Business

Dear John: It’s a sellers economy

Dear John: I read your column about the Federal Reserve finding “green shoots” in the spring. 

Perhaps Chance or Chauncey Gardner from “Being There” is the actual chairman of the Fed or Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Chance always told us there would be growth in the spring. A.P.

Dear A.P.: You are referring to the hilarious movie “Being There,” which came out in 1979. Peter Sellers played a simple-minded gardener named Chance. When he is struck by a car and taken in by rich Washington, DC, folks he’s mistakenly called Chauncey Gardiner and becomes a confidant of the president (played by Jack Warden). The president asked Gardiner’s advice and, of course, he is told that there will be growth in spring.

President: Mr. Gardiner, do you … think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives

Chance: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. …

In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.

President’s adviser: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.

Chance: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!

President: Hmm. Well, Mr. Gardiner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time. I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

There is also more than a little Abbott and Costello in the current economic policy, but I’ll go with you on this.

The problem is that Chance’s observation would need to be seasonally adjusted if he were working for the government today. Since even a simpleton knows there is economic growth in spring, that has to be factored out with seasonal adjustment models. So ordinary growth isn’t counted.

Spring would have to be better or worse than expected to really move the needle.

And since the Great Recession has produced un-ordinary highs and lows during all seasons, the adjustments have been off. Someday they will probably normalize. But until that day comes, government officials will continue to put as much manure on the green shoots that Ben Bernanke thought he saw five years ago, so there’s a chance (yep, that’s intended) they will grow into nice blades of grass.

Dear John: While [attention is focused on] Bernie Madoff’s prison life, the victims of Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme go ignored. 

Stanford defrauded 21,000 victims of $7.2 billion. Madoff defrauded 14,000 of over $20 billion.

The court-appointed receiver for Stanford has billed over $100 million in fees and expenses paid from the victim’s retrieved assets. Irving Picard, trustee for Madoff, has retrieved over $9 billion in victims’ assets and has billed over $500 million in legal fees and expenses.

While the Madoff tale appears more “romantic,” Stanford took a $1.8 billion loan from the victims, lived the life of luxury in the US and Antigua, and was knighted by the queen.

Why is Stanford’s Ponzi scheme ignored? D. F

Dear D.F.: This proves one thing: If you want to become famous (or infamous), do it in New York.

And just to prove your point, I had to look up the spelling of Stanford’s name. I had no such trouble with Madoff.

For the record, Robert Allen Stanford is now serving a 110-year prison sentence after being convicted of fraud for running a Ponzi scheme. A friend of mine in Florida, where Stanford usually resided, tried like crazy to get authorities to look into his dealings early on, but nobody cared.

So I’m fixing this injustice in the best way I can — by printing your letter. May Stanford rot in hell, and may his victims get to smell the odor.

Send your questions to Dear John, The NY Post, 1211 Ave. of the Americas, NY, NY 10036, or john.crudele@nypost.com.