In 2015, there were 44 posts.
See Summary, 2014. The "All time" reads are the same as last year. All but one of the "Last 30 days" reads are of this year's posts.
01/04/2016 --
Capitalism Has Two Ways of Dealing with Leisure
4 weeks ago
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Summary, 2015
Moral: Wherein we review the prior year, a little.
In 2015, there were 44 posts.
See Summary, 2014. The "All time" reads are the same as last year. All but one of the "Last 30 days" reads are of this year's posts.
01/04/2016 --
In 2015, there were 44 posts.
See Summary, 2014. The "All time" reads are the same as last year. All but one of the "Last 30 days" reads are of this year's posts.
01/04/2016 --
Thursday, December 24, 2015
My Sorry Social Security Return
Moral: Wherein we look at a prevalent view.
The title of the post comes from an Op-Ed published by the WSJ, Moday, 12/21/2015. The Op-Ed was written by Jeremy Spiegel (a frequent contributor) of Wharton.
Now, in his opinion, Jeremy would rather have had the money that he and his employer put into the Social Security Fund under his control. Remember, Bush, the son, wanted this, too.
The following compares his numbers (US$) on retiring at 70 with the maximum payout (if he lives to 90) from Social Security.
But, there is another issue. The stock fund would have been using the magical multiplier in creating funny money. And, out of this type of bucket, not all who have ownership can extract to the full amount. Jeremy ought to know this. The current method favors the few.
Now, can this funny gaming change? Yes. Who is thinking along this line?
In regard to the U.S. Treasury approach, yes, this can work (see experience with Saving Bonds). But, bonds can change value, too, based upon the state of the current game.
Besides, how does Jeremy know that he could hold the bonds to maturity? Even if he could, how well could we expect the majority to do in this regard?
So, not picking on Jeremy, but there is a whole lot more to the issue than he allows for. But, then, considering the larger issues would detract from the message.
Since Jeremy is in finance, a professor, I would like to know what is the basis for the gaming that goes under the guise of financial engineering, albeit we already know that greed is one motivation.
Remarks: Modified: 12/23/2015
The title of the post comes from an Op-Ed published by the WSJ, Moday, 12/21/2015. The Op-Ed was written by Jeremy Spiegel (a frequent contributor) of Wharton.
Now, in his opinion, Jeremy would rather have had the money that he and his employer put into the Social Security Fund under his control. Remember, Bush, the son, wanted this, too.
The following compares his numbers (US$) on retiring at 70 with the maximum payout (if he lives to 90) from Social Security.
- Soc Sec, 840K
Stock index fund, 2, 270K
U.S. Treasury bonds, 1,280K
But, there is another issue. The stock fund would have been using the magical multiplier in creating funny money. And, out of this type of bucket, not all who have ownership can extract to the full amount. Jeremy ought to know this. The current method favors the few.
Now, can this funny gaming change? Yes. Who is thinking along this line?
In regard to the U.S. Treasury approach, yes, this can work (see experience with Saving Bonds). But, bonds can change value, too, based upon the state of the current game.
Besides, how does Jeremy know that he could hold the bonds to maturity? Even if he could, how well could we expect the majority to do in this regard?
So, not picking on Jeremy, but there is a whole lot more to the issue than he allows for. But, then, considering the larger issues would detract from the message.
Since Jeremy is in finance, a professor, I would like to know what is the basis for the gaming that goes under the guise of financial engineering, albeit we already know that greed is one motivation.
Remarks: Modified: 12/23/2015
12/23/2015 --
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Spigot opened, a little
Moral: Wherein we acknowledge the change.
Ah, so late. We looked for this back in 2010, then 2012, then ...
And, at various places, you see the rhetoric of the addicts who, unfortunately, get more attention.
Can savers breathe a sigh of relief? Not yet.
Ah, so late. We looked for this back in 2010, then 2012, then ...
And, at various places, you see the rhetoric of the addicts who, unfortunately, get more attention.
Can savers breathe a sigh of relief? Not yet.
Remarks: Modified: 12/17/2015
12/17/2015 --
Monday, November 30, 2015
Consequences
Moral: Wherein we look at Quora, briefly.
A question came up: Why does it matter that the Fed hasn't raise interest rates yet?
My answer: Why-does-it-matter-that-the-Fed-hasnt-raised-interest-rates-yet/answer/John-M-Switlik
---
So much to discuss. The big boys and girls run with their fantasies intact. As in, they shuffle numbers up to their little platform in the cloud (no, not talking the modern theme - it's more like Mick - please get off of my cloud). In doing so, they step on the myriads.
That is my view. Looking up at the idiots. Yes, you people, mathematics does not save you. Not so does computing, either.
Janet is looking at her numbers. Why cannot we get a systems person there rather then one who has been lulled (by the fat cats and their money) into keeping the chimera going?
Remarks: Modified: 11/30/2015
A question came up: Why does it matter that the Fed hasn't raise interest rates yet?
My answer: Why-does-it-matter-that-the-Fed-hasnt-raised-interest-rates-yet/answer/John-M-Switlik
---
So much to discuss. The big boys and girls run with their fantasies intact. As in, they shuffle numbers up to their little platform in the cloud (no, not talking the modern theme - it's more like Mick - please get off of my cloud). In doing so, they step on the myriads.
That is my view. Looking up at the idiots. Yes, you people, mathematics does not save you. Not so does computing, either.
Janet is looking at her numbers. Why cannot we get a systems person there rather then one who has been lulled (by the fat cats and their money) into keeping the chimera going?
Remarks: Modified: 11/30/2015
11/30/2015 --
Thursday, November 19, 2015
FED warp
Moral: Wherein we see one view of unwinding.
Unwinding? Our note, 08/24/2009:
---
Recently, a WSJ opinion brought this back to fore for me. How the Fed Has Warped the 401(k). The image is an excerpt.
Remarks: Modified: 06/13/2019
06/13/2019 -- Recent Quora activity which was a comment on a 2015 answer (Is there a way to hedge 30-year fixed mortgage rates?) got me to relook at this post as it is concurrent with the answer. This post referenced a note that was made on 08/24/2009. Where was that comment made? Well, this post: Savers, who the heck are they? It's from way back, too (17 August 2009).
Unwinding? Our note, 08/24/2009:
-
Ben offers no mea culpa; oh, he blinked and then panicked (not what one would expect of a General). Ben unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
---
Recently, a WSJ opinion brought this back to fore for me. How the Fed Has Warped the 401(k). The image is an excerpt.
Be sure to read the comments. A lot of these are people talking about their strategies for beating the system, in the sense of not losing their money and obtaining some type of gain. Remember, we have quoted Niels as saying that the only way to not lose is fiddling (insider info, etc.).
What we need for savers is the savings bond, rather than the market chimera, that pays interest over time. There is much to discuss in this regard.
11/20/2015 -- Taking winnings (?) off the table.
06/13/2019 -- Recent Quora activity which was a comment on a 2015 answer (Is there a way to hedge 30-year fixed mortgage rates?) got me to relook at this post as it is concurrent with the answer. This post referenced a note that was made on 08/24/2009. Where was that comment made? Well, this post: Savers, who the heck are they? It's from way back, too (17 August 2009).
Friday, October 23, 2015
Sustainable and near zero
Moral: Wherein we acknowledge Fallows' look at Gore's view.
Yes, we're still here, though a little quiet. So, Janet and company are stiffing the savers. I could (would) say theft, actually. We are being pilfered so that the markets can run their crooked games.
Al Gore does not like all greed. Only the short-viewed type. No, he likes long-term greed. That is nice, Mr Gore. I like your emphasis on sustainability, but with your being so close to the players you may not be able to be aware of things that are amiss.
Listen to the little guys. Not those who can belly up with the $3M that you want for your investors.
So, this is about Fallow's article: The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore (there are plenty notes, to boot).
---
What Al and friends do is broaden the scope. We all know that the quarter-reporting view is just too limited. Or, rather, it reinforces the gaming. And, little people, like the savers, lose out (we can go on about this but won't, now).
So, they add in environmental and social issues to the equations. Nice guys/gals. You do not take it far enough. And, that is where near-zero comes in. I want to see a proper/in-depth accounting (yes, I know, tilting like the Don). And, I know that I have a long way to go to make this more clear.
In the meantime, congratulations, Mr. Gore, on your success (huge accumulations). Your work, at least, was a little light added to the darkness of the greedy times. Did you really have to use that concept?
What we see from this newsflash is that Blood and Gore have their critics. Look at the notes associated with The Atlantic's article.
Remarks: Modified: 03/12/2020
10/23/2015 --
Yes, we're still here, though a little quiet. So, Janet and company are stiffing the savers. I could (would) say theft, actually. We are being pilfered so that the markets can run their crooked games.
Al Gore does not like all greed. Only the short-viewed type. No, he likes long-term greed. That is nice, Mr Gore. I like your emphasis on sustainability, but with your being so close to the players you may not be able to be aware of things that are amiss.
Listen to the little guys. Not those who can belly up with the $3M that you want for your investors.
So, this is about Fallow's article: The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore (there are plenty notes, to boot).
---
What Al and friends do is broaden the scope. We all know that the quarter-reporting view is just too limited. Or, rather, it reinforces the gaming. And, little people, like the savers, lose out (we can go on about this but won't, now).
So, they add in environmental and social issues to the equations. Nice guys/gals. You do not take it far enough. And, that is where near-zero comes in. I want to see a proper/in-depth accounting (yes, I know, tilting like the Don). And, I know that I have a long way to go to make this more clear.
In the meantime, congratulations, Mr. Gore, on your success (huge accumulations). Your work, at least, was a little light added to the darkness of the greedy times. Did you really have to use that concept?
 |
| Did Al Gore 'invent ' Sustainable Capitalism? |
Remarks: Modified: 03/12/2020
10/23/2015 --
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Billions and billions
Moral: Wherein we mention that Ben has his book and that Janet still does not see a bubble.
Yet, we see this story. That is, the financial firms (according to an article on Yahoo) had profits amounting to multiples of billions in 1/2 of the year.
Now, juxtapose that with the latest that I saw from a bank visit. Savers are getting 0.08% for their money. That is less that 0.1% which is as close to zero that you can get.
Remarks: Modified: 10/06/2015
10/06/2015 -- Now, remember our put on "Beyond your wildest dreams" from earlier this year. Yes, those who run the financial realm rake off of the top. In essence, they de-cream so that we all get less of the fat.
Yet, we see this story. That is, the financial firms (according to an article on Yahoo) had profits amounting to multiples of billions in 1/2 of the year.
Now, juxtapose that with the latest that I saw from a bank visit. Savers are getting 0.08% for their money. That is less that 0.1% which is as close to zero that you can get.
Remarks: Modified: 10/06/2015
10/06/2015 -- Now, remember our put on "Beyond your wildest dreams" from earlier this year. Yes, those who run the financial realm rake off of the top. In essence, they de-cream so that we all get less of the fat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
