Mangled Bankster Math
Hello! Welcome back. Let’s get rockin’ and rollin’ on another money, markets and investments smackdown of Ivory Tower narratives, duking it out in ring deep within the prairieland of Canada, courtesy of moi.
Enough of the break in this offensive enacted last week. Time to get back on the horse and charge full steam ahead at the bankster juggernaut, hopefully not in the same heroic futility as the Polish armies engaging the Nazi blitzkrieg at the onset of World War II.
But I digress…
Today, I have two quick fronts to takedown so strap in for some punitive mayhem.
Firstly, a juicy yet well hidden absurdity resulting from the inauguration of the next king down south. According to a news item on MarketWatch, el presidente Biden has picked Gary Gensler to lead the SEC. (1)
Except, let’s dig only one sentence deeper in the article:
“Gensler is the former commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission…”
OK, so that shows experience in the business of regulations. Again, meh, whatever.
But continue reading that sentence and…presto…he’s a “former partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”.
Of course he is. What a surprise.
But here’s where I actually laughed out loud at my computer. The article concludes by saying that this nomination “…signal(s) the Biden administration’s significantly tougher stance toward Wall Street than it faced from the Trump administration.”
What? Tougher stance on Wall Street? A former PARTNER at a huge Wall Street firm? Really? Does anyone seriously believe he’s going to be tougher on his Bankster buddies? Think about it. After eventually leaving the SEC, does anyone with any common sense not realize Mr. Gensler will be looking to pad his pockets by returning to Wall Street with a nice, cushy “consulting” gig?
When he does, will anyone accept him with open arms if he took a “tougher stance” during his tenure at the SEC?
There’s the media trying to hoodwink us with stupid comments. It’s insulting that the media thinks so little of their readers. But I guess who can blame them, the media, for thinking so. Unfortunately, for those not partaking in the slam dunkery of sources such as the Recovering Bankster, it’s easy to get sucked into such vain commentary.
Now, speaking of slam dunks, I came across a magnificent comment from a somewhat better-known financial commentator in the US.
In recent months and years, there’s a growing rhetoric that central banks need to step up and fight income or wealth inequality. This talk has especially been amplified as global economies stumble through the 2020 pandemic.
And the U.S. Fed has taken the bait. One need only search “Fed Chair Wealth Inequality” or some similar statement on the interwebs, to find a plethora of examples of bloviations about income or wealth or economic inequality. Besides the ridiculous expectation of central banks to fight climate change, inequality is another matter fervently adopted as objectives outside of their official mandates.
Throughout 2020, as central banks have trapsed out fighting units against the financial repercussions pandemic policies have unleashed, inequality has regularly been a buzzword for central bankers.
Alas, John Mauldin, in his editorial piece on January 15, 2021, made an astute observation, which more need to take heed of. Allow me some leeway to read a few lines of his gem: (2)
“…it’s not clear whether we actually have functional capital markets anymore.
“After nearly a year of radical, unprecedented Federal Reserve action, the bond market is totally at the Fed’s mercy. Their purchases of Treasury bonds and corporate bond ETFs have let the government and large companies borrow huge amounts on some of the best terms in recorded history.
“This cash isn’t necessarily being used productively, though, which is going to be a big problem at some point.
“Further, the Fed is making the wealth and income disparity divide even worse. Their financial repression is crushing savers, almost forcing retirees to choose riskier alternatives at precisely the time in their lives when they shouldn’t be.
“Given today’s valuations, this could have disastrous effects.”
I believe I’ve taken this stance before but allow me to reiterate that I do NOT believe actions taken by central banks around the world are helping the inequality gap.
Sure, there’s a rabbit hole one could travel through in questioning whether or not the central bankers are knowingly contributing to the wealth or economic gaps. But that’s not up for ruminating here. Instead, it’s important to take the first step in comprehending that by flooding the economy with money while also suppressing interest rates for years and years on end, they in fact are not helping anyone but their bankster cronies in the upper echelons of Banksterville.
Among others, Mauldin is positing a fair warning that continuing down this path will end in disaster. While taking another road today wound not be without economic pain, continuing down this path will only amplify the hurt the longer we stay on it.
And the longer we stay on this trajectory, the more pain will be felt and experienced by what’s left of the middle class as well as the growing lower classes of society. Does that sound like solving the inequality conundrum? Newly printed money continues to stream into the pockets of the upper echelons of society, either directly or indirectly. First it makes a brief stopover in the pockets of the middle and lower classes before eventually being spent or “invested” into the pockets of the so-called 1 percenters.
We need to heed such notes of caution because they are few and far between from reliable sources, especially when it comes to the sifting actions of the mainstream financial media ensuring such alerts are either downplayed or completely washed away from the newswires.
Then again, I’m just a ranting Recovering Bankster; what do I know?