F.T.W.S.I.J.D.G.I.G.T.

(For those who say I just don’t get it…get this!)

I have written countless articles, and for years, about how the concentration of power amassed by an unelected cohort of monetary policy wonks (e.g., central banks, and in-particular, The Fed.) has subjugated not only the economy, but the political process concerning it.

I have stated the dangers, and with that, expressed that it would manifest in ways to show just how pernicious it has become to not only the economy going forward, but capitalism itself, where suddenly it will become so obvious that the results could no longer be left to a blind-eye, or swept-under-the-rug. For the total economy now rests in the hands of these unelected, academics who now have the power to dictate what is, or is not, as it pertains to anything economic. All – as they see fit. Whether their view is misguided, misplaced, or flat-out wrong.

The true issue was: Such power has not been in the hands of so few, since the days of Kings and Queens.

The above has been met with derision, name calling, and more. The business/financial main stream media along with their gaggle of “Think Tanks”, next-in-rotation fund managers, so-called “smart-crowd” aficionados and more have pelted my insinuations with more incoherent gobbledygook – it bordered on clinical delusion.

I’ve also made the case that there will come a time when others (along with many of those listed above) could no longer look away, for these actions will finally begin effecting them in ways they never dreamed, where they themselves will have to begin pointing out the obvious. The only real question was: will it be too late? That’s currently still an open question, but that process has begun.

Just for a little context here’s what I wrote only a few months back. To wit:

From the article “If The Fed Doesn’t Want To Appear Political Stop Acting As Such”

Every time the idea is raised that the Federal Reserve seems to be acting, or basing policy decisions with some form of political bent, immediately the insinuation is either brushed off as ludicrous, or better yet, even conspiratorial. If the question is dared to be asked, or insinuated directly at any official during a public forum? More often than not the stuttering and stammering as to explain away any such notion becomes a real-time expression of just what was meant when applying the old adage, “doth protest too much.”

However, today, it appears no matter how curtly it’s deflected – the actions appear far more indisputable.

As long time readers are well aware, this too was met with insinuations of “ridiculous!” by many in the media. That is – until now.

On Monday of this week none other than the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal™ weighed in on what they now deemed: “Our Political Central Bankers”

Here’s the first line of the article to give you some idea of just how pointed it is, in its intention and focus. To wit:

“Janet Yellen didn’t run for President, but you wouldn’t know it from her policy démarche Friday at the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole retreat.”

When I’ve made that same argument over the years it was shouted down as either “crazy talk” or “tin-foiled-capped conspiratorial thinking” that should be shunned by anyone serious about understanding the economy and finance. Especially at any macro type level.

Seems to me crazy talk, tin-foil-capped, conspiratorial thinking just went main stream.

Again, the only question that matters and still remains is…

Is it too little, too late?

But what do I know.

© 2017 Mark St.Cyr

Footnote: These “FTWSIJDGIGT” articles came into being when many of the topics I had opined on over the years were being openly criticized for “having no clue”. Yet, over the years these insights came back around showing maybe I knew a little bit more than some were giving me credit for. It was my way of tongue-in-cheek as to not use the old “I told you so” analogy. I’m saying this purely for the benefit of those who may be new or reading here for the first time (and there are a great many of you and thank you too all). I never wanted or want to seem like I’m doing the “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” type of response to my detractors. I’d rather let the chips fall – good or bad – and let readers decide the credibility of either side. Occasionally however, there are, and have been times they do need to be pointed out which is why these now have taken on a life of their own. (i.e., something of significance per se that may have a direct impact on one’s business etc., etc.) And readers, colleagues, and others have requested their continuance.