Harvard, again

Moral: Wherein we re-look at the esteemed institution (375 years old) that is (will, ought to, be) a focal for many things.

---

Earlier, we had harped about Harvard and raised, no doubt, some hackles and may have confused some things. So, it's time to restart the dialogue and, for now, here are some of the themes that pertain to the necessary discourse.

---

Harvard is a collecting point for the best and brightest. Who are the best and brightest? Those with mental acuity who, unfortunately, are not plagued by innumeracy (poor dears, those numerants, or poor us for being subjected to the outcomes). As such, they (not only those from the big H) have led us all astray through the mis-use of mathematics.

That is, they see the field in an operational sense leading, of course, to exploitation as motivation. Ah, our beloved mathematics, trashed.

Aside: What talent determines membership within the best-and-brightest set? Well, some of this is measurable using standardized tests, as we have seen develop (note the early interest by the U.S. Army -- there are analogs galore) in the past century or so. Some of the talent may (can) not be (subsumed under a metrical ontology); for instance, we see plenty high scorers who flunk out of life (but, then, we all know just how complex this issue is). Why the difference in scores (or what appears to be shown by scores)? Acuity was mentioned above. But, there would be energy, to boot (as in stamina to finish -- and, as well, trying to answer how perpetual motion is not assumed -- what? think about it!); also, patterns, and recognition thereof, are an important fact. It's an open-ended issue, folks (we'll get back to that and what it might (does) mean). And, preparation, as in S.A.T. tutoring, does NOT overcome innate issues (remember, as said above, that which is measurable is founded upon the very mathematics that is being mis-used -- so, suspicion is in order).

---

The image came from BING which likes to put out an interesting bit every day with comments. This particular one celebrated the 375th of the big H and got more of the blogger's attention than usual. What's this about the H-bomb (Lord, what does that smell like?)? Perhaps, their opinion is that anyone who doesn't bow in their direction is too stupid to know better (or something similar -- these types of things (egoism) are inherent and inflict even the, supposedly, best-and-brightest types -- many of whom never scored high on any type of ethics scale).

---

So given how higher-order education has kissed the behinds of the moolah'd, motivations related more to greed than not come to fore in those who pursue such achievements. What games are played by those who are possible candidates in order for them to be even considered by the institution? And, folks, not being accepted there does not make one a failure. Far from it.

Oh yes, being in Cambridge raises one's IQ (Institutional truths?)?

---

Why is greed mentioned? Harvard decided to leave the Lord's work and become secular (and elitist). From whence, then, will come any direction? But, have we not seen others (meaning, of course, non-big-H) who tell us that they are serving the Lord and then founder under their greed, too?

Aside: Lord? Yes, early on it was that One about Whom the Protestants (even amongst themselves) and Catholics fought. Then, it was (and still is) the One at the core of the battle between the Muslims and the not. ... But, there are many more from which to choose, from the modern view as expounded by big H. In fact, that there is NONE is considered (without any rational support) by many. Why that assertion? Modern theorem proving techniques show that Anselm's view on the matter reduces to one premise. Does that not say that it's an either-or choice? Yet, the blogger mentions the Lord. Why so? Again, given the basic choice, one can pick what label to place on that which is beyond what one knows (even in the sense of the total). Why not 'Lord' for this reason? There are many, many connotative attachments (call them memes, if you would) that can make it more interesting and emotionally appealing. Except, there will be those who would prefer anti-Lord. You see, has the big-H ever followed through reviewing the consequences of their secularism especially since it has bled over to our culture and times (leading to massive indentured-ness at the personal, institutional, and national levels)? Another aspect to this is whether or not the Lord is embodied. Some have a long tradition of saying so (too long to mention). What 'Lord' is there for the best and brightest (see above reference to moolah'd)? Too, whether it's known or not, the Lord is there!

---

Again, as we have said before, Harvard can extract itself from its mire by opening up to fostering the autodidact (perhaps, even pushing public service). Of course, their argument is that their students are self-directed. But, we want them to look at the talents beyond those amenable to numerant manipulation and to help these progress as needed to save humanity.

Again, they'll say that they do this in a sense. We'll see, if they can show this.

---

One has to ask, are not some of the best and brightest out there with the OWSs?

---

Now, when you consider the roles of the aristocratic over the complete history of us (the people, who else), what were these roles and how did they get to play them? Well, the types were smarter (see above about the best and brightest), in a way (or several ways). They were dumber in many others (this deals with being which is something still to be discussed). Yes, particularly the royals. What we have now is the means to measure to try to identify these types early on.

A perpetuating scheme, at the least. Then, we pave their way. As the crap of the recent downturn shows (and the big pockets of those who let loose the young'uns without supervision -- heck, the big pockets cannot even supervise themselves, how could we expect them to help others to be better? --- mind you), money as value is not much more than crap (who will lead toward a proper definition of wealth?).

---

One could picture a world in which the Harvard area would be where the dynamics related to those who rise (or can rise) come into play, even doing so in ways that we have not thought of. Are we talking sandbox?

---

Too, as we would learn things, we would improve situations such as preventing things like the most recent downturn that came about from the gaming of the idiots/geniuses (yes, computational mathematics is at fault, for one thing, since it empowered the a**es) in the finance world (our, as in OUR, beans). There are so many other ways that we will be at this for awhile.

---

Yes, the real princes and princesses (of all types) would be in that New England area having gathered from around the world. Highly endowed responsibility, indeed, would be accepted by the institution.

Actually, one could argue that it could not be replicated elsewhere (ye olde country?), except that we don't want to deny that internationalism will be imperative at some point (before the little green men show up?).

Remarks:

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

08/15/2013 -- Nice viewpoint. Farce, indeed (chimera). Buyers and sellers are Investors (sometimes). Many elites see their gifts as carte blanche to screw over those less gifted (in essence, a main cause of the continual strife that humans face -- Harvard, at one time, may have had an ethical edge - can it get it back?). Who is the fairest of the elite, so to speak? For sustainability to come about, those of the highest quality need to be of the service mentality (yes, perhaps we could find someone at Harvard Divinity to explain this to the gifted in their neighborhood). Service? Try military without being of the O-series, for instance. But, a national service would allow many types of contributions. Foreigners? Yes, they would have to do it to boot.

03/22/2013 -- GW at ESPN (see image on right) has a nice point of view on the madness (and related comments). We ought to have something similar for the financial folks, using play money, with prizes. That's the sandbox, folks. Then, the real stuff would be handled by mature, stable adults (not the greed ridden - and similar ilks -- okay?). The madness has to do with animal spirits just like the market (ala Adam). Too bad that one loss gets one out the door. Perhaps, at the final four level, there ought to be a round robin, like college baseball. --- Now, having just written the above, this glorious bit of madness is really a sham (see comment at madness, 03/12/2012). The whole madness pits kids against each other, who are playing for naught (comparatively), being coached by millionaires, with big buck media behind the affair, and a bunch of other lucrative ploys benefiting from the labors of the few. If one looked at qualities (as in, abstract out a truthful look at this), one could find parallels (many, many) all across history (these things being not consider our best behavior). Granted some (as in, not all) of the kids go on to big bucks. Others find glory in their endeavors (what would be be without school spirit?). Yet, besides the commonality with historic events that aren't looked at as being our (humankind's) best moments, there are all sorts of analogs in business (which we've seen of late, in glorious detail, as being problematic at its core - the heart that is supposed to be related to finance). By the way, see the below comment (madness, 02/08/2013); that particular team ended up with a #1 seed. Also, Harvard Crimson made it out of the Round of 64.

01/23/2013 -- Things are looking up: Read free or die.

12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

10/18/2011 -- How many of the 99% end up at this institution? Not fair? We know for a fact that not all of the 1% are related to the place. By the way, it's not always that ratio (1, 99); the ratio's use is effective in stirring up the pot, though.

10/17/2011 -- Finished the text on this old topic and added links (there may be more).

Modified: 09/19/2013

The Tetons weep

Moral: Wherein we stop to see the posturing in the western hills.

Say what? 2013 - Transitions, 2012 - After all of these years, 2011 - Financial piracy, 2010 Chimera II.

We are in the time of the annual pilgrimage, again. If only it were a pilgrimage. However, to whom would the oracles bow and pray (I know, it is the age of selfies, Lord, deliver us)?

It is really a meeting of the inflated heads who control money as if their bailiwick is central to any economy. Hence, posturing and preening before their peers.

Folks (of the money supply), we could easily barter, if we had to. Get over yourselves. Money? It cannot be eaten, nor breathed, or used for hygiene, ... Whence so much emphasis?

You see, gal and guys, your thing is more like plumbing. If only you could see that. Distribute the water and collect the waste. Okay? What? Yes, a utility ought to be how you consider your work.

We could use the heart and blood; but, the rapacious doings of finance (abetted by you people) keep us from using that (heart - wonderfulness, to the extreme. Okay? That could be applied to anything of the FED?).

---

William Gaston, in the WSJ, had some nice thoughts, which are below: 8/20/14 - Shared Prosperity Is a Moral Imperative. Perhaps, some day we could use moral in talking about the FED (will not hold my breath on this, though). To quote William:

In recent decades, the gap between the compensation of corporate leaders and that of their workers has increased many times over. The surge of the financial-services sector produced a new tranche of packagers, traders and managers who enjoy almost unimaginable wealth. Meanwhile, middle-class families have been treading water, and many parents fear that their children will do worse. (emphasis mine)

Nice, William. But, will the FED listen? 

Let me add one thing, for Janet. The current policy is pushing people to play the ca-pital-sino (not this old guy, talk to me about reasonable economics) where there are several problematic issues. For one, it's aerated (only a small percentage get their bucks - beyond those taking the cream daily - do you really need a lesson here?). Yes, the boat is floated with gaseous matter. And, most people are heavier than can be sustained (except on paper). For another, William says "treading" (as if they have the energy to do so). The real fact is that most are trying to not succumb to the flaying that has been going on for so long (thanks Ben). 

Methinks that these people would love to be like Isabella and Mortimer, partying while poor Hugh was disembowelled (Note: the spectators had "delight and merriment" at his expense.).  

Remarks:  Modified: 08/26/2014

08/22/2014 -- Flaying the savers will not solve the "What recovery?" problem. Finance caused the problem; it got bailed out; the current mode just reinforces "moral" turpitude (wait! is that the goal? screw everyone worse this time around?). Having the low rate is supposed to put people back to work? Ben, at least, mouthed the need for fiscal approaches. We ought to have had a jobs program a long time ago (opportunity missed; just like we missed out on nationalizing those institutions that created the problem - namely, banks).

08/26/2014 -- Gosh, Trish Regan (USA Today) has it right. However, even those (most of them) who think that they are gaining only think that. The cheshire multiple (plus insiders raking off the cream and other manipulations and ...) says otherwise. And, it does not have to be this way. ... Much to discuss.

Constructive look at economics I

Moral: Wherein we turn our sight away from the worries (and the game) of who's on first (actually, did we see a headline like this? Blog war, Ben and Larry) or who's on second, for that matter. The whole crust (uppers) looking at these issues is way off base (have been for some time)

---

Now, "constructive" has lots of meanings, such as starting over and building. Too, though, we will be defining how a sustainable economic framework ought to look if done properly. Now, fortunately, I can do this without academic support. Unfortunately, for many, this work is late as the gaming runs along five days every week down a perdition laden path (or paths) where the insidious effects just keep on getting thicker and thicker.

Aside: if you search on some of these terms in this blog (and in the related blogs: truth engineering and 7oops7) you will see that they have been used from the beginning.

This look starts from the initial state. In short, we have people (lots to look at here). Over the millennia (many, many), what can be thought of as "class differences" has been evident (since the 1630s, those heading toward Cambridge, MA versus going elsewhere, okay?). Early on, the hierarchy was based upon power (physical). The guy with the biggest stick was king (any different now? - oh yes, we elect these supposedly better classes of people who then take a crown upon their heads - ah, poor mankind).

But, even way back, the levels came about from types of ability particular to humans, namely intelligence. So, the smart guys got some dumb arses to do their dirty work of various sorts: knocking heads, providing meat, growing food stuff, ... You see, the recent off shoring was successful (actually not, near zero, folks) due to large pockets (existence usage, here) of people who can be exploited (for several reasons: they are, they do not have any power or means, they live under the cloud of the smart/capable idiots who seem to have the say and who leave the earth worse off when they croak - again, poor mankind).

Marx and others bifurcated this (type of) separability into capitalists (the smarties who pull strings) and labor (the puppets), but this little splitting (partitioning) is too simple (shallow). When one looks at the long history, lord/serf is a good characterization (age old). What is capital, by the way (actually, where is greedy accumulation seen as leading to peaceful coexistence?)?

Some MIT guy, recently, made a refutation of the french guy's little offering (twas last year - french dude wrote, in a sense, that things of finance always float above the real concerns - like, where the next meal comes from - ..., that statement is a good as any of the other arguments that I have seen). The french guy was a little off the mark, but his attempt was of an ilk that we need to see more of. I will get back to this theme since the retort has to do with land. Does not the economic view have dealings with the lowly earth's resources on its plate?

In the initial phase, we want to look at the actors in the scene, namely the people and the various mixtures that one can observe. For one thing, that statement about everything one needs is learned in early schooling (yes, interpersonal and social aspects) comes to mind. But, it is more than that. Some, like the smarties of Silicon Valley, want to get their kind duplicated artificially so as to rule. Yes, as if the knowledge of the more in-touch mind is worthless (ah, recall the above reference to leaving things worse off). Actually, even smarties (or talent holders) of the artsy type are seen as less than those who run after money and after automation for its own sake (but, again, lots to look at here).

That is, STEM is it (or IT)? Please note that "constructive" has usages there, to boot. In short, we will get back to looking at effectiveness and at how that arises (perhaps, we can do all of this without hubris coming in from around the edges). Sensitivity to "quasi" issues would, we would hope, dampen the cowboys (yes, Ben) who run amok with their experiments (yes, Zuck) on people because they can (are allowed to) and their, seemingly, heedless rush toward glory (and big pockets, different usage than above, if you must ask).

So, again, people, markets, etc. will be the theme for a bit, though there may be uncontrollable branching offs into the more complicated realms.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/16/2015

04/06/2015 -- Two books on labor economics reviewed by The Atlantic.

04/08/2015 -- The IMF weighs in on the side of Larry (essentially, a pissing contest). We really do need to get back to the basics (and, henceforth, I'll adapt a more serious, mature tone -- but, with all the screwing up going on, how can one keep the tongue from wagging? -- as in, the little people have always been trampled over the millenia; what has not been learned is how to have a peaceful, sustainable - and other words, supposedly from the flower power generation -- economy).

04/09/2015 -- We are slowly converging toward something or other.

Best and brightest of what?

Moral: Wherein we consider, just who are the best and brightest and why are they so important?

It has been awhile since I've seen an opinion, such as this one from the head of CME Group, but it does motivate a re-look at this subject. The op-ed is in the WSJ and was written by Mr. Duffy of CME.

• A new financial crisis: Keeping the best and brightest - Mr. Duffy argues the opposite position (see disclosure, next) from the one of this blogger. Nice that he does so. Since the link from the page on the CME's site to the WSJ article goes to a page that is locked down (requiring a subscription), I have provided a couple of images (that are photos taken from the print edition) below with commentary. 

---

Firstly, though, a recap, and disclosure. The first use of "best and brightest" was May 8, 2009. This was a reaction from hearing of big bonuses in times when things were dire. Why the bonuses? "Because, if we don't have the proper remuneration," said the Wall Street crowd, "we'll lose the best and brightest." Please note that a major theme for the blogger, in those times, dealt with the fiction in finance (truth engineering context - and, the inspiration for that concept was not Karl Marx' fictitious capital).

One main issue dealt (and still deals) with the gall of naming something financial engineering whose scientific basis has not been identified. As we come forward in time (all the while, the Wall Street, and its ilk, were being baby-glove'd by the Fed), several notions come to fore. For one, that talents differ among folks is as old as the hills leading to all sorts of problematic situations (not the least of which is the Lord/Serf dynamic, especially as demonstrated by the new phenomenon of CEO and more -- Wall Street type as serf (do you really see these as servants? - more below, due to Duffy).

For another, just because someone is facile enough to propose, and has the ability to dispose, of gnarly systems (I am prepared to discuss this at length, in depth, and to any degree necessary - both technically and philosophically - Out of control, May 7, 2010) does not give them the right to run the risks (despite the existence - perceived acceptance - of privatized gain and socialized loss). Of course, in the older days, I blamed the old fat cat who led the young, innocent best-and-brightest down the primrose path to our (and, perhaps, in some cases, their) perdition).

You see, the old fat cats could not handle the technical aspects (again, I'm a 70+ technically competent who can handle any of the discussions, at any level - at the same time, reminding all concerned of the larger issues that seem to fade out of the picture due to various things, of which the old anti-virtues (err, vice, but that relates to a squad?) loom prominent) so they get the younger set to run rampant (I've seen this many, many times while living with the results of emerging prowess - essentially, an advanced technology worldview). But, it was not just the fat cats who are at fault. Culprits abound . Some of this has been resolved; a lot has not.

---

WSJ op-ed

Now, to Duffy's op-ed. Notice, how WSJ's editorial staff (image) emphasized that there has been a decline in Harvard graduates (Duffy points to an article about MBAs; what about the undergraduates?) going to finance. There was a similar reduction found with Yale's and Princeton's graduates.

But, let's remind ourselves of something. We can be more specific, as required, but there had been an earlier movement around the time of the tech boom and bust (late 1990s to early 2000s) from other fields to finance. The blogger mentioned that he had wondered why (not interested enough to really look into the matter -- Nov 23, 2008) finance could be so attractive (if done correctly, it's fairly boring, folks). Well, it turns out that the finance types were given almost carte blanche (best and brightest gone wild) to play with their models. Why? There are all sorts of factors involved here. But, the prime one is that money does talk.

We'll use Duffy's words, though, to frame the issue. He says that "institutional money" does not exist. Why? Of course, ultimately, money is traced back to individuals who have entrusted finance types to care for their little accumulation meant for "savings, retirement or education" (their's, as in, Secured payment, Nov 28, 2012, not the finance guy's/gal's, okay). Duffy says that Wall Streeters can easily forget about Main Streeters (say what? Fiduciary duty - Oct 30, 2008)). From there, Duffy goes into finance's importance.

Yes, but he says that only "a few bad actors" were the culprits behind the latest downturn. We need to remind him that banks froze because they knew that their ilk wasn't trustworthy. How can these types forget those things, so easily - it's like they took their balls home, wouldn't play the game, due to knowing that the whole things was crookedly configured?

Duffy, of course, his firm deals with these matters, talks as if creativity is essential to something that ought to be as mundane as paving a street (by the way, I've been there - it's hard work that ought to receive more compensation than it does). We can characterize this thing many different ways, but, folks, the utility aspect of finance has been put to the background (by the way, not that utilities are angels - quite the contrary).

 ... much more could be said ...

But, let's go to the sweet ending. Duffy uses integrity with respect to Wall Street's business. Imagine that! Yes, Wall Street ought to think of helping people and influencing the world. One would hope that the influence would be for the better; Duffy didn't say. But, how does one get from the supposed reality of the situation where "help" seems to be more involved with picking pockets than not? As in, from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (Jan 15, 2010). More recently,

All in all, it was nice to see the WSJ print this. Why tie it down so that people cannot see it in order to foster the necessary discourse?

We need Wall Street'ers to wake up and smell the reality related to their ilk. But, it's like the old adage of working oneself out of a job. As it works now, the whole thing, by necessity, runs toward a continuing of the ca-pital-sino. We cannot stop (nod to William F. Buckley), but we can improve, given the proper approach. Can anyone point out improvement activity (to the benefit of the commonweal, not of particular pockets) that occurs on a regular basis?

Again, let's thank Mr Duffy for starting the conversation.

Remarks:

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated). 

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

10/21/2013 -- Alan has a book coming out. Ben still slaps savers silly; a new day is coming.

10/03/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

Modified: 01/06/2015

America and its roles

Moral: Wherein we start anew, with a fresh slate, and cover the bases (congrats, SF) after admitting that there is no jealousy.

Harvard is mentioned several times in this blog (22 posts). Too, though, there have been references to related themes (Harvard, supposed spawning point for world leaders) of American history (14 times - as well, use of "America" is not chauvinism - we're talking way before 1770s) and of civilized notions (20 times - albeit, Brit, as in Magna Charta). You see, the manias related to the chimera (in all of its variations) are very much counter to proper thinking.

So, since we can leave things in the capable hands of Janet and crew, we will be able to get back to considering the issues, as necessary.

--

Now, before we go further, let me make something clear. Look around now at the turmoil. For the most part, we see that youngsters are the ones who are providing the energetics. What has been interesting of late is how many places on the planet are seeing this phenomenon. Say, use the past 10 years to make the count. Astounding.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this time and again. And, the first occurrence, here, can be placed in the 60s. Having started, there were all types (which are well known) that followed over the years. Actually, we could put Berkeley first. But, coincident would be the activities related to Civil Rights.

We are talking more than civil disobedience, in a sense. We have to talk about conventions and such. Yes, it relates to business (in oh so many ways). For one, the bifurcation, so well documented as being so extreme, comes about from the human dynamics that we will explore (essentially, feudal lords ruling over their abstract'd entities seemingly without any constraints - not even from their stockholders).

And, the lord/serf theme is recurrent, to boot (40 times). The modern work environment is so much worse than what our remote ancestors faced (how do we get those supposed smart folk to wise up to the fact? -- let's take them down to the trenches so that they can see/smell the reality).

---

Right now, we will talk about the beginnings of Harvard. There are plenty of stories that tie into the event. Then, there is the long history. For now, we will only be looking at that early point.

It is said that the students rule there. Now, let's see. If that were true, then, it would have been the first occurrence of such a thing. Anywhere. Is that our legacy? Are we now paying the price in terms of the interminable power grabs of the best and brightest? Does thinking about this help us see why the stalemate continues at the top (supposed top - it was to be a government of the people, etc. -- remember?).

And, recall, too, that we started off talking about the youngsters being behind the revolutions. That was not true for the Spirit of 1776. No, it was not.

Old and young (just look at the wide range of ages in the large collection of patriots in the Massachusetts) cast in their lot. Female and male. All the race/cultural types were represented. Except, for the jolly old English (called royalists).

Disclosure: As we go through the analysis/discussion, there is a personal note in the sense of familial relationship with the players of the early days. Foremost, though, is the first instructor: Nathaniel Eaton. But, there are ties, too, with the whole lot of the players: motivators, payers, students, ... Hence, we can make that the central focus (where did we go wrong?).

--

We are doing this exercise for several reasons. Firstly, things are awry. One reason is mathematics being misused (a little knowledge is dangerous - albeit, we have supreme modes of abstracted nonsense nowadays). What has helped make this worse is computation with its inevitable culmination in big data. Secondly, we just had the 200th in a gaga mode. But, look around. Do you really see an American spirit anywhere? How did this happen? Of note, next year is the 800th of King John's first coerced signing (sealing) of the Magna Charta. This whole thing is seminal and will be more so (until the energy peters out - let's hope that it does not).

Thirdly, how did we get so bound into the chimera (personally, I like to keep my distance)? It entraps (the whole game and the potential payoffs - silly for mature thinkers, really). Too, though, go back to the first reason. We are overlaying ourselves (allowing ourselves to be entrapped) in a very strong web - let's wake up and smell the roses now - it's the right of the people). The proper view is not tightly considerate of what Janet (before her Ben and so forth) is doing. And, bemoaning the abstract'd views ought not be misconstrued. We need mathematics. ... But, consider that the metaphor of plumbing and plumbers is more strong for money/finance than the current set of brainy types will allow (add to those, the greedy, etc.). Fourthly, we have been at this for awhile and got off the track. But, not really, Janet and the Fed have put us in an unknown situation. We have been experimented on real time. By cowboys and cowgirls. Why did this happen? Because they could. Yet, Janet is talking data as if that is some silver bullet. The real deal is that the oracle could be more in tune with what is needed if the views were lifted. Harvard is not a lifter (is that the implication?)? We shall see. As we get back on track and start anew.

Finally (not), things will crash. We want to be able to explain the cheshire multiple in terms that are understandable. For now, everyone, please, know that markets (the chimera-typical thing currently in vogue) are set up to guarantee losers. What is annoying is that the loser set is more than 50%. Yes, our task? Describe this and make it clear. After that reality sinks in, then we can start to talk about better ways and means (also, enjoying old Marx's comments about fictitious capital).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

12/30/2014 -- Working on using pages to organize the material - as in, the message depends upon the medium.

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

EconoSpeak

Moral: Wherein we let others talk a little.

What to say about Janet and friends that has not already been said?

Well, let's look elsewhere. This comment to a post was very much apropos to the point: Is Authoritarian Nationalism Mostly A Rural Phenomenon? Yes, what science do we find with economics? Ah, the FED and its pretense?

I'm not a bumpkin, but I was recently in DC. Oh Lord, it is not the intelligent little place that it was 40 years ago. What the heck happened? Yet,  there are little islands of rationality such as those being managed by old civil servants who remember when there was some notion of class and responsibility.

Now, it's money, money, money (thanks, ABBA).

I'm thinking that we need some type of agrarian resurgence. See this on Quora: Is there an alternative to consumerism to keep economy going?

Remarks: Modified: 04/30/2017

04/30/2017 --

Big Ben and the consumer

Moral: Wherein we opine that Big Ben's trip to the mountains didn't help him.

---

Come on, guy. Get your head out of the 1930s, please.

---

If one uses 'bernancke blames consumer' on Google search, one gets a bunch of hits. There are many of note, but BNET and QOTD are of interest here. The latter has a list of what might be causing caution.

---

But, two things come to my mind, after listening to President Obama's jobs speech. He made note of the veterans, after WWII, getting the GI Bill's support for college. If we looked at the sociological aspects, we'll see that WWII was a threshold event in many areas.

One of these was allowing access to the many to the possible futures that had, before then, been available mostly to the offspring of the privileged. Of course, this is an arguable point. But, putting that aside, for now, consider the following.

• Post WWII, we allowed the many, who could, to tackle, and to attain, an aspect of the American dream that has since diminished (next bullet). Except, I might add, for those best-and-brightest who have their experience at Harvard (note, please, this was the first University here -- we have to ask whether it has veered from its ideal path -- again, debatable, but I have a lot of time and interest in the subject). Then, those who excelled in the post-WWII times went on to, essentially, change the landscape of business, academia, and more. The post-WWII times were loaded with many progressive steps; yet, things went awry a lot, to boot. However, that which can be termed the American Dream continued its appeal; in fact, the number of people who could look to the Dream multiplied, too. As Obama said, people worked hard; one can argue that most worked their fingers to the bone (not the fat cats, though, despite claims of such and of their accepting risk -- hah, the game is to push risk off to others -- such as, let the military obligation be met by other than their selves).
• Then, things went awry several ways. Post the GI Bill, there were several ways that students could fund college. And, there were programs oriented toward educational attainment that were successful. But, guess what? These all devolved into some type of quasi-governmental thing that led to exploitation of students and to the fattening of the pockets of some cats (idiots, oh Lord, please help us get these a-holes into line). Yes, that was a recent affair (last decade or so), but it, combined with other factors, staunched the flow that some might have had toward realizing the dream.

---

This, and other things, are what you ought to be looking at, Big Ben. And, if you really want to know, I'm here.

---

Talk about throwing water on a dream. And, Big Ben's largess is just further abuse. You see, those who are the workers (a very large set of consumers - albeit, not of luxury items) have been under increasing pressure by the same fat cats that Big Ben, and Little Timmy, like to hang around with.

How can the consumer, who is weighed down by debt and by exploitation, even think of laying down a buck for other than necessities? A buck, by the way Big Ben, that you have been doing everything in your power to trash.

---

Nationalization of the banks would have been the right move, a couple of years ago. Too, we need respect for workers (manual and otherwise); how can this come to be? If you look at the early settlers, they worked. Except for some of the hoity-poity clergy who thought that they were God's gift to mankind (ah, is that Harvard's heritage?).

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.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

12/05/2011 -- Now, he's giving money to Europe, on the backs of our savers.

10/19/2011 -- Big Ben lets B of A put its hands in our pockets: are they ready for Chapter 11?, Ben tells the FDIC where to go, but golden sacks was allowed to do it!

09/27/2011 -- Yes, Ben, keep steering us toward those who pick the pockets.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Backbone of the economy I

Moral: Wherein we consider that, despite what is the economy, the backbone is the essential friend of the economy, not those who game for the ill-begotten gain.

---

So, banks are making money, paying big bonuses, and screwing their depositors. What else is new?

Ah, how the fat cats love their spread!

And, Wall Street? Rotten to the core (Tech Ticker)!

And, Ben continues to sack the savers while letting those fat cats loll in their monies. Gosh, big guy, when will you awaken? We do NOT need the chimera in its current form!

Well, we'll have to do a series on the real backbone of an economy. IT IS NOT FINANCE (which is not even the heart, in its current form). Of course, many will think that the reference is to labor. Not!

Effectiveness at real solutions is the key. All of this will be addressed.

Example: an oft-overlooked Old Planter who exemplified what became the 'spirit' of the US.

The theme will continue, as the backbone has been broken down by the fat cats, who loll and do not need any bones, through, essentially, use of un-Constitutional practices, such as out-housing and exploitation.

This exploitation include the chimera which is really a giant sucking device. Some gain there; for each of those, a multitude loses. Very much, near-zero, folks.

Remarks:

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better? You know what? Workers always bear more of the load than they ought. Somehow, we've let those who can adopt the old Lord syndrome. This is not necessary to having a sustainable economy.

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders.

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

Modified: 11/04/2011

Big Ben redux

Moral: Wherein we consider that our use of Big Ben (does have some appeal: sits proudly in the skyline, wakes up now and then and bongs, towers over its architectural mates, etc.) might be too casual since it is used in reference to someone whose chief role is to keep our beans safe, provide stability, and keep bankers in control.

---

So, after a congratulatory nod, let's look to the future.

We may begin, shortly, with another moniker for Mr Bernanke who has an important role to play (actually several roles). Poor guy, as his task may be impossible, from the getgo, due to issues of fiat currency.

Let us ask? From whence comes Ben's wisdom? To what direction does he turn for guidance? Theory? These are important questions as he deals with an entity that is inherently dismal.

Ben was confirmed yesterday for his second term. Perhaps, now that he's not following another (Lord Alan), doesn't have to worry about the next time (not for a few years), is independent, and continues to want to do a good job, he'll raise the rates and listen to the little people.

Even though the Fed Reserve was set up for the bankers (fat cats, by definition?), this might be a chance for Ben to set history straight.

We are starting a new series, soon, that will look at the Fed, its place in history, bankers (can we ever get away from them?), the current situation, how we got here. We'll look at the Fed's actions over the past few years, and much more.

Thanks to Congress, we can use Ben's newly obtained position, again he did it on his own, for an analysis that is essential.

At DAVOS, it is said that sustainability is a key idea.

• How about some attention to 'sustainability' notions for finance (meaning, keeping our beans safe)? Seems to me that the mental gymnastics needed for a 'greenish' view can lead quite readily to dropping the 'ergodic' myth behind the efficient market mania that perpetrated the current messes (ca-pital-sino, indeed). We always have real problems to resolve, yet we've allowed a couple of generations of the best-and-brightest to essentially run us off the cliff through 'un-managed' gaming.

We'll look at asset classes thoroughly, in a new light. We agree with Volcker's assertion that banking needs to be split into the utility (piggy bank) and investment (sandbox). But, we disagree with the view that risk being rewarded is the prime concern for Ben and any of us dealing with beans, not without some qualification.

Would you have wanted your mother to risk your butt (unnecessarily) when she was carrying you? Oh, that doesn't apply? We'll go into this thoroughly (philosophy of economics).

We can apply insights from Minsky (Oops and truth) and, perhaps, quantify a spectrum that is usable. In this regard Ben needs to educate himself on the need for savers to know that they will have when they need it. That is, 'risk adverse' is not stupid; the analog here is innumeracy which, again, supposedly is stupid (well, we intend to show otherwise: the numerants have muddied the waters and pilfered the till).

Okay, savers got sacked by Big Ben, continue to get sacked, and are considered unessential. That is a basic economic error, folks. We'll show this. As, risk can be managed only so far, then it needs to be avoided; so, gaming has to be cordoned off into its own sandbox. What will this look like?

My hope is that Ben's re-up vote will motivate him to lead a re-educating process in regard to things economic. Actually, jawboning about these issues is one of his roles.

Remarks:

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

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

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

09/02/2010-- The FED just had their hoe-down.

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

03/20/2010 -- Big Ben says that bailing out the big banks was (or is it is?) 'unconscionable' yet was this not what he did?

02/01/2010 -- NYTimes reports that AIG's shell game wasn't on the fringe. Ben said no. Wake up, big guy. Please do your second term with your eyes open to keep them stupid capitalists in line.

Modified: 03/23/2012

Mastered by machines

Moral: Wherein we consider that the sirens related to the big chimera just might have the purpose of helping the interlopers to hide the fact that the shell-games are stacked more in their favor, via computation, than we would like to consider.

---

Sorry state of affairs, folks.

We need to thank the USA Today for this look at what has been put on us as a yoke by the best and brightest.

Pure idiocy. All this under the name of a 'market' driven economy. Give me a break (we need to reclaim the lessons from Adam).

Some of the real founders are rolling over in their graves.

Remarks:

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

01/13/2012 -- We'll be coherent and thorough as we discuss issues (out of control) related to this theme.

03/17/2011 -- 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 -- The chimera shines.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

08/30/2010 -- The 'chimera' need some attention.

07/27/2010 -- The Boston Globe had an interesting op-ed, recently, about these types. Of course, there are several types of best and brightest, including the quants. We'll need to address this topic again using what we know of the new kings. Ah, such confidence when underdetermination reigns.

07/25/2010 -- Not run into the ground by machines so much as by the antics of those who use the distraction of complexity to cover their malfeasance'd purposes. You see, some always use advances in technology (and knowledge, in general) as a means to obtain gain. Just taking that tact is questionable ethically, but business has adopted the jungle metaphor (albeit, without real foundation for this choice). Hence, some justification for twisting new situations for means of gains probably can be found; Lord knows, too, that some adore those who have massive collections of wealth. Some of those who bought into the one known bad guy (ah, AIG was probably full of wrongful thinking if truth be known), namely Made-off, and his game did so because they were told that they were joining an exclusive and privileged group. The solution will rest on a better foundation that goes beyond gaming and money'd politicos.

07/21/2010 -- That we let systems run wild says a lot about us. That economics requires systems means that issues of control, truth, and related are of utmost interest to any attempt at founding a better basis. We'll get there, folks, by taming several speculative thrusts that were emboldened by theory, game and otherwise.

07/11/2010 -- Every which way that we look, are there not oops?

Modified: 03/16/2015

Most cannot and never have been able to

Moral: Wherein we state the obvious: most (way above 50%) cannot (and never will) get their monies out of the ca-pital-sino due to many reasons which we will enumerate (ad infinitum).

Give us time. Essentially, the equity propaganda is based upon faulty models. The whole framework looks at the winners (one side of near-zero). In actuality, that very much larger set of non-winners (no, not losers - it is not a closed situation) is more important on the whole.

---

In essence, someone of Janet's ilk needs to realize the importance of a reasonable interest rate applied to instruments that are safe and sound (in so far as is humanly possible to attain). To bring that about will require a re-look at the current basis of belief (of course, the accouterments that accompany the big pockets and "winners" in the current system make it difficult to get the conversation going in a proper manner - worse than a catch-22, if you would).

---

Now, to be technical, for a moment, there are all sorts of analyses going on everyday. Much of this it yapped about ceaselessly all day (Lord, deliver us - yes, Cramer, you, too).

One that came to mind was Tobin's q (he is the Nobel winner). Skirting for the moment all of the questions of defining, and determining, value (about which we have been writing: 7oops7, Tru'eng, FEDareated), Tobin would have us relate the total sum of assets to the current market value. If the ratio is above 1, then things are (may be) puffy (as we see now, where bubble is more appropriate).

But, you know, the magical multiplier would have to be collapsed in order to get the proper market value. And, that, then, would settle the issue.

Tobin's q and
Market Cap / GDP

And, too, the whole notion of most not getting their claim comes from that little sleight of hand that has been accepted as the only way to do things (complete misuse of Adam).

---

The VectorGrader site provides a graph of Tobin's q since 1950. But, notice all of the other valuation charts that are offered, like Market Capital to GDP which looks similar. For each, there is a brief description of how the chart is calculated.

Also, dshort.com provides a nice summary and discussion.

---

So, let's back up. The motivation for this was a BloombergBusiness report about Tobin: Nobel Winner's Math is Showing S&P 500 Unhinged From Reality. The report discusses the case that the markets may be frothy. In doing so, it covers the following topics:

• Dissenting Views - one of these says that worrying about the "q" would have kept one out of this market. Oh yes, that is the point being made here (if you got in, you have accumulated ill-begotten gains (enjoy them, quiet (if you can) your conscience) - not available to everyone).
• Slow Spending - and we know about this; cutting costs (removing workers - working the remaining to an inch of their health) and hoarding money (also, buying your own stock to keep the price up) and ... What is equity for, anyway? The basis for gaming (financial manipulations) or a means to support real economic decisions?
• Mean Reversion - Ah, investors? What about the people being screwed who are those with their hands in the dirt, who are keeping things afloat for the fat cats (riders of the system's magic carpet - coddled to the max), ...?
• Bond Yields - oh yes, no where else to go but equity markets? Not. Somehow, a real economic view needs to be expressed here (Janet, et al, are too much of the game as defined to try to grasp the issues - Ben could not see the last downturn when it was starting to happen right under his nose -- but, he showed us that he had not run out of bullets - did we really say that?). 

All in all, it was a nice article, however it does not address the real issue. For that matter, who does (except for this blogger)?

---

Too, we need to look at whether markets can be fair or not. Oh, sure. that argument reverts back to the fantasy of "efficient" market. While people argue and nitpick about that, others slave away or starve.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/18/2015

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

Largess, by another name

Moral: Wherein we realize that Big Ben and Little Timmy cannot be forgotten, even, for a moment, as they seem to like the ca-pital-sino nature of our modern economy with its infatuation with the big chimera.

---

Yes, Big Ben will continue to sack savers for another couple of years. He wants money to run after the chimera (about which, we have no accounting).

---

No, there are rumblings of QE3. Lord forbid!

And, he has another few years to go in his term.

It is a good thing that some have taken the vow of simple living (ask me, Big Ben, Warren, ...) and will not succumb to the sirens that have entrapped the busyness world.

Remarks

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

03/29/2013 -- Ben has taken a big chunk out of the Savings Bond payback.

02/28/2013 -- Ben seems to have an infinite horizon in regard to saver sacking. He does have the risky side of things boiling. Why not unwind, guy, so that we can see what happens? I understand that Elizabeth grilled him the past day or so; haven't really paid close attention as I'm just hunkered down under his reign. Someday, the sun will shine for the savers.

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. Lucky people like myself will continue to pay through the nose. Thanks, big guy.

04/06/2012 -- Ben talked for 4 Lectures. A series of remarks is expected to be motivated from such.

10/24/2011 -- Those who have not received Big Ben's largess congregate.

09/09/2011 -- Big Ben and the consumer.

08/16/2011 -- Big Ben treasonous?

Modified: 09/19/2013

Reorganization of sorts

Moral: Wherein we look at blogger improvements in order to bolster the medium, hopefully enhancing the message.

Namely, using the "Page" header in order to present information more coherently. As in, outside of the temporal view supported by the normal listing. Even, to the extent of getting away from the constraints of categories.

Ca-pital-sino, anyone?

Remarks:  Modified: 12/30/2014

12/30/2014 -- Added Lord/Serfs (note, please, 2015 will be the year of the Magna Charta - that whole bit is related to what we are doing here). Next up, Chimera (ah, yes, it is true, folks). There will be more.  

Yellen is thinking, mainly, of stockholders?

Moral: Wherein we consider how things unfolded to now.

Yellen speaks; the markets inflate. Someone is priming the pump today; the main problem is that mom and pops are getting screwed (will be burnt). ... And, savers? Oh Lord.

---

First, we'll collect material, by type and time. Actually, Drucker (2011 article) discusses how this bit of insanity came about.

1997 - Rah, rah speech - ah, stock as the prime measure of our economy.

2000 - Stockholder myth - sounds like my stuff - had not read this.

2004 - Tangible versus not - 62 to 38 vs 16 to 84? Change in percent of tangible to intangible from 1982 to 1999. [stale link]

2011- The Dumbest idea - make money or create a customer? No, cook the books (thanks, Jack).

timeless - Investopedia - of course, we know, a priori, how their view will go.

---

We have to do more than just dampen the magical multiple.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/13/2016

06/18/2015 -- So, Yellen talks. No rate increase. Then, the markets jump up. Too, the wags (shrilly) start to say, come into the ca-pital-sino. We have several months of rise. ..., So, someone pumped (as in priming) up the system, today. And, we know that the huge leaps are the mere artifact of the accounting. ... Too, we have "investors" who are the focus (supposed). Good companies have gone toward a more balanced view in which customers get a lot of attention as do the workers who get things done and make the customers happy. What the hell does the investor do? Sit on their fat arses and give us attitude, as in, I'm entitled to this. Says who? Oh, Adam Smith (silly me)? ..., So, much to discuss in order to get a better framework. ... The WSJ recently quoted Friedman (the monetarist) who talked greed, this is the way, etc. Almost barfed, quite frankly.

06/22/2015 -- However far from effective this post might be, the message will improve. Just as we see Ben moving toward blogginess.

12/13/2016 -- New link from TradingSim (does not imply endorsement).

Rank and file

Moral: Wherein we continue a re-look at themes related to labor (persons), corporations (the wannabe person), lord-serfs, and much more in the context of the development since Sept, 2011.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III

---

Which development? OWS, of course. Their grievance list (image from that page).

Rank and file? Yes, denotes another type of split: leaders (and egos) and the rest. Other concepts, of the same ilk, are the masses, et al.

---

The truth? Within the 'ranks' are many who are more smart (in about any way that you want to measure - except for 'ego' and out-and-out amoralism) than those of the 'elite' classes that seem to want to differentiate themselves (mind you, that statement implies, in no way, any denigration of refinement, and its usefulness to help us relate peacefully).

In fact, some autodidacts (what is this? the anti-thesis of the lobbyist's ilk) may very well out-weigh the smarties in those esteemed institutions, which are supposedly the foundation of truth. But, such types of comparison can be counter-productive (except for those who want to rise above the rank-and-file -- where God is (as in, in the details)? -- thereby pulling away from any semblance of the truth -- the source of problems, in a nutshell).

---

If the best-and-brightest (their term) of the generation are led toward egoism and selfish grabbing, from whence will come any progress? Oh yes, they work to establish (impossible) a firm basis for gaming as the sole metaphor for us (yes, and, this take does not populist make, rather out-and-out realism -- same planet, the elite's poop is more rank (as in, odorous - due to the rarefied airs within which they dwell), et al, ..., and much more, of course).

Who is helping us look at near-zero's (engineering) characteristics and control issues (not command and control, by the way)?

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/26/2011 -- Continuation.

Modified: 12/15/2012

Cyprus, no lesson for Ben

Moral: Wherein we consider Ben and Cyprus.

Last time, we said that Ben has slapped the savers silly. Then, the EU tells Cyprus to take a tithing out of deposits in order to cover the shambles left behind by supposedly smart financial types. Who, by the way, we bailed out (still an open issue, as Ben knows; he won't let an unwind happen so that we can see the real crud).

Now that EU deal was last week; an article at Seeking Alpha (to which I commented -- Aroound the bloock) suggested that the equity markets would go down. The week isn't over.

As well, "tithe" is about 10%. We, the savers, have given much more (a multiple of that), and Ben tells us, with a straight face, that he'll continue to slap us silly.

How do we know? They, (the FED money printers) met this week. Someone asked Ben if he would pull a Cyprus. Evidently, he doesn't think so. Yet, he does not see the equivalence of his slapping savers now (and for the past few years) with the EU suggestion.

Today, The Daily Ticker, had on Jim Rickards who says that Ben is stealing, in a sense, from depositors. But, Ben must not see this, as I'm sure that he knows the moral issues (unless, he's taken the secular route to the extreme - screw the helpless - that is what power leads to - corruption -- thanks, Lord Acton).

---

There may be another issue though that needs to be explained to Ben. He's heavy into mathematics and modeling. But, Ben doesn't seem to have insight into the issues related to quasi-empiricism that need to be updated to the modern context. In short: computational power has leveraged the misthoughts and misdeeds (of the financial ilks as they focus on unfair games, err "products" - can you imagine? almost implying some reality to these things - chimeras that they can be - almost if we can eat or wear the things) enormously so as to present us with out-of-control situations. The related notions may seem to be subtle and to be a stretch, quite frankly. But, that is one of the issues; these people run off (as did Ben) with new ideas spawned out without suitable foresight (unless it's to the amount that can be gained) into impact on the wider economy (we need a sandbox for these folks -- anyone trying to define this, Ben?).

One saving grace might be the new guy from Harvard. We'll see.

So, Ben puts out the message, No bubbles. Yes, we'll have an interesting look-back, at some point. At that time, we can also put a number on Ben's little negative impact (let's say, a 30% loss to date which has no floor as Ben continues to stumble along, albeit suavely, while slapping with both hands -- must be doing so in a sleep-walking mode).

Remarks:

03/26/2013 -- Let's see, some (many) who were under water on their house loans got bailed out (even to the extent of 6 figures), some in the equity markets have gained (a whole lot more have not - but, one could argue that it was their own misdeed - as stupid as that argument is, I'll put it here), banks are rolling in the dough (enough for some to get big paychecks, okay?), et al. Now, on the other side, there are the unemployed and the underemployed; there are those who lost without any means to recover; et al. Then, we have the savers who are saints. We've given up 30+% of our deposits to Ben's little scheme; many of us have no recourse or way to recover. So, think of it, folks, as a gift (that's why I used tithe - except that it's in the church of money - yet, money is the blood of the economy and has some spiritual value -- which does not mean to take a bath in it like old Scroog or whoever that comic character was who would fill the but with money -- what about paper cuts?). We would for Ben, at least, to acknowledge that he did wrong and that he ought to see that means are there in the future to offset his (the next FED aerator) harming ways.

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).

Modified: 03/26/2013