FINAL RESULTS: Reappoint Ben Shalom Bernanke?

Rainman's picture

Larry would be a preposterous choice, thereby making him a shoo-in.

One thing is certain, Ben's successor would have to be an INSIDE guy. Nobody will be put in that position who might wander off the reservation.

More likely will be the scenario of Ben confirmed, then the 2010 phase of super destruction occurs, Ben and Timmy catch the hand grenades, resign, and the new " team " comes in with another cleanup plan. 

docj's picture


A promotion, of sorts, for all his fantastic work.  Or something.

D.O.D.'s picture

It doesn't matter what figure head sits in the chair, their orders are still coming from somewhere else. If change is what is desired, than one should start at the core of the problem, rather than a result of the problem.

Anonymous's picture

DOD / Watch this in your apare time. Good luck our friend.

D.O.D.'s picture

yup, seen it... But I've been seeing it long before Obama showed up...

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

The part I enjoyed the most about his little talk tonight was where he tried to convince me it was HIS decision to send more troops to Afghanistan!  As if he had weighed the evidence, and made a decision!

Ha!  Hahahahahaha

Clearly decisions are relayed to Obama for dissemination.  He is just there to make the decisions handed down easier to swallow.



rc whalen's picture

No, no, a thousands times no!  Time to spank the poodle!

digalert's picture

Blithering blind bat bubble Ben Bernanke? NAY

Oh, and lets cut with the crap martial law economic collapse nonsense, open the books.

AnonymousMonetarist's picture

Taleb's 'swan song' is understandable ... notoriety has its privileges but anonymity is a lot calmer. The catalyst for justifying his oft-stated desire to retreat Walden-like to poetry and musings is represented by his entry. "Good Bye! The reappointment of Bernanke is too much to bear", but this humble blogger believes recent MSM articles about the rehabilitation of the ratings agencies may have very well tipped his 'anger fits and neck pain' scale to 'ah screw it!'

It is madness that the ratings agencies have not been hoisted onto their own petard by now. The pablum narrative of free speech should not apply to fee speech.

'If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.'
- Thomas Pynchon

How apropos Alice. If democracy does contain the seeds of its own undoing, the rating agencies are clearly the roots of the tree masquerading as liberty. 

Oh let's vote George Bush out for Barry Dunham ( personal note : I am a fierce social liberal and fiscal conservative) because that will bring about change! Although will admit that it is refreshing to have folks in charge of government agencies that haven't spent their entire adult life fighting against the very rules that they are appointed to supervise, what conclusion should the rational mind draw from an ubiquitous bankster-friendly policy flowing from the opposite side of the political spectrum? 

So gosh let's circulate a petition to throw out Timmy G and BSB. For what? The same policies spewed forth by a different glamor girl?

Once upon a time I sat down in front of the agencies. Had an exclusive to place a'third'a billion face of a rather unique asset class. In order to get the buy side to bite of course we needed a rating.

It is not in any way embellishment to state that the work done by the agencies on this deal was so amateurish, so ephemeral, that a high school student with the toolkit of 'opposable thumbs and frontal lobes' could have coaxed Mr. Google into producing a superior report.

Ultimately the squints created a white paper and slicks in my biz waved it around industry conferences as if it were gospel.

Of course the gospel was built on the bell curve and the curve was based on assumptions.

While seers like Taleb and Mandelbrot have shown that it is the flight of an arrow and that reality is the tail risk, the coin flippers have heretofore admitted no more than hey... it's a modified coin flip and our assumptions, which we provided to you in the King's English, why they're free speech babe!

Shame that there isn't a smoking gun.

Waitaminnit ...

by Jesse Eisinger Oct 15 2008
Portfolio Magazine

In December 1997, J.p. Morgan closed on its first big credit-derivatives deal, the Broad Indexed Secured Trust Offering, or Bistro for short. Insurance companies and banks, the initial customers, were enthusiastic, snapping it up in just two weeks. The deal was enormous for the time, off-loading more than $9.7 billion of J.P. Morgan’s exposure. Morgan had succeeded in reducing its balance-sheet risk and was able to free up capital to buy its stock back. 

J.P. Morgan would go on to launch a credit- derivatives assembly line, becoming the Henry Ford of the new financial market. 

Bistro “was the most sublime piece of financial engineering that was ever developed. It was breathtaking in terms of beauty and elegance,” says Satyajit Das, a risk consultant and the author of Traders, Guns, and Money, a financial history. But “in many ways,” Das adds, “J.P. Morgan created Frankenstein’s monster.”

For J.P. Morgan, Bistro worked wonderfully. But even in that first deal, the weaknesses in structured finance and credit derivatives that would come to the fore in the 2007 credit-market crash were already there.

Despite its blue-chip assets, Bistro didn’t perform pristinely. The initial slice, the equity layer that Morgan retained as a cushion against trouble, was so thin that it couldn’t weather even one default from one of the bigger companies in the bundle. That ultimately happened, wiping the slice out entirely. The investors who were one notch up, in what’s called the mezzanine layer, lost money as well. Even the buyers of the top-rated tranches, which were thought to be rock solid, had to endure bumpy periods before they got their money back.

During that first major deal, the credit-rating agencies, which were supposed to be impartial, were already deeply enmeshed in the give-and-take of the process. 

A former Morgan banker who helped create Bistro recalls that Standard & Poor’s was giving the bank a tough time. The rating firm would run the deal through its models, and “each time, it came up with disastrous results. We did some tinkering and all of a sudden, it could rate the deal,” the banker says.


What an innocuous word for fraud.

Move along nothing to see here.

Anonymous's picture

Who do you have in mind for a replacement?

Sancho Ponzi's picture

How about an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the Taylor Rule, and placing a limit on excess reserves?

bugs_'s picture

Send him on a BRE-X helicopter ride.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

This question is sort of like asking me if I wish to dance with the devil I know or the devil I will get as a replacement. If we assume the Fed has an agenda, then what difference does it make who's running the show (or more accurately, who's the puppet) other than for the purpose of assessing points for style and perceived "performance"? 

FYI, I said no, simply because I want to see a new face haunt me in my dreams. :>)

msorense's picture

Maybe Dimon or Summers will take over the Fed.  Would that make you feel better?

Anonymous's picture

I don't care who takes over. It can't be worse. And forcing Bernanke to resign is an accomplishment in its own right. Is it the end of the fight? Nobody is stupid enough to believe it.

Anonymous's picture

I don't care who takes over. It can't be worse. And forcing Bernanke to resign is an accomplishment in its own right. Is it the end of the fight? Nobody is believes it to believe it.

Crook County's picture

I'd favor Ben B over Larry Summers.

delacroix's picture

god forbid rubin gets the job          

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

A firing squad would make me feel better. But first we must have the show trials so we can check off the "democracy" item on the "justice for all" list.

dark pools of soros's picture

heads on sticks all over wall street - hell let the taliban run the fed at this point

deadhead's picture

in this case it seems we have a better shot with the devil we don't know.

the issues with the Fed's actions, policies, secrecy, etc are out in the open enough that a new Fed chair will have the shit grilled out of him/her before ever making it to a confirmation vote. 


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Just trying to spark some discussion here so please don't hang the messenger.

If the Fed, banksters, past and present administrations and various congress critters and cockroaches have been working (somewhat) hand in hand up to this point for whatever reason (there is the premise) wouldn't you think everyone is in so deep that to break ranks now would be suicide for everyone?

If so, then it seems to me that a new, or old, Fed head will be confirmed after some public theater. It just seems to me that, in a horrible misuse on my part of a patriotic phrase, they must all hang together or they will surely hang separately.


Rainman's picture

I agree. Nobody's gonna snitch for now. The ONLY choice is to circle the wagons with no replacements. Traitors will only surface if defeat is generally acknowledged to be probable AND Obama is impeached for high crimes against the People.....not likely with a Dem Congress . So the Prez pardon is always in play and the caravan moves on.

The job at hand is to marginalize the red Ron Paul.

dark pools of soros's picture

exactly - kill the fed or leave as is - a new guy will have a host of new greedy assholes looking for fresh cash kickbacks


if it gets too bad i am able to become a citizen of germany via my dad was born there, and i will pursued them to go back to the mark and let the euro die while i short the hell out of it with gobs of worthless free dollars

Ned Zeppelin's picture

Good point, and a good reason to push for Bernanke's replacement - another reason for Paul and Grayson to get the hard questions in front of these jokers.

Daedal's picture

Ambidextrous, adj.: Able to pick with equal skill a right-hand pocket or a left. -- Ambrose Bierce

TumblingDice's picture

I voted yea because I want to see him and his institution continue on the path towards total failure that the Congress will have no choice but to end the fed.

Psquared's picture

Here's my thought. If he is reconfirmed he can continue the charade a lot longer than someone new. Plus, there is always the possibility that they might actually appoint someone competent. A vote for BB is a vote to continue failed policies. If this thing is going to come tumbling down it will do so a lot quicker with (a) and honest man; or (b) another incompetent crony. See, I think BB actually knows what he is doing and he has a fair amount of political support. At the end of the day he will be re-confirmed, but one can always hope. Sen. Jim DeMint is on the committee and I just called his office. A staff member said he had not made up his mind yet so I gave her what I think is the main reason he should not be reconfirmed. The Federal Reserve not only mis-handled this crisis (although it is arguable they did all they could do) but but they caused it by sleeping at the regulatory switch.

Sancho Ponzi's picture

'I voted yea because I want to see him and his institution continue on the path towards total failure that the Congress will have no choice but to end the fed.'

That's Italian anarchist logic. Vote for the biggest buffoon. 

Countrygenius's picture



I never thought of it like that but that is a good point.

Until we end foreign ownership of our government (The Fed) the taxpayers best interest will never be at heart.

economessed's picture

In this ongoing monkeywrench strategy I've been advocating and contributing to, you need to vote "YES" to BenJammin's reappointment.  The idea being that Ben has demonstrated he's pursuing the wrong policies, and (by my yardstick) is incapable of fulfilling the mission of the Federal Reserve because he's an ineffective leader.  He made a lot of mistakes, and is now compounding those mistakes.  I believe Ben and the Fed are going to fail spectacularly.  It's our job to help them fail faster, so we can resort to a new and better social contract, economy, and way of life.  The only way to do that is to make him feel important and give him a false sense of confidence by glorious back-slapping reappointments as Chairman.  Maybe for good measure, we should afford him even less transparency and greater power at the same time.

This slow-motion death spiral is agonizing.  Come on, Ben!  Quit lollygagging around.  We all know how this ends!  Don't let fate win this one -- get in there and get your hands dirty, you PhD brandishing toad licker!

ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Yeah, tough vote for me, on the one hand he WILL destroy the USD, on the other hand I am much better prepared than 99.9% of USD holders so my relative wealth will grow...

docj's picture

That largely explains my "Yea" vote as well.  Once the Titanic hit the ice, did it really matter anymore who was Captain?  Let Benny go down with the ship.

Maximilien Robespierre's picture

Why bother voting even.  God himself couldn't reverse the course we're on now.  In fact, he's now arming himself in preparation.

Anonymous's picture

Motorcycle, as we used to say.

snorkeler's picture

Do they really think that this will prevent anything?

Usually an inexperienced person with a gun ends up shooting friends or family accidentally or the gun is taken from them by those they sought to deter.


knukles's picture

By that logic, give 'em all guns.

trav777's picture

This is the most absurdly wrong thing that has ever been said on ZH.

Did you crawl out from under a stupid rock to say that?


snorkeler's picture

I guess you would know

Actually I crawled out from under your wife. 

Keyboard bravery is rampant these days

trav777's picture

Shit anybody who's stupid enough to believe that people accidentally shoot their relatives or gfd get guns actually taken away from them is worth saying to their face.

Why, you lookin to get your ass kicked or somethin?

snorkeler's picture

Why don't we get together for a personal meeting?

If you don't respond, you are exactly what you appear to be.

slickrock's picture

Hex is usually written in quads (i.e. FFFF, each 0xF is 2^4 - 1), if you want to use triplets, octal is the way to go (777, each 0o7 is 2^3 - 1).  Hex is usually more convenient since two hex digits equals a byte, octal is not so clean.

geopol's picture

Just as I thought,,Decimal sucks because the DXY fucks in it...

I'm favored with Octal as it is the fat finger front panel switches which represent binary words, three position, two tone color..You are correct Hex is 4 pos.



Daedal's picture

Good sir, I think your commentary would get more praise on

Tommy's picture

thanks for Slashdot.  How have I not heard of that site before??

Anonymous's picture

That's a good question. /. has been around for years. It is the place for tech news and aggregate nerdiness.