a lot of other material, such as Joseph Stiglitz' thoughts on the myth of the American Dream. Too, a nice look at how to fix the economy is referenced.


---

Let's look at one example of Ben's help in putting the middle class to sleep. His minuscule rate has trashed the savers' little buckets. In fact, those with the smaller amount of funds are paying through the nose to support fat cats.

At the same time, anyone in an older mortgage, who has not refinanced (which can be for any of several reasons -- including a patriotic notion of being an asset, not a liability, to the country's economy) is paying exorbitant amounts into the pockets of the very bankers who caused the downturn and who, in many cases, are probably culprits.

---

As Ben chases the chimera, the instigators of the problems are running amok again. Losing game, folks?

Remarks:

09/13/2012 -- 21 points at Business Insider.

09/07/2012 -- Ben seems to be making inroads to leaving his mark on our history.

09/04/2012 -- Putting this article here, until I can respond to the 21 points. Essentially, the rich: no morals!, talk about entitlement!, ... We'll have to get back to whether 'richness' is the right measure for success. As in, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich? from five years ago.

Modified: 09/13/2012

LIBOR, a big fudge?

Moral: Wherein we consider, again, the ca-pital-sino's financial part's errant ways.

---

Is LIBOR a big lie? Well, it very much exemplifies the problems with finance. Why can't economics and finance be more scientific? It can be, but this will take more than the exploitation of advancements in mathematics and insight for the few (near-zero is real).

In the case of LIBOR, we're not far from the issue of 'mark to myth' (which Congress was told to favor by its financiers). Remember how stringent 'mark to market' seemed to be? Oh, you forgot? Well, the issue was not resolved in the appropriate way.

We'll keep going on about that, perhaps even using mathematical frameworks to lay out the argument. When? Again, hopefully, other than PTIME.

---

The motivations for continuing can be many. What idiocy is uncovered (ah, how can it be stupid, if it puts money into the pockets of the few?) every day? Why can't we find the proper insight to pull in those with power (who think that money defines truth - and smarts) before they crap on us? Surely, if we're to be mature, we'll have leaders who are capable of more than messing their diapers (requiring our cleaning up after them).

---

Let's look at a couple, namely the posts of note the past week or so.

• 201k, 401k, 801k, ... -- October, 2009, in jest, in part. But, note the progression upward toward 25601k. Can you not see that the current model ends with way less than one percent with the moolah whilst the rest (a large majority of them) are no more than slaves? And, this is supposedly the country, and economy, that epitomizes the best of humanity? BTW, no sarcasm, or cynicism, exists in the bones of the blogger. Rather, looking at the scope of things from the 'ideal' (which is available to all) shows failings everywhere (almost dense -- yes, humans are better than this). 
• Big chimera -- November, 2009, which was not in jest. One might ask how this can be so. We're about three years beyond, and the markets are up. For instance, the DOW, on Friday, went up 200 points after it had fallen for six days or so. Well, these things can be explained several ways which we'll get to. Remember, though, Ben pushing out of money, and his continuing efforts to cause markets to rise, are a big factor. Yet, the longer-term consequences are still there. This is a bubble (pure and simple) that will be pricked at some point (toxics are still there, ...).  

---

So much as happened the past month or so that it'll take some time to digest it all. I've been on a break, so to speak. The tone will change to one more academic and technical (how this transition will occur hasn't quite been worked out, as of yet).

It's probably comical that finance might think that LIBOR is a case of peer review (ah so!). If only. You know that it's more a continuation of self-audit (bankers are all angels).

Remarks:

12/06/2013 -- We all know how this panned out (with even more fudging coming to fore - the "f" in finance is for fudging?). 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.

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.

08/01/2012 -- It's easy to point the finger at our Brit cousins. We have our own fudging (Ben, included).

07/30/2012 -- Timmy knew. Ben says he's powerless. They admit that it's close to fraud.

07/21/2012 -- This week, the USA Today, had a nice little article on LIBOR. Some are looking for a better alternative. Earlier, I had meant to point to comments about why potential fraud seems to be the consequence of the way that things are set up. As in, what is maximized is the ability to pirate. Why is this?

Modified: 12/06/2013

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