[Update Note: Added the following in the "See Also" section:

1: Why Is Costco Opening Its Own Chicken Farm?

2: While Sears executives get $25 million in bonuses, laid-off workers struggle during Christmastime

J.V.]

Here is demonstrated another example of an interesting new contradiction with electrified Capitalism.

This new one is quite similar to one I have already identified, which is: Everybody wants to buy from a competitive market, but nobody wants to sell there. Only here it concerns money as something you both need to have in quantity, on hand, so as to do something with it, but of course, not doing so unless you get a really good return for the duration of the funds not being available for anything else. Because, in this case, anything else might be your "Mad" money; as in everything has gone mad and I need to buy protection, and/or escape, in whatever form I can, funds.

You also, though, want to be able to secure more, from others, when needed, flexibly, so that you can take advantage of longer term process investments; being willing to make the payment for the right, because you know a good thing when you see one, and you know you'll be able to cash out once the venture does its IPO. Or so it has been at least.

But this, then, is the dilemma: I want to get the best return for the money I have in short, and mid, term deposits, like the right type of bonds and securities, but I don't want to have to pay for those rates when I want to risk other people's money.

And now that money must move ever more as an electron in an electrical circuit, it presses competitively for ever more clever ways to always have it in motion, and earning, without ever having to be tied up in anything too substantial for very long. And it does that, of course, by suddenly presenting you with players who might have enough windfall to buy your foundation out from under you. Players who took one of the "big risks" and cashed out out fast enough to now challenge you in ways you don't have the cash to counter.

So which is it to be, do we raise rates to make holders of capital have a chance for a decent return, and also, as a side effect, perhaps slow down an overstimulated economy (after quite a spell of quantitative easing, and then a tax cut-giveaway, that put huge new sums of counters into the hands of folks who already had quite a bit, you might expect that it would have revved up a bit, wouldn't you? Even if the acceleration was due to things that were just as disruptive, and thus destructive to the rest of our systems as the disasters previous inputs have already caused)?

Then again, though, precisely because so many are chasing whatever quick turn they can, and again, often at cross purposes to each other (which simply means that both sides cause problems for the other by their very, disrupting, existence), people are, as already stated, taking unbelievable chances. And even others still are out there in cyber land doing all they can to steal from everybody at the same time, in the ensuing confusion. Because if you do win, in these conditions, you do often win very big indeed, even when everyone else around you does not.

So now we get to add extreme weather, and who knows how horrible the extremes might get now, and from that, so many more channels for instability to be pumped into every system, already too stressed, that we have that we rely on, for there to be a society in the first place; be it in the overall information exchange, of complex, over commercialization, of cosmic proportions, that the current operating system requires -- to keep even a deity boggling amount of state changes up to date -- so all of the books balance, more or less; or whether it's just a particular human institution focused on microcosm; as well as an ecosystem long suffering of instability inputs not taken care of; in the end you are guaranteed to have increasing turbulence within each, and for which all of it will most likely be bad. And bad precisely to the degree that your instrumentality has gained greater reach, and power, than it had a few decades before; with all of that, don't you think the reasons for the "skittishness" ought to be quite plain? It sure seems like it to me.

And yet, with all of this evidence, there is still this vague sense the experts try to portray as to exactly what it is that is causing investors to be so skittish now. As in, to paraphrase, "oh, it could be trade, or it could be tarifs, or no consistent policy on any of it, but no one knows for sure, other than it is at least partially connected to either slow, or fast, moving disasters (of which the current administration is a prominent example of both). An ironic kind of thing when you also hear them lament how the current administration isn't more appreciative of the complexity of things; as in it's leader fixating on the simple realization that keeping money inexpensive will always stoke the stock market (and make that clown car driver feel good about himself), at least for the short media span of a particular news cycle event; and a new potential disaster grabs our attention.

So what else would you expect from a clown car driver?

This might also beg the question of whether folks are aware of my interpretation of things at all in the first place. It is certainly quite possible that they are not of course. And they might just all of them, experts included, be truly confused as to these unprecedented new conditions. Miss Ruhle asked rather pointedly about why everybody is so spooked, after all.

I'd like to think, of course, that it has been my input, not only in general, for a while now, but also more specifically since September, which was when I started asking questions concerning money, within the characterization of it as having become like "electrons in electronic circuits," that must always move faster, that has got folks in the know really spooked. Something that I'm pretty sure began some time around the second week of September (I was using what I thought was Netflix's difficult position of having to exist so exclusively on borrowed money to keep the big investment in content going (and being limited on how much they can raise their monthly rates); so as to also stay ahead of Amazon, and Disney from jumping in with 20k league boots themselves.

It's a conceit on my part, certainly, but hey, why the heck not when nobody seems to have any better reasons available. And then there is also the fact that they would be reluctant to mention me, in any case, for precisely the reason that to do so would give credibility to also considering my alternative, which, at present, they are not yet quite desperate enough to do.

No worries about that part from my end though. That reluctance will change soon enough. Once just how bad things can actually get starts sinking in.

Investors On Edge Ahead Of Fed Interest Rate Decision -- Velshi & Ruhle

See Also:
[See Also Note: Let us also not forget, however, that we are considering a lot more than the effect of on the bottom lines of so many commercial entities. We are also weighing in on real, astounding, pain; emotional, and physical, because so much is not being met as to what we need as human beings. The Over Commercialization of Everything. The Lack of Meaning for most people, and any sense that they matter. And certainly the world's all time favorite; the ever present, and quite often brutal, marginalization of one group, or another, simply because it suites singularly selfish views on how a zero sum game should be played. All when it doesn't have to be such a zero sum game at all, or that we'll have a snowball's chance in hell to survive at all, unless everybody has a chance to pitch in and help. J.V.]

While Sears executives get $25 million in bonuses, laid-off workers struggle during Christmastime

Why Is Costco Opening Its Own Chicken Farm?

How Much Income It Takes To Survive In Every State, Mapped

'A torrent of ghastly revelations' -- what military service taught me about America

[Post Note: Remember, it has been noted that, for every uptick in our GDP, container traffic increases two upticks. J.V.]