Many of my friends have been puzzled that I have not been a strong critic of the Tea Party. Indeed, quite the opposite, I stand as a critical admirer. That means that while I don’t share most of the substantive ends of many in that movement, and I strongly object to the extremism of some, I am a genuine admirer of the urge to reform that is at the heart of the grassroots part of this, perhaps the most important political movement in the current political context.

My admiration for this movement grew yesterday, as at least the Patriots flavor of the Tea Party movement announced its first fight with (at least some) Republicans. The Tea Party Patriots have called for a GOP moratorium on “earmarks.” Key Republican Leaders (including Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman John Boehner) intend to introduce a resolution to support such a moratorium in their caucus. But many Republicans in both the House and Senate have opposed a moratorium. Earmarks, they insist, are only a small part of the federal budget. Abolishing them would be symbolic at best.

This disagreement has thus set up the first major fight of principle for the Tea Party. As leaders in the Tea Party Patriots described in an email to supporters,

For two years we have told the media and the rest of the country that we are nonpartisan and that we intend to hold all lawmakers to a higher standard.

This, they insist, is their first chance for that stand with the new Republican Congress. And the Tea Party Patriots have now mobilized their list to pressure Republicans to support this first and critical reform in the new Congress.

The Tea Party is right to push to abolish earmarks from Congress, and the defenders of the status quo are either deceivers, or just plain dumb. It is true that the total spending affected by earmarks is tiny. But by the same logic, one might as well observe that the bribes paid to Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (Republican) and William J. Jefferson (Democrat) were tiny as well. Is that a reason not to prosecute those Members for taking them?

Earmarks are not bribes. But they are an essential element in the corruption that is Congress today. As Washington Post reporter Robert Kaiser describes in his fantastic book, So Damn Much Money, they have become the key to an incredible economy of influence that effectively enables lobbyists to auction too many policy decisions to the highest special interest bidder. That economy won’t change simply by eliminating earmarks. But eliminating earmarks is an essential first step to starving this Republic-destroying beast.

A government in which access can be bought, and influence paid for is not the Republic our Framers intended. They wanted a Congress “dependent,” as Federalist #52 puts it, “upon the People alone.” But through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Congress has evolved to become “dependent” not upon “the People,” but upon “the Funders.” Earmarks are a critical element in that dependency. And if we’re going to end government captured by an elite, we have to end that dependency.

This fight is just the first in a series that this more principled wing of the Tea Party movement can expect. For the truth is that not everyone on the Right shares their passion for ending the corruption that now rules Congress. During the rise of the GOP in the 1990s, some of the rights suggested that it was just “socialist” to question the power of the rich to buy influence over our government. The ideals of the free market, these GOP leaders insisted, should include a free market to buy government policy.

That idea is heresy to anyone standing in the tradition of Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. (Friedman, for example, insisted on a free market within the rules set by the government; he didn’t believe in a free market for those rules.) Yet that idea governs too much of both the Republican and Democratic parties of the past 20 years. It is an important and valuable development for the Republic that a powerful and passionate political movement on the Right makes ending this free market in government influence a core plank in its platform.

But if the Tea Party is really to be “nonpartisan,” then it needs to stop limiting itself to speaking to Republicans alone. Important Democrats share at least some of their reform ideals, including otherwise liberal Democrats, such as Congresswoman Jackie Spear (D-CA). The movement should rally Members from both the Right and the Left for any reform that is right (as in correct). The Tea Party Patriots’ reform to abolish earmarks is plainly that.

Now, of course, I have no illusion that my admiration for the Tea Party can be returned. A movement against “elites” is not likely to listen to a Yale educated Harvard Professor. But if that movement is to be as central to the restoration of the American Republic as its most passionate supporters believe, then it needs to recognize that while we don’t share common ends, we do face a common enemy. Special-interest-government is anathema to both the true Right and the limping Left. Progress would be to work together to end it.

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

1. Michael M Thomas Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am

   In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas

2. Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

   Easy money and the red hot art market.  (Big Picture)

3. Mike in Nola Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm

   When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.

   The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.

   http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html

   Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.

   An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.

4. grlampton Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

   A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).

   Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.

5. gms777 Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

   And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.

   Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.

6. obsvr-1 Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

   seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers

   Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.

7. ToNYC Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

   If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.

   Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.

   great point you make:
   rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.

8. Long term Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

   The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.

9. Mannwich Says:
   

   November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

   Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html

10. philipat Says:
    

    November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)

11. pintelho Says:
    

    November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion

12. Long term Says:
    

    November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.

13. VennData Says:
    

    November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson

14. YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
    

    November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    “Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
    It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.

15. Julia Chestnut Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am

    The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.

    But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.

16. contrabandista13 Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am

    And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.

    It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.

17. BuffaloBill Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am

    A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.

    B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.

    C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”

    D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”

18. contrabandista13 Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am

    The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…

    Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….

19. Greg0658 Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am

    interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake

    I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living

    ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d

20. ToNYC Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.

21. Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am

    What is driving the art market?  Easy money.*  (Big Picture)

22. philipat Says:
    

    November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    VennData Says:

    “What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”

    IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?

23. Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
    

    November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

24. Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
    

    November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

25. Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
    

    November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am

    To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

$10000 bad credit auto loans

Amid the conservative drumbeat about Democratic fiscal irresponsibility comes a bit of news that’s ever so slightly inconvenient for the GOP narrative. It turns out that Democrats actually shrank spending during the 2010 fiscal year:

The US deficit shrank nine percent last fiscal year but still topped one trillion dollars, the government said Friday in a report seized on by Democrats’ rivals weeks ahead of mid-term elections.

For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year’s record-setting high.

Revenue rose and spending fell amid recovery from recession and as President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration wound down some of the emergency measures taken to restore growth.

The final figures “underscored the administration’s commitment” to cutting the massive government deficit, Treasury Secretary TimothyGeithner said in a statement.

And that’s not all:

The government took in three percent more revenue in 2010 than a year ago, at 2.162 trillion dollars. It was the first time receipts had increased after two years of decline.

But it spent more than it took in, 3.456 trillion dollars, although that was two percent less than in 2009 and the fastest one-year reduction since 1984.

Of course, the GOP and its big-media donor will no doubt continue to focus on the trillion-dollar budget deficit, conveniently ignoring not only these figures, but how our country got into such dire fiscal shape in the first place. The GOP is like a criminally reckless 16-year-old complaining that he’s abused because his parents didn’t have enough in savings to buy him a car–all while conveniently ignoring the fact that all the money was spent bailing him out of jail. It’s a multi-step process:

1. Get in power through promises of fiscal responsibility and superior moral values.

1. Proceed to screw things up royally while enriching yourself and your big-money contributors until the voters get fed up and vote Dems into office.

1. Scream and whine about all the measures Democrats have to take to repair the damage, obstruct every last thing, and accuse Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility.

1. Watch voters get frustrated.

1. See step 1. Lather, rinse repeat.

Nice racket, if you can get it.

Victoria Beckham took two of her sons to a skate park here in SoCal yesterday so that her boys could do a bit of shredding on their skateboards. Youngest Beckham child Cruz David did a pretty decent job on his board and altho he fell down a few times, he managed to show some skill as a skateboarder:

His mother was on hand to watch approvingly … from the backseat of her chauffeured car:

It is safe to say that the skateboard park is not her usual hang out – pencil skirts and Christian Louboutins would look a little out of place on the ramps. So it is perhaps unsurprising that Victoria Beckham chose to stay in her car while two of her sons Brooklyn and Cruz tried out their moves at a local park in Brentwood yesterday. But the mother-of-three kept a watchful eye over the children from the driver’s seat, and nervously bit her nails as little Cruz took a tumble. Luckily, it wasn’t a bad fall and the fearless tot dusted himself off and was tearing up the park again in time. The boys were taking their new wheels for a spin after they were spotted the day before with David picking out new skateboards at a Burton store in LA. Oldest son Brooklyn, 11, also showed off his boarding finesse, trying out some tricks while a male carer looked on. Victoria’ hideout may have been in an effort to keep a low profile, after 35-year-old David was surrounded by fans yesterday. The footballer had popped out to pick up some cold drinks when he was spotted by some female fans who seized upon their opportunity to get a picture with the star. Ever the professional, David obliged, signing autographs, posing for pictures and politely chatting to his group of admirers. Despite the sport still having a relatively low profile in the US compared to favourite American past times like baseball, basketball and American football, Beckham has quickly reached the level of fame over there as he has in Britain.

Awww … so cute. Little Cruz is just adorable. I love that he is so active and seems so willing to try new things. I have a feeling that he is going to grow up to be the most rambunctious one of the 3 Beckham boys. I can’t say that I blame Vicki B. for lookin’ so nervous while her baby skates around on a skateboard but I think she could’ve at least gotten out of the car. Still, I must admit that I have no idea what it must really be like to deal with the level of fame that the Beckhams do so … yeah. Only Romeo James was absent from this skateboarding outing … I’m guessing that this particular sport isn’t really his cup of tea.

[Photo credit: X17; Source]

Mg zt cars for sale

Auto cool is one of the newer products advertised on television as the latest gadgets to make life easier. This product claims to reduce the temperature of automobile interiors through the use of a solar powered fan that attaches easily to the window. The example on the commercial shows two cars parked in the same parking lot with the windows rolled up, with one using the Auto Cool system and the other not. The results of this experiment show that the car using the Auto Cool has an interior temperature of 74 degrees, while the car without the Auto Cool system has an interior temperature that is over 100 degrees. The suggested retail price for this system is usually between $14.95 and $19.95, however, special offers can be easily found. At this price the product would be an excellent value if it worked as well as the commercial promotes. However, that is where the problems for this product begin.

Because I don’t like to start off by naming the bad features of any product I will begin this review with what is good about the Auto Cool system. First it is relatively inexpensive. You can sometimes find a two for one deal, or a free gift offer with the purchase of the Auto Cool system. Secondly it is easy to attach you’re Auto Cool to your car window and to attach the weather stripping. Finally the Auto Cool is moderately effective at taking the bite out of a hot car interior. Unfortunately that is the extent of this product’s value.

I originally purchased two Auto Cool systems, and like most As Seen on TV products it took about six weeks to receive. Because the company informed me about this delivery time frame ahead of time it wasn’t a big deal. However, there was no way to get the product shipped faster, even with the purchase of expedited delivery, as this only shortened the delivery time once the order was processed. It had no effect on the processing time. After receiving the Auto Cool system I installed it in my Dodge Caravan, an older model that had an AC unit that no longer worked. I then allowed the Auto Cool to function in the closed vehicle for one hour and then tested the temperature of my vehicle. In actuality the interior seemed hotter with the Auto Cool system, then if I just left the window down an inch to let in fresh air. To give the system another chance I let it work undisturbed in a closed vehicle for four more hours and returned to see if it had made a difference. The steering wheel was not scorching like it normally would be under similar conditions, however, the interior temperature was no where near 74 degrees like the commercial demonstration showed. In fact the interior was about 99 degrees according to the dash mounted thermometer. I then installed a second Auto Cool system on the passenger’s side window following the directions that came with the product and allowed both systems to run at the same time to see if this made a difference. After sitting in the sun for 24 hours I returned to the vehicle to see if two systems working at the same time would be able to keep the interior temperature livable. Unfortunately the two Auto Cool systems had not been able to keep the interior of the vehicle below 100 degrees.

While I had high hopes for the solar powered Auto Cool system, I am afraid that my hopes were smashed. I would have been happy with the product if it was even able to keep the vehicle’s interior below 85 degrees, but this product was unable to make any real difference. Because of the failure of this product to produce even moderate results I would not recommend it.

Auto auctions Lakewood

In our attempts to simplify the comprehension of the ongoing serfdomization of the US population, we would like to present one of the more persuasive charts which the administration would likely be loath to demonstrate. Having collated monthly data from the FMS’ Daily Treasury Statement on incremental tax revenues (individual, gross), and new debt issuance, we observe the following rather surprising pattern: since September 2008, or the month when capitalism collapsed, and the Fed, and ever other global Central Bank had to step in as a backstop of last recourse to the western way of life, the US government has undertaken the most peculiar matching program: simply said, for every dollar of individual tax revenue, the government has issued just over one dollar of incremental debt. In other words, in the past two years, tax revenues alone would have proven insufficient by over half to fill the budget gap. In yet other words, the US Treasury is now the functional equivalent of the entire US population and then some, when it comes to keeping the US economy afloat. From another perspective, with an average take down of roughly 50% of each recent auction by Indirect bidders, nearly a quarter (half of half) of US budget deficit needs is funded directly by foreigners. Should (in)formal trade wars escalate, and should the US see an embargo of foreign debt participation, then overnight a quarter of US spending will be unfundable: this includes such critical key expenditures as defense and social security spending. Also, it is important to recall, that of the $3.35 trillion in debt issued over the prior two year period, the Fed has directly (via UST purchases) and indirectly (via MBS purchases, and thus the forced rotation of MBS securities into UST securities for agency holders such as PIMCO) purchased the other half. Thus between foreigners, and the Fed, the US consumer’s traditional contribution to funding the US economy has been diluted by half. And unfortunately, as the chart below shows, absent some dramatic deux ex machina, there is no chance this trend in which US debt issuance is the functional equivalent of taxpayer contributions, will ever end.

Another way of visualizing the incremental substitution of the US consumer with debt:

Some technical details:

• Total net debt issued since September 2008: $3,351 billion (from $10.025TR to $13.376TR)
• Gross tax receipts since September 2008: $3,185 billion. Note this is not net of refunds. Should one exclude the $660 billion in refunds issued over the same period, the net contribution by taxpayers is just over $2.5 trillion, meaning that the value of each dollar of debt issued is a quarter greater than each dollar in taxpayer revenues.
• This number would be somewhat offset by Corporate tax revenues, which over the same period amount to $440 billion gross and $230 billion net of corporate tax refunds.

In other words, with each passing day, the material contribution of the labor of Americans to their country is becoming increasingly diluted in the form of paper backed by the full faith and credit of the very country Americans live in. In this environment, it is easy to see why a chance in the tax regime, where the balance between tax revenue contributions and debt funding, is already so precarious, could have dire consequences on the American way of life. Should individual tax contributions fall off a cliff, as many contend, it means that the share of debt a portion of total US funding will have to increase from over 50% to a number materially higher, and the closer it approaches to 100%, the easier it is to make the case that the US economy is nothing but a ponzi system, in the purest definition of the word.

(this analysis completely ignores the toxic debt spiral should interest rates ever increase in the future; Zero Hedge has previously discussed the liquidity horizon to default in various scenarios should prevailing debt interest rates beging to rise. And with average outstanding debt duration slowly but surely increasing, the second the Fed loses hold of Mid and Long-Term interest rates, it is all over - in other words QE will be a necessary staple until such time as the Fed is prepared to go the repudiation/hyperinflation route).

P.S., and a scary thought, if representation is somewhat equivalent to taxation, or, its modern equivalent, deficit funding, does this mean that the seven Fed Board Members have a greater right of representation than all of American society combined? It sure seems that way.

Although investors said Dublin would only need financial help in the event of more unexpected banking losses and a deterioration of its economy, the Irish sell-off highlighted the continued fragility of eurozone bond markets.

Traders said the intervention by the ECB was small – in the tens of millions of euros but the report by Barclays Capital still prompted the International Monetary Fund to state it did not envision that Ireland would need financial assistance.

The Irish government will test investor sentiment on Tuesday with an auction of four-year and eight-year bonds that bankers warn could see the country having to pay high yields to attract demand.

Domenico Crapanzano, head of euro rates trading at Jefferies, said: “There are just no buyers out there for Ireland because of worries over its banks and economy. Ireland and also Portugal are very much the worry for investors.”

The Barclays report said: “If the macroeconomic conditions deviate from our baseline recovery scenario and unexpected losses crop up in the financial sector, then the government’s best option at stabilising adverse market dynamics would indeed be by drawing on financial assistance from the EU-IMF.”

Michael Noonan, finance spokesman for the conservative Fine Gael party, said: “There is no doubt that the political developments of recent days have also added to the concerns of the international markets.”

The country’s underlying deficit – stripping out the cost of the bank recapitalisations – is poised to be one of the highest in the EU at 11.6 per cent of gross domestic product in the current year. Its bank rescue has already added close to €25bn to national debt, projected to peak at 100 per cent of GDP in 2012.

The Barclays Capital report also said: “We believe that the Irish government has to a large extent deployed the right economic and financial policies thus far. The problem is that, despite these policy efforts, the government has very few options left of its own.”

So now that we know that Central Banks are performing daily interventions in both FX and
bond markets, it is “certain” that equities are completely safe from
JCT and Bernanke’s tender loving care. Of course, when the missing confirmation finally appears, hopefully everyone will finally leave every asset class, all of which have now become merely a venue for global central banks to conduct domestic policy, and have lost all traditional capital formation and forward looking properties.