Several posts have mentioned the new day. To take those as indicative of the position of the blog would be erroneous. Nor do they imply, necessarily, the vote back in November.
Rather, it's a new reality that we'll be dealing with. And, the twists make it interesting.
Fortunately, the new day is sufficiently different from the past eight years, and from that started by Reagan, that we'll get plenty of new data. Will this help resolve the issues of the dismal science? No. We will learn a thing or two. Some high-flyers will come down a notch or two.
It will help us to remember that the games are silly, have been for some time, and would have continued to be such with McCain. Would Madoff have been uncovered or would he still be pilfering?
Trouble is that we have oodles of resources now that keep the game and its visibility up. To wit, CNBC, WSJ, and a bunch more. There are talking heads, in multi-packs, all through the day with all sorts of numbers, graphs, gaffs, and opinions.
The WSJ has almost been showing a split personality as they allow many sides to be argued. It all makes the head spin to keep up with the factions.
Do these add any value (in the real sense, folks) to the market's basic task or efficiency?
At least, gross accumulation is not seen as any epitome now, for awhile, at least. How to show that we're talking near-zero? Though, plenty have argued otherwise.
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?).
07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.