Today, the Feb threw money in the 'morally hazardous' game again, with lame arguments. The Dow had been unsettled (like choppy waters all day) but took a leap at the news. Who was behind this rise? Those who believed that the economy would be better. Ah, so many questions?
Well, after reaching a peak, in short order, there was a fall. Now, the only explanation of who was selling off cannot point back to those originally bought into the climb. Most probably, that class was still buying.
No, there was profit taking from another class or two (or more).
You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape.
There has to be brought back to fore the ideals of the American dream (with globally appropriate extensions, of course), that allows mature management of money. The gamesters need to be relegated to a sand box, albeit of very large scope.
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.
Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
01/26/09 -- One question is will anything be learned. Some of the bail out money went to Merrill Lynch who was taken over by Bank of America and who paid out $4B (yes, billion) in bonuses. We need to re-look at finance and its use, in depth.
09/30/08 -- Well, things do get curiouser through time. Now, a major bailout is underway, but the bases of the problem are ignored.
05/31/08 -- More types of gaming problems become more evident every day. The trouble is that the economy runs on; we experiment on the fly. Does the Fed learn?
02/01/08 -- The players, now, are not like the 1930s, Ben. Though the human element may be playing a large factor (as it will continue to), there is a growing presence of 'virtual' (we ought to get a better characterizing word) via computation that essentially enabled the silliness that has evolved since the 70s (of last century). The analysis here is not being Luddite driven; rather, economics needs to step up to its roles related to quasi-empirical; gaming theory, notwithstanding everyone's debt to Nash, is not the basis for the future (..., more on this in time, ...).
There used to be a concept called 'saver' that was touted as important. If those types exist (and they do), there ought to be some long-term return that could be defined, preserved, and managed (for argument, let's just use 4%).
Later, there was the concept called 'spender' who was the new basis for the economy. Of course, they got rewarded with huge anti-returns (18% and up). From whence came the means to manage the accumulated 'spending' for this class? Essentially debt, many times with little chance that the 'spender' could repay (indentured servant, indeed).
How could this be? Does it not sound stupid to the reasonable mind?
Well, you see, there is the 'player' who has always been there defining the game, raking in the dough, and keeping things muddy enough for unbounded gains.
Starting in the 1980s, there have come about better ways to support this gaming-scheme of the 'player' with computation creating an environment compared to which the web's supposedly wild-west, dangerous reputation pales.
New York's Street is the new Las Vegas (oh, is there still the purported mob affiliation?).
For some reason, the Fed seems to be on the side of the 'player' and not the 'spender.' Actually, the 'spender' has been loaded with so much debt that its inter-generational effects are going to be more problematic than we allow.
You see, it probably could be guaranteed that the 'saver' and the 'spender' share several attributes. For one, both dealt with real things concerning what we might eat, wear, or use.
Is it probably as likely that the 'player' set includes many (the majority?) who do not know where their feet are? Is this an economic model about which to be proud?
The true capitalist would be turning over in his grave about now.
Modified: 11/04/2010
07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.
Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
01/26/09 -- One question is will anything be learned. Some of the bail out money went to Merrill Lynch who was taken over by Bank of America and who paid out $4B (yes, billion) in bonuses. We need to re-look at finance and its use, in depth.
09/30/08 -- Well, things do get curiouser through time. Now, a major bailout is underway, but the bases of the problem are ignored.
05/31/08 -- More types of gaming problems become more evident every day. The trouble is that the economy runs on; we experiment on the fly. Does the Fed learn?
02/01/08 -- The players, now, are not like the 1930s, Ben. Though the human element may be playing a large factor (as it will continue to), there is a growing presence of 'virtual' (we ought to get a better characterizing word) via computation that essentially enabled the silliness that has evolved since the 70s (of last century). The analysis here is not being Luddite driven; rather, economics needs to step up to its roles related to quasi-empirical; gaming theory, notwithstanding everyone's debt to Nash, is not the basis for the future (..., more on this in time, ...).
There used to be a concept called 'saver' that was touted as important. If those types exist (and they do), there ought to be some long-term return that could be defined, preserved, and managed (for argument, let's just use 4%).
Later, there was the concept called 'spender' who was the new basis for the economy. Of course, they got rewarded with huge anti-returns (18% and up). From whence came the means to manage the accumulated 'spending' for this class? Essentially debt, many times with little chance that the 'spender' could repay (indentured servant, indeed).
How could this be? Does it not sound stupid to the reasonable mind?
Well, you see, there is the 'player' who has always been there defining the game, raking in the dough, and keeping things muddy enough for unbounded gains.
Starting in the 1980s, there have come about better ways to support this gaming-scheme of the 'player' with computation creating an environment compared to which the web's supposedly wild-west, dangerous reputation pales.
New York's Street is the new Las Vegas (oh, is there still the purported mob affiliation?).
For some reason, the Fed seems to be on the side of the 'player' and not the 'spender.' Actually, the 'spender' has been loaded with so much debt that its inter-generational effects are going to be more problematic than we allow.
You see, it probably could be guaranteed that the 'saver' and the 'spender' share several attributes. For one, both dealt with real things concerning what we might eat, wear, or use.
Is it probably as likely that the 'player' set includes many (the majority?) who do not know where their feet are? Is this an economic model about which to be proud?
The true capitalist would be turning over in his grave about now.
Modified: 11/04/2010
