In the gaming that is finance, we have several viewpoints to ponder as we look at the decline of dreams. Who is to know where things are going? Ben, of the Fed, talks his game. Dr. Doom touts nationalization. William M. Isaac says no way (WSJ, "Bank Nationalization Isn't the Answer").
One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?
The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.
As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?
Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.
Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.
The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.
Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.
Remarks:
01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.
10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).
08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.
08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.
Modified: 01/27/2010
No comments:
Post a Comment