"The Bubblemeister" and "The Magus"

As we have said. Former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan is better termed "bubblemeister" than "maestro." Both words mean skilled and masterful. The connotation of "meister," which may appear playful, is deadly serious, at least in economic terms, and especially as applied to average tax payers as we shall see. Presently, we should apply a third term to the former Fed chairman: Magus, meaning "magician, sorcerer" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary).

Quick! Identify the following phrase. Federal Old Age Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. That's correct, another name for the original Social Security Act passed in the 1930s. Some historians have called the Act the single greatest piece of legislation ever passed, particularly because of the unprecedented security it provided elderly, retired Americans. Although today it cannot be used exclusively to ensure financial security upon retirement, it may still be called a cornerstone for retirees.

Some background. Funding the Social Security Trust Fund had amounted to 2% of the payroll in its beginning, and the Fund has routinely operated with a surplus. In fact, "taxes (still) provide approximately $200 billion more in receipts than are paid out, which reduces the reported deficit. Note: This situation will reverse in 2017 when Social Security payments are projected to exceed revenues" (Social Security Trustees Report).

As the years wore on the increasing number of retirees and burden of the war in Vietnam by the 1960s contributed to a general budget deficit (the United States Operating Budget). The temptation was too great: From 1969 forward the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was used to make up the short fall in the general federal budget even though by 1990 the Budget Enforcement Act forbade such plundering. Pretty good sleight of hand, a sort of black magic done by others.

Yet Alan Greenspan must be called the sorcerer, the Magus, for every year in Greenspan's tenure except 1999 and 2000 the Social Security surplus was used and spent in the federal budget converting the wholesome tax-in-advance system into a corrupted pay-as-you-go system further robbing the Social Security Trust Fund of its cash. Greenspan supported the magical looting. But how magical? Because Alan Greenspan, while supporting tax cuts for the wealthy, used his magisterial position to favor putting the average worker into the position of subsidizing the budget deficit. He accomplished this by giving magisterial testimony in the halls of Congress before all, with few noticing which shell contained the pea. Certainly the workers couldn't see as they were, as usual, in the back part of the room. They could only vaguely approve as they perceived someone was performing great feats of magic over the economy in the front part. Prestidigitation not even required from such a distance. (Greenspan's Fraud, Ravi Batra).

Further note: Income tax on the top bracket was 70% in 1980, and fell to 28% by 2000. All during the Magus' tenure. What a performance.

Subscribe in a reader

"Maestro" perhaps, master of fraud, certainly

A "maestro," among other things, is a master of any art, an expert, a wizard. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had worn that title, untarnished, until recently. It had always seemed like an inflated euphemism to some because Greenspan's policies as Federal Reserve chairman appeared to largely serve the gambling elements of Wall Street while it's more conservative elements stood by muted. But that was then. In today's "Sputtering" U. S. economy the very one that was "fine-tuned" for twenty years by "master mechanic" Greenspan, better to rethink the generous appellation "maestro." "Bubblemeister" comes to mind.

In Greenspan’s Fraud by professor Ravi Batra, Alan Greenspan is described as having experienced a formal, undergraduate education in economics but certainly "had minimal banking experience and was not a trained economist." Batra, among others in both the financial and academic world now put much of the blame for the economic bubble of 1999 on Greenspan and his "loose money policies" at the Federal Reserve (The Fed).

"The bubble in 1999 wiped out $7 trillion of wealth. Nearly 2 million lucrative jobs have vanished since 2000. The United States borrows $2 billion/day to stay afloat. Foreigners subsidize consumer credit by loaning $600 billion/year."

Currently, "The Maestro" is being tagged "Mr. Bubble" and is taking much of the blame for the U.S. real estate collapse and the severe weakening of the mortgage industry, mostly hurting the lower middle classes hopeful of maintaining home ownership or of some day purchasing a home. (Home ownership is historically the key strategy of most Americans of building financial equity and future security.)

In his defense, Greenspan claims it's better to experience the "periodic blowups" (euphemism) which characterize free markets than to regulate them strictly. Greenspan makes no mention of using even moderate regulatory powers over the mortgage industry. Congress gave the Fed authority to curb excesses and abuses in the mortgage lending sector (Thomas S. Mulligan) which the Bubblemeister chose to ignore based upon his belief that "markets correct their own problems." The counter posed question: Why not let markets correct their own problems in a prudent "prime rate" environment? Answer: You pick and choose your strategies based upon your philosophy and personal ambition. This is the measure of a fraud artist, call it "maestro" if you will. Alan Greenspan was an early devotee of libertarian ideologue Ayn Rand who espoused an extreme form of rational selfishness in her fictional works.

Whom do you think "rational selfishness" serves better regarding the "masterful" concerting of the Prime Rate of Interest, the casino players on Wall Street, or lower middle class folks who, in their own misery, tried to jump on the "sub prime" bus after it had left the station? Greenspan has lately endorsed the use of taxpayer dollars to help ease the mortgage debacle. More "rational selfishness." Like the early 1990s, the tax payer will bail out an unfettered "free market" system that would have collapsed of its own weight. No dividend or capital gain for the tax payer, plenty of upside for the investor. It is plainly evident to all interested observers that Capitalism sustains itself not a little through large doses of Socialist medicine.

It's not "all good"

More on clichés using the perfectly good word "good," yet, when over-used, ugh! I'm speaking of the clichéd phrases:

good to go and it's all good. No, it's not "all good" if one can't think of more creative phrases. A cliché was once fresh and appealing. We paid attention. But once over-used, as these two at one time well-coined phrases have become, they stale and fail to communicate any strong color of emotion.

It's worthwhile to stop and consider any spoilt, over-indulged phrases we might be using and to insert another metaphor or even useful, vibrant adjective or verb. People might pay more attention to us.

A few alternatives:

good to go alternatives: ready, set, well-arranged, or, how about simply: go!

It's all good: flawless, impeccable, superior, or a hyperbole for special effect: wicked!


Other alternatives to clichés

CNN's Rick Sanchez goes off the road on pronoun use

CNN's On the Road "starring" Rick Sanchez might consider firing his "pit crew." In Philadelphia recently to cover the primary face-off between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a graphic expressed the following query pointed to voter in the City of Brotherly Love:

Who's voting for who?

The graphic should have read: Who's voting for whom? Objective case pronouns needed after prepositions. The pronoun serves as the object of the preposition.

Given Sanchez' quirky stunts in order to gain viewers, it comes as little surprise that the use of language will be equally quirky.

Subscribe in a reader

Recession or Depression: More from Guy Geldworth

From the Desk of Guy Geldworth:

As you will recall, when I posed the thought of a Recession to Mr. Geldworth , who holds his CFA badge of authority, he responded with the word "uncertainty."

Uncertainty may still the word according to "lagging measures," but to many, it feels like a recession. You know the saying: When your neighbor is out of work, he's unemployed, when you are out of work, it's a recession.

While I'm still employed, I'm saying saying at least we're in a narrow recession. The CEO of Wells Fargo, a three-star bank has said: "We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression." And from other experts: "It is now clear that the U.S. and global financial markets are experiencing their worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," according to economist Nouriel Roubini.

Jack Sands: So, have we skipped the Recession? Indeed, are we headed for a Depression?

Guy Geldworth: (laughing) A Recession? No, not strictly. A Depression, certainly not. In the Depression over 24% of the workforce was unemployed; in the United States in April, we had 4.8% unemployment. GDP registered a 0.6% gain--industrial production has been slightly up. There's still a debate whether the stock market is in a correction or a heavy bear market.

Jack: What about the housing recession. What about the banks still tight with credit. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's efforts haven't seemed to help.

Guy: It takes time for those economic stimulus checks to find their way into the economy.

Sands: I'm told the people who need them most will simply pay off debts.

(Pause)

Geldworth: I repeat, you can determine what a recession looks like by measuring real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. Employment is not bad, industrial production is slightly up, real income is uncertain at this point, and yes, wholesale-retail sales are down, housing market, down. Just too spotty.

Sands: So, we're on the downside of a cycle that smells like either a Recession or a Bear Market, bad sentiment, high volatility...

Geldworth: I believe so. We just have to let things run their course. The bank failures are a necessary, sloppy characteristic of capitalism. Call it dirty if you like, but in the long run, these excesses will be cleansed, and equilibrium will be back. A new cycle.

Sands: How do you know when the new cycle is on the way?

Geldworth: Contrarian signals is one way. According the the ISE index an increasing number of puts are being purchased indicating too much negative sentiment, a classic reversal signal.

Sands: I'll tell my out-of-work neighbor to get out his happy money.

Geldworth: If he has the inclination. Remember to tell him, Asset Allocation using non correlated measures. (see posting of 11 March 2008, "The Semantics of Recession")

Working while eating, not a good experience

Are you still working? This "workhorse" expression has been used by cheerful and hard working waiters and waitresses for too many years now to determine if a diner has completed a meal. The term is never used in the very finest establishments in Los Angeles, but I can see it creeping in unless something is done fast.

The young waitstaff all mean well, I understand, but the word "working" simply doesn't work when asking patrons if they have completed their meal.

My silent response as I nod politely: No, I'm eating. I would never arrive in a restaurant expecting to be seated and having to go to work.

Alternative suggestions: "May I take your plate?" Or, more directly, "Have you completed your meal?" Or how about optimistically, "Are you still enjoying your dinner?"

Another, wordless measure, used to prove quite satisfactory; when the diner had finished eating, he or she simply placed the fork and knife in the four o'clock position. Sometimes, actions speak more eloquently than words.

Apt metaphor for an assassin

(Yet more on Larry King's innocuous word "passed" to describe the murder of John Lennon. See 4/3/08, "Larry King, Inept Euphemism")

Writer Michael Phillips' Los Angeles Times movie review of "Chapter 27," a study of John Lennon's killer in the three days leading up to the murder is appropriately titled:

"Leto adds unsettling weight to study of Lennon's killer"

"Leto" refers to actor Jared Leto who purposely gained 67 pounds to match the body stature of Mark David Chapman, the young man who killed John Lennon. The "unsettling" aspect of Leto's performance, however, lay in his ability to "portray bland dementia," a phrase which reminds of Hannah Arendt's idea of the banality of evil, that is, that "the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths (like Chapman) but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal." (Wikipedia).

Arendt was not describing the Mark David Chapmans of the world, particularly the world as we have experienced it in America these past twenty-five years. Although Chapman might have looked to be a banal individual to his neighbors in most of his daily routines, what stirred beneath proved fatally energetic enough to result in a fanatical, murderous act. Hannah Arendt's thesis is reserved for epic acts, unconcernedly approved by many in society and executed on a grand scale. (Dare we think of the 50% +/- of Americans who have consented to the United States' military exercise in Iraq?). Reuters reports that one million Iraquis have died since the war began.

But back to Phillips' metaphor. It proves a legitimate play on words ultimately pointing to the profound nature of Chapman's act, associated with an individual whose fleshy appearance wouldn't make you think of a killer but whose "internals" enabled an individual to do more than simply "take a life." John Lennon did not merely "pass on," he was "taken out."

More on Larry's avoidance of the King's English

In an aforementioned interview of Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, Larry King asked of Mr. Starr: "When you are playing (the drums), do you know how good they're singing?" King was referring to Starr's fellow Beatles.

Good is an adjective meaning excellent, pleasant, in fine condition, having admirable moral values. When it is used, it must be referring to a noun in the sentence. Larry has "good" referring to the verb phrase "...they're singing?"

Mr. King meant to say: "Do you know how well they're singing?" Well meaning done excellently, or even done in a good manner.

A note: well may also act as an adjective meaning: healthy, in a good state, satisfying, making it confusingly like good. Thus, you must watch your syntax, where the words are placed in the sentence. Not knowing your grammatical "geography" can get you lost.

Oh well! Speaking good English is not always so easy, even when you've been at it for some time.

Larry King, Inept Euphemism

Larry King recently interviewed Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in connection to a Cirque de Soleil promotion featuring the Beatles music. The interview fascinated and went well until Mr. King asked of McCartney: Where were you when John (Lennon) passed?

My wife and I both looked at each other having a fixed memory of the tragedy and wondered aloud the reason King, quite often trenchant in his observations, chose to used a euphemism, for as most people know Lennon was murdered.

A Euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener; or in the case of doublespeak, to make it less troublesome for the speaker (Concise Oxford Dictionary).

How would King have offended McCartney or Starr by using the literal word? While the event was unpleasant, it occurred many years ago; shouldn't we speak literally in some cases, less history be ill-served, less the victim himself be ill-served? Were not his companions ill-served. McCartney looked oddly at King seeming to ask for a more relevant word.

At times, we must speak literally. Too much use of euphemism can make reality oblique, dull its telling edges. History is a serious subject providing us perspective. John Lennon did not "pass" so much as he was "taken." We say that a life is taken, using the passive voice to ease our pain. Hurricanes take lives, automobile accidents take lives, disease takes lives. Yet when another human takes a life, it's called murder, a useful, sober, and in this case, an historically accurate word.