I have been kind of following this, although I have no skin in the game and have no idea how this will affect your lives, I would like to know how my British cousins feel about this issue. It looks to me, according to this piece, that you guys are favoring an exit from the European Union. I myself despise all forms of socialism, and I like to see nations stand on their own and make a difference, so I have been in favor of this move. Please, help me understand your positions.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html

I understand the legal reasoning Theo, but perception is everything. You will have lost the average voter at the first sentence of that explanation and they'll be left with the question BUT WHY IS MY VOTE BEING IGNORED!? I can pretty much guarantee that no matter how you explained it, they would not accept it.

 

Ya. but your comments went beyond mere perception

 

And it is preceisesly because of such perceptions that facts should be restated at every opportunity

So May has made the Brexit clowns responsible for Brexit.

 

On the plus side means watching them squirm as they spend interview after interview being reminded of their lies.

 

On the other hand White House spokesman unable to avoid laughing when told who the new uk foreign secretary is does not bode well for this countries reputation.

 

And news from the UK Trade and Investment conference on Wednesday consisted of a round table on how little post vote investment there has been into the UK according to people I know who attended. Not exactly the bright future that Vote Leave promised.

So today we had the first real post brexit vote data.

 

Summary: Fuck

Extended summary: fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck.

 

I never believed an electorate would vote for recession.

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

 

I also enjoyed May's first PMQs. She ripped Corbyn to shreds.

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

 

I also enjoyed May's first PMQs. She ripped Corbyn to shreds.

 

 

I think he is referring to the PMI in the UK.

 

Basically companies dont want to spend/invest money and are fearful of the future etc.  

A recession is needed and is not necessarily a bad thing.  Sure people will "loose everything", what people fail to realise is that they have nothing now, debt has been monitized, currency is debt.  Your pensions, social security and even savings are all intertwined with your neighbor and fellow countrymen's ability to service that debt; last I looked a lot of people are just getting by, even more are in debt to some degree assuming they are even in work and not sucking at the teat of social security.  

 

Think of it as a forest fire that comes along every 2-3 years and clears out all the dead wood; when the fires don't come because of the well intentioned interference of man the fires are even bigger and more deadly when they inevitably do come.

 

The central banks have been delaying the inevitable for far too long by pumping in trillions of funny money into the market to keep it running; there are around 1.25 quadrillion dollars outstanding in the derivatives market alone, or put another way the amount of money that people have been swapping and buying currently stands at around 10 times global GDP.  Deutchse Bank depending on sources have $70 trillion in exposure to this market, and their stock price was trading bellow their 2008 low (2008 being the last big recession) months before BREXIT, European banks are looking rather unhealthy also on the same timeline.  

 

Madoff's $50 billion ponzi scheme is spit in the ocean in comparison.  I voted to leave the EU, if it was a vote for recession I would have voted for that too; incidentally they seem intertwined

 

But no; just flog the BREXIT whipping boy; its all his fault.  

 

 

 

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

 

I also enjoyed May's first PMQs. She ripped Corbyn to shreds.

 

 

I think he is referring to the PMI in the UK.

 

Basically companies dont want to spend/invest money and are fearful of the future etc.  

A recession is needed and is not necessarily a bad thing.  Sure people will "loose everything", what people fail to realise is that they have nothing now, debt has been monitized, currency is debt.  Your pensions, social security and even savings are all intertwined with your neighbor and fellow countrymen's ability to service that debt; last I looked a lot of people are just getting by, even more are in debt to some degree assuming they are even in work and not sucking at the teat of social security.  

 

Think of it as a forest fire that comes along every 2-3 years and clears out all the dead wood; when the fires don't come because of the well intentioned interference of man the fires are even bigger and more deadly when they inevitably do come.

 

The central banks have been delaying the inevitable for far too long by pumping in trillions of funny money into the market to keep it running; there are around 1.25 quadrillion dollars outstanding in the derivatives market alone, or put another way the amount of money that people have been swapping and buying currently stands at around 10 times global GDP.  Deutchse Bank depending on sources have $70 trillion in exposure to this market, and their stock price was trading bellow their 2008 low (2008 being the last big recession) months before BREXIT, European banks are looking rather unhealthy also on the same timeline.  

 

Madoff's $50 billion ponzi scheme is spit in the ocean in comparison.  I voted to leave the EU, if it was a vote for recession I would have voted for that too; incidentally they seem intertwined

 

But no; just flog the BREXIT whipping boy; its all his fault.  

 

 

EU banks, even more so for the Eurosystem, are healthier than eithe UK or US banks (on average, with some local peculiarities). Just look at the capital requirements ratios and the CET1 levels.

EU banks, even more so for the Eurosystem, are healthier than eithe UK or US banks (on average, with some local peculiarities). Just look at the capital requirements ratios and the CET1 levels.

 

 

I don't look into this; when "money" is simply printed or added to an account at a few keystrokes its funny money; you cant print your way to prosperity, if so Zimbabwe would be the third richest nation on the planet behind Hungary (Hungarian Pengo) and Wiemar Germany.  It to me money creation is simply deficit spending and deficit spending has never ended well nor is there anything for me to think that this should otherwise change.

 

If you had said that the EU, the Euro and by extension EU member states are backed up with nearly 10,000 tons of gold and that is a great back up plan I would agree with you.  The UK is sat on a pathetic 300 tons thanks to "The Iron Chancellor" Gordon Brown (Labour) selling half of the UK gold reserves in a bear market, letting the market know in advance when, the volume to be sold and the price it was to be sold at was horrific and arguably criminally negligent.

 

I view your post as a red herring; my view being for instance if Bank X got into trouble tomorrow the Central Bank of Country A simply deposits the capital required into the Bank X with a few keystrokes.  Central Bank of Country A could let the bank rightly go bankrupt (as should be the fate of all failed enterprises) but the risk to the rest of the banking industry would be too great so the (any) government in my opinion would simply take the easy option and hand over the digital "money" again.  

 

I would be interested to know how much of the "capital requirements" that banks have to carry these days are made up of its customers money, to me the writing was on the wall when they had the bail in in Cypress and bank nationalisations in the late 2000's. 

 

As I said the ins and outs of capital requirements for the banks is something I have not looked into or to be honest care enough about to do so.  I have already taken the opinion that it is likely to be multiple nuances built upon a bed rock of fiat currency.  I question the fiat monetary system itself, my apologies if I come across as being dismissive here in my post; but I take the Greenspan view that there will always be enough money (fiat), we can guarantee any sum for as far out as you would like, but we (FED) cannot guarantee its purchasing power.  

We just had a recession. Why in Gods name do we need another one? I remember at the start of 2009 people saying a recession would be good...well it wasn't. 

 

And Gold is exactly as valuable as paper money. In fact it would be a lot better for our economy if people stopped believing in Gold as then we would have more of it available to put to productive uses in electronics. It has value as long as people believe it has value, which is the same for any currency or medium of exchange. And pegging an economy to Gold has been so heavily debunked by economic study and experience I am frankly shocked that the idea is still popular. 

We just had a recession. Why in Gods name do we need another one? I remember at the start of 2009 people saying a recession would be good...well it wasn't. 

 

And Gold is exactly as valuable as paper money. In fact it would be a lot better for our economy if people stopped believing in Gold as then we would have more of it available to put to productive uses in electronics. It has value as long as people believe it has value, which is the same for any currency or medium of exchange. And pegging an economy to Gold has been so heavily debunked by economic study and experience I am frankly shocked that the idea is still popular. 

 

The recession we had was not allowed to run its course, it was halted by central bank and government intervention by massive amounts of currency creation, manipulation of interest rates close to, zero or below the zero bound.  

 

I would argue that gold, other PM's, raw materials, oil are more valuable than paper money as the formers have an intrinsic value where as the later arguably does not unless your using it as fuel on a fire, then you could argue it does have some intrinsic value as a fuel.  For the former you need to spend time, locating an economical site to mine or drill, human labor (at a cost of wages) to extract, energy such as oil and electricity to extract it and refine it and then manufacture it into whatever it is you want.  With paper money chop down a few trees for the paper and the cost to run the printing presses and the man power to run them which is considerably less than running a mine or drilling rig for instance, and of course you can always up the amount of money created by simply putting a few zero's on the end of it.  For the most part you dont even have to print it as you can add billions by the stroke of a keyboard due to most of banking finance occurring as electronic transfers thus very little to no overheads.  

 

I agree wholeheartedly with you however that gold and other things have a value attached to them because people believe in the value of it.  If I am stuck in Antarctica starving and freezing gold has as much use to me as paper money, you cant eat either and a few notes is hardly going to keep me warm; there is nothing for me to buy using either and thus I would argue along a similar vein that Shaensha said earlier in the thread in that wealth and GDP should be linked to economic production and not currency creation and current stock market hocus pocus.  Both are as you say mediums of exchange, natural resources however are far more resistant to manipulation of quantity and rarity, have some intrinsic value as they simply cannot be printed unlike fiat currency which can be printed and used to finance whatever pet project the politicians of the day conjure up with money that they dont have.  Gold is a luxury item and people will do a lot to acquire it, even cultures that have never had contact valued it highly; when south america was explored and plundered the natives valued gold just as much as the Europeans; the species seems hardwired to like shiny things.  

 

 

(Central bankers/economic gurus to some schmuck) Yeah buddy, its worth as much as that dog turd (hilarious dog turd prank), you had best get rid of it and trade it in for some freshly printed fiat currency, and as it happens I feel sorry for you here, I will buy it off you; but just remember its worthless and I am doing you a favor that's the kind of guy I am.  

 

For all of the debunked theory talk of gold being a pet rock etc and is peddled by the economic gurus that run the world, that gold has no value at all and is a relic of a bygone era  it strangely does not prevent them holding thousands of tons of it at great expense to guard and vault or go out of their way to acquire as much of it as they can get their hands on.  Most central banks that are not run by left wing cucks (Canada lol) are amassing as much of it as they can get their hands on, but just remember, its worthless.  

 

You could use coca beans as payment if you want, not necessarily precious metals, but the return to a resource based currency is preferable to Joe Public than the current fiat system that we have at the moment.  Whilst I don't think many would agree with me at the moment, when this system burns to the ground I think a lot of people wished that they had 2-3 tons of coca beans, a handful of useless gold coins or a silo of grain as opposed to a lot of meaningless digits in a bank account that they cannot access and is being inflated away.  

 

 

 

 

EU banks, even more so for the Eurosystem, are healthier than eithe UK or US banks (on average, with some local peculiarities). Just look at the capital requirements ratios and the CET1 levels.

 

 

I don't look into this; when "money" is simply printed or added to an account at a few keystrokes its funny money; you cant print your way to prosperity, if so Zimbabwe would be the third richest nation on the planet behind Hungary (Hungarian Pengo) and Wiemar Germany.  It to me money creation is simply deficit spending and deficit spending has never ended well nor is there anything for me to think that this should otherwise change.

 

If you had said that the EU, the Euro and by extension EU member states are backed up with nearly 10,000 tons of gold and that is a great back up plan I would agree with you.  The UK is sat on a pathetic 300 tons thanks to "The Iron Chancellor" Gordon Brown (Labour) selling half of the UK gold reserves in a bear market, letting the market know in advance when, the volume to be sold and the price it was to be sold at was horrific and arguably criminally negligent.

 

I view your post as a red herring; my view being for instance if Bank X got into trouble tomorrow the Central Bank of Country A simply deposits the capital required into the Bank X with a few keystrokes.  Central Bank of Country A could let the bank rightly go bankrupt (as should be the fate of all failed enterprises) but the risk to the rest of the banking industry would be too great so the (any) government in my opinion would simply take the easy option and hand over the digital "money" again.  

 

I would be interested to know how much of the "capital requirements" that banks have to carry these days are made up of its customers money, to me the writing was on the wall when they had the bail in in Cypress and bank nationalisations in the late 2000's. 

 

As I said the ins and outs of capital requirements for the banks is something I have not looked into or to be honest care enough about to do so.  I have already taken the opinion that it is likely to be multiple nuances built upon a bed rock of fiat currency.  I question the fiat monetary system itself, my apologies if I come across as being dismissive here in my post; but I take the Greenspan view that there will always be enough money (fiat), we can guarantee any sum for as far out as you would like, but we (FED) cannot guarantee its purchasing power.  

 

 

BnT what I said has nothing to do with 'printing money'. We can have a separate discussion on whether or not QE or QQE or whatever you might wish to call it.

 

Corrigenda: Weimar, Cyprus

 

I wouldn't be so sure BnT, Gold is a fickle mistress... there are other reserves that are perfectly 'trustworthy'.

 

Your 3rd paragraph has little to nothing to do with reality. The resolution process of failed or likely to fail credit institution or precautionary measures for, shall we call it, an ailing credit institution.

 

Do not confuse "capital requirements" with "reserve requirements". The first are there to 'guard' against a credit institutions 'appetite for risk' and thus against over leveraging. The latter address the issue of customers' deposits that a credit institution must keep on hand or with the Central Bank.

 

You are not dismissive BnT tbh I merely addressing the "rather unhealthy" link

 

 

Of course, you do have a point in the last sentence... the Central Bank cannot guarantee purchasing power of fiat money. That is certainly true. 

 

 

EU banks, even more so for the Eurosystem, are healthier than eithe UK or US banks (on average, with some local peculiarities). Just look at the capital requirements ratios and the CET1 levels.

 

 

I don't look into this; when "money" is simply printed or added to an account at a few keystrokes its funny money; you cant print your way to prosperity, if so Zimbabwe would be the third richest nation on the planet behind Hungary (Hungarian Pengo) and Wiemar Germany.  It to me money creation is simply deficit spending and deficit spending has never ended well nor is there anything for me to think that this should otherwise change.

 

If you had said that the EU, the Euro and by extension EU member states are backed up with nearly 10,000 tons of gold and that is a great back up plan I would agree with you.  The UK is sat on a pathetic 300 tons thanks to "The Iron Chancellor" Gordon Brown (Labour) selling half of the UK gold reserves in a bear market, letting the market know in advance when, the volume to be sold and the price it was to be sold at was horrific and arguably criminally negligent.

 

I view your post as a red herring; my view being for instance if Bank X got into trouble tomorrow the Central Bank of Country A simply deposits the capital required into the Bank X with a few keystrokes.  Central Bank of Country A could let the bank rightly go bankrupt (as should be the fate of all failed enterprises) but the risk to the rest of the banking industry would be too great so the (any) government in my opinion would simply take the easy option and hand over the digital "money" again.  

 

I would be interested to know how much of the "capital requirements" that banks have to carry these days are made up of its customers money, to me the writing was on the wall when they had the bail in in Cypress and bank nationalisations in the late 2000's. 

 

As I said the ins and outs of capital requirements for the banks is something I have not looked into or to be honest care enough about to do so.  I have already taken the opinion that it is likely to be multiple nuances built upon a bed rock of fiat currency.  I question the fiat monetary system itself, my apologies if I come across as being dismissive here in my post; but I take the Greenspan view that there will always be enough money (fiat), we can guarantee any sum for as far out as you would like, but we (FED) cannot guarantee its purchasing power.  

 

 

BnT what I said has nothing to do with 'printing money'. We can have a separate discussion on whether or not QE or QQE or whatever you might wish to call it.

 

Corrigenda: Weimar, Cyprus

 

I wouldn't be so sure BnT, Gold is a fickle mistress... there are other reserves that are perfectly 'trustworthy'.

 

Your 3rd paragraph has little to nothing to do with reality. The resolution process of failed or likely to fail credit institution or precautionary measures for, shall we call it, an ailing credit institution.

 

Do not confuse "capital requirements" with "reserve requirements". The first are there to 'guard' against a credit institutions 'appetite for risk' and thus against over leveraging. The latter address the issue of customers' deposits that a credit institution must keep on hand or with the Central Bank.

 

You are not dismissive BnT tbh I merely addressing the "rather unhealthy" link

 

 

Of course, you do have a point in the last sentence... the Central Bank cannot guarantee purchasing power of fiat money. That is certainly true. 

 

 

I would argue that what you have said has everything to do with "money printing" and would be impossible without it.   I view my third paragraph as being firmly planted in reality and in the realpolitik that encompasses our governments limited attention span and the monetary system as it exists. 

 

When the smell of a bank run on Northern Rock came about the UK Government wasted no time in nationalising the bank, when the contagion spread it wasted no time in injecting billions of liquidity (ie funny money) into those banks affected, Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) stand out.  Barclays if I recall received billions in private investments from the Middle East so that it wouldn't have to co-tail the demands made of it by the UK government of the time for extra liquidity.  The UK government was posting a budget deficit that year, the money came via loan or injection of capital via QE money printing.  Either way the UK government could not afford it save for the magical printing press or selling its citizens yet to be born further into serfdom.  

 

The thing is banks appetite for risk is somewhat skewed by the unfortunate (lol) position they now almost universally find themselves up against being zero to negative interest rates which kills bank profitability and loans made prior to the 2008 failure.  Most of those  loans made before 2008 are bad, the banks cannot turn a reasonable profit anymore in the current environment without playing Russian Roulette on the stock markets and injecting capital there.

 

I would argue that the current rules to the game (low to zero or subzero) interest rates are killing the banks and is actually pushing those institutions closer to riskier endeavors not pushing them on the path to righteousness.  

 

Again I will reiterate my "European Banks look unhealthy" and expand that to banks unilaterally look unhealthy; wholesale backed by nothing other than BNT rhetoric and the publicly listed share prices of European Banks (and banks in general) given that share and stock price seems a good enough yardstick to flog the BREXIT horse with lets get it out. 

 

Women are fickle creatures (they are ), as is gold.  I would sooner have a fickle wife and some gold than a cool wife and a fist full of fiat.  Regardless of how annoying that mistress is, fickle doesn't burn your house down and leave you with nothing; more you embrace a relationship and accept it for what it is knowing that whatever happens you leave with something other than a smoldering ruin which I believe the current monetary order offers.  

 

 

Opinions will vary

 

 

 

 

 

 

EU banks, even more so for the Eurosystem, are healthier than eithe UK or US banks (on average, with some local peculiarities). Just look at the capital requirements ratios and the CET1 levels.

 

 

I don't look into this; when "money" is simply printed or added to an account at a few keystrokes its funny money; you cant print your way to prosperity, if so Zimbabwe would be the third richest nation on the planet behind Hungary (Hungarian Pengo) and Wiemar Germany.  It to me money creation is simply deficit spending and deficit spending has never ended well nor is there anything for me to think that this should otherwise change.

 

If you had said that the EU, the Euro and by extension EU member states are backed up with nearly 10,000 tons of gold and that is a great back up plan I would agree with you.  The UK is sat on a pathetic 300 tons thanks to "The Iron Chancellor" Gordon Brown (Labour) selling half of the UK gold reserves in a bear market, letting the market know in advance when, the volume to be sold and the price it was to be sold at was horrific and arguably criminally negligent.

 

I view your post as a red herring; my view being for instance if Bank X got into trouble tomorrow the Central Bank of Country A simply deposits the capital required into the Bank X with a few keystrokes.  Central Bank of Country A could let the bank rightly go bankrupt (as should be the fate of all failed enterprises) but the risk to the rest of the banking industry would be too great so the (any) government in my opinion would simply take the easy option and hand over the digital "money" again.  

 

I would be interested to know how much of the "capital requirements" that banks have to carry these days are made up of its customers money, to me the writing was on the wall when they had the bail in in Cypress and bank nationalisations in the late 2000's. 

 

As I said the ins and outs of capital requirements for the banks is something I have not looked into or to be honest care enough about to do so.  I have already taken the opinion that it is likely to be multiple nuances built upon a bed rock of fiat currency.  I question the fiat monetary system itself, my apologies if I come across as being dismissive here in my post; but I take the Greenspan view that there will always be enough money (fiat), we can guarantee any sum for as far out as you would like, but we (FED) cannot guarantee its purchasing power.  

 

BnT what I said has nothing to do with 'printing money'. We can have a separate discussion on whether or not QE or QQE or whatever you might wish to call it.

 

Corrigenda: Weimar, Cyprus

 

I wouldn't be so sure BnT, Gold is a fickle mistress... there are other reserves that are perfectly 'trustworthy'.

 

Your 3rd paragraph has little to nothing to do with reality. The resolution process of failed or likely to fail credit institution or precautionary measures for, shall we call it, an ailing credit institution.

 

Do not confuse "capital requirements" with "reserve requirements". The first are there to 'guard' against a credit institutions 'appetite for risk' and thus against over leveraging. The latter address the issue of customers' deposits that a credit institution must keep on hand or with the Central Bank.

 

You are not dismissive BnT tbh I merely addressing the "rather unhealthy" link

 

 

Of course, you do have a point in the last sentence... the Central Bank cannot guarantee purchasing power of fiat money. That is certainly true. 

 

I would argue that what you have said has everything to do with "money printing" and would be impossible without it.   I view my third paragraph as being firmly planted in reality and in the realpolitik that encompasses our governments limited attention span and the monetary system as it exists. 

 

When the smell of a bank run on Northern Rock came about the UK Government wasted no time in nationalising the bank, when the contagion spread it wasted no time in injecting billions of liquidity (ie funny money) into those banks affected, Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) stand out.  Barclays if I recall received billions in private investments from the Middle East so that it wouldn't have to co-tail the demands made of it by the UK government of the time for extra liquidity.  The UK government was posting a budget deficit that year, the money came via loan or injection of capital via QE money printing.  Either way the UK government could not afford it save for the magical printing press or selling its citizens yet to be born further into serfdom.  

 

The thing is banks appetite for risk is somewhat skewed by the unfortunate (lol) position they now almost universally find themselves up against being zero to negative interest rates which kills bank profitability and loans made prior to the 2008 failure.  Most of those  loans made before 2008 are bad, the banks cannot turn a reasonable profit anymore in the current environment without playing Russian Roulette on the stock markets and injecting capital there.

 

I would argue that the current rules to the game (low to zero or subzero) interest rates are killing the banks and is actually pushing those institutions closer to riskier endeavors not pushing them on the path to righteousness.  

 

Again I will reiterate my "European Banks look unhealthy" and expand that to banks unilaterally look unhealthy; wholesale backed by nothing other than BNT rhetoric and the publicly listed share prices of European Banks (and banks in general) given that share and stock price seems a good enough yardstick to flog the BREXIT horse with lets get it out. 

 

Women are fickle creatures (they are ), as is gold.  I would sooner have a fickle wife and some gold than a cool wife and a fist full of fiat.  Regardless of how annoying that mistress is, fickle doesn't burn your house down and leave you with nothing; more you embrace a relationship and accept it for what it is knowing that whatever happens you leave with something other than a smoldering ruin which I believe the current monetary order offers.  

 

I would argue that what you have said has everything to do with "money printing" and would be impossible without it.   I view my third paragraph as being firmly planted in reality and in the realpolitik that encompasses our governments limited attention span and the monetary system as it exists. 

 

Well you haven't 'argued' it yet BnT. You've stated it, but you haven't given me an argument in favor. With respect to the third paragraph you are making a generalized statement without knowing how resolution process' work, either on the Continent (read: in Eurosystem) or anywhere else. Discussing such a topic by resorting only to your perception on how such processes were allegedly carrie out in the UK is not really an argument nor has it anything to do with reality. Point in case the EU Commission Communication on State Aid and the latest judgment of the ECJ (19 July 2016). In view of that your point is moot. As I said we can exchange opinions on this, but for that you'll need to 'leave behind' what you think your (UK) government would do, as it has no practical value for a general debate on the issue. Not least because whatever you think your government would do in such a case only applies in the UK and even there not under the presumptions you seem to be making.

 

Incidentally when you talk about liquidity, it doesn't come for free, it has a cost and it needs to be backed-up by top notch collateral.

 

 

The thing is banks appetite for risk is somewhat skewed by the unfortunate (lol) position they now almost universally find themselves up against being zero to negative interest rates which kills bank profitability and loans made prior to the 2008 failure.  Most of those  loans made before 2008 are bad, the banks cannot turn a reasonable profit anymore in the current environment without playing Russian Roulette on the stock markets and injecting capital there.

 

​Actually you are quite wrong there, the objective data shows that bank profitability in the low (negative) interest rate environment has not (for now) been hurt and remains at the average levels over the horizon (over the last 5-7 years). Clearly, banks have found other avenues to deflect overall slowing profits, say by way of increasing service charges and the like. But the profits relating to the interest rate as such have been fairly stable.

 

 Women are fickle creatures (they are   ), as is gold.  I would sooner have a fickle wife and some gold than a cool wife and a fist full of fiat.  Regardless of how annoying that mistress is, fickle doesn't burn your house down and leave you with nothing; more you embrace a relationship and accept it for what it is knowing that whatever happens you leave with something other than a smoldering ruin which I believe the current monetary order offers. 

 

Indeed they are, but that is why we love them after all