This will make it increasingly difficult for the taxpayer to realize a profit from TARP.
what do you define as profit? It seems to me we should be resisting this notion to describe any receipts by the tax payer in excess of funds disbursed as a "profit". Treasury is soooo proud that they made a profit of 17% on the JPM bailout that they forget the other investors made 150%. That to me doesn't sound like a profit at all.
Remember when Obama and his buddies were high fiving each other for their fiscal thriftiness over saving 230 "million" dollars by doing such things as not painting forest service vehicles green? "Billions" don't seem to get much attention.
Why doesn't the Fed buy those preferreds for $300 million so "no one loses" (except nobody future taxpayers)? Just add it to the $1.2 trillion in MBS purchases, and $300 in Treasury purchases, that they are already printing, er, making.
"Public option bank":
Direct loans from the Fed with no intermediary banking cartel. No one benefits from creating inflation and the food chain becomes a mesh. Banks can still innovate and loan to private parties and businesses.
Why are the banks going bankrupt but the homebuilders are not? And let's be clear. Without homebuilder clawbacks then indeed it wasn't the banks we were bailing out.
Don't you worry, do you honestly think American taxpayers are really going to pay all these debts any other way than through dollar crash and (hyper)inflation.
patientrenter wrote
"Why not cut out the middleman? Allow Congressmen to print legal tender and hand it out (or lend it, whatever they prefer) to their chosen recipients."
sheeeit,,,lets cut out the congress critters as well
and go direct
each and every citizen can just print what they need
It's not just the buy-ins, it's the re-buys. Hmmm, let's see, in poker tournament theory, the chips become less valuable as players are knocked out. I think chip management theory says,...
Ah hell, this is too difficult, I'm all-in.
Looks like the House of 'Representatives' is passing the Health Care Bill 'resolution'...the massive government 'bailout' of the medical/pharma industry and insurance companies...
mock - now you're thinking! Let private banks compete against the ability of every citizen to get as much money as they want, provided they are willing to pay a risk-adjusted discount rate. If they are not, perhaps banking institutions can offer them a better deal or shoulder some of the risk of financing them... if not, they go out of business. These guys claim to be experts in risk management and financial innovation, so let's put them to the test.
Oct 2009
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said he expects the “vast number of banks” that borrowed money from the government during the financial crisis to repay the debt fairly soon"
This proposed government (taxpayer) 'bailout' of the medical/pharma industry and large insurance companies needs to get done quickly before the stock market and economy takes the Dump...the Closer was brought in today to close the (expensive) trillion $ 'deal'...
what I still don't understand is why hasn't WalMart started a bank? Do you know how well a bank could do if they positioned themselves as a brand-new, "good" bank? All you would need is a little capital to get started.
what I still don't understand is why hasn't WalMart started a bank?
They have a reputation as a penny-pinching corporation. Who wants to deposit their money there?
Actually, in Canada this is pretty common. Many major retailers up here have started in-store banks, or online banks that carry the store brand. Some of them are even a decent deal for depositors, when compared to major banks.
4 hours of general debate in the House of 'Reps' coming in the Health Care Bill resolution...should be interesting...with nearly 2000 pages in the bill, there's much to discuss...like wiping out the education debt of veterinarians and other neat stuff like that in the proposed bill...wonder what the Closer O said today...'Get 'er done!'...
WalMart applied for a banking license.. They already own an industrial bank in Utah and they wanted a full banking license so they could process their own credit card payments through. The application was withdrawn when it was clear that the small bank lobby was going to be successful in pushing for the rejection of the application.
It may be a doom loop, but it's great for banker bonuses, political CONtributions and lobbyists. The impoverishment of the American middle class is a small price to pay. A necessary evil. Just ask Bernanke and Paulson. We have to save Wall St. to....well, save faux wealth and banker bonuses.
Wall St. thrives on inflation. Real dividends grow at less than 1% annually (glacially). Real earning grow at less than 2%.
Our highest paid industies (FIRE) would be 1/10th their current size without inflation. Wall St. does not earn money. They shuffle inflation and they don't even do that competently.
It's become obvious that Geithner represents the interests of Wall Street and bankers, not the taxpayers who pay his salary. He should just wear a sign around his neck that says: "Wall St Tool."
His goal is to make a lot of money on Wall Street in a few years, after shafting taxpayers. His loyalty will be rewarded.
Geithner is perfectly consistent and transparent. The problem isn't his, it's Obama's.
What a stupid f*cking fool Obama was to hire a tone-deaf , greedy Wall St. Tool as Treasury Secretary.
Angry - Exactly. In a system of distributed, direct public lending, there would be no money market intermediaries that would disproportionately be benefited by inflation based upon their position in the money flow food chain.
If you health care reform watchers have a minute explain to me what went on these last two weeks to get so many organizations to 180 and come out in support? It's like Rahm has a file drawer full of blackmail all of a sudden.
My mother still sometimes asks me about her Microsoft Internet, and why it's acting up.
Three years ago, when my mother needed to replace her old computer, I convinced her to get a Dell instead of me building one for her. The principle reason was because they have a 24 hour support line.
Where did all the CRE loan money go from these banks being closed...commercial projects have probably been sitting with no construction activity for a while now in many cases...so loans go out then default and are written off as 'losses'.
Then FDIC money comes in to close these failed banks for their 'bad' loans or merger 'deals' are made to transfer deposits and bad paper...in the end how much loan money is really lost with FDIC 'closing costs' added to the loan 'losses'...anyway the money went somewhere...did it all go into CRE construction costs before, during, or after default...since loan payments have become delinquent...did money go into salaries & bonuses?...when commercial building projects and sales have been shut down for a while now...
What a stupid f*cking fool Obama was to hire a tone-deaf , greedy Wall St. Tool as Treasury Secretary.
You're right.....Paulson was better.
Since when has Treasury not been a Wall Street tool. 1938 maybe? And the entire executive branch. This surprises you? We have been choosing between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in presidential elections for the last 40 years.
Well I just called UCB to check on my CDs. They are still open on a Saturday and identifying themselves now as East West Bank. CDs still show-up online.
Appears to be a pretty seamless transition thank the lord.
Maudlin's take on UE. So glad the V shaped recovery is imminent to make this all better.
"Let's look at the real number in the establishment survey. If you don't seasonally adjust the number, the actual change in unemployment for October was 641,000, or about 450,000 more than the seasonally adjusted number. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics added 86,000 jobs that they simply guess were created through the so-called birth-death ratio. Interestingly, the birth-death ratio number is not seasonally adjusted, so it is just added to the unemployment number. Fake Jobs
The total (U-6) employment rate is at a record high of 17.5% (this includes those who are part-time for economic reasons). There are now over 10.5 million people who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the downturn.
My favorite slicer and dicer of data, Greg Weldon (http://www.weldononline.com) offers up an even more horrific number. As I have noted before, if you have not looked for work in the last four weeks, the BLS does not count you as unemployed. Quoting Greg:
"Moreover, when we combine the monthly change in the number of Unemployed, with the number Not in the Labor Force, we might consider the result to be a proxy for the actual 'change' in the underlying labor market situation ... in which case, October's figure of 817,000 represents the fourth LARGEST yet, behind last month's (September's) second largest figure of 1,021,000 ... for a two-month combined figure of 1.838 million, in newly Unemployed, or no longer 'in' the Labor Force ...
"... the second LARGEST two-month total EVER posted, barely trailing the December-08/January-09 total 1.955 million.
"Bottom line ... basis this measure AND the 'Total Unemployment Rate,' we could conclude that not only is there NO 'improvement' in the labor market, but moreover, that it continues to DETERIORATE, intently."
All I can say is that people this stupid deserve to be taken advantage of.
I don't know why you guys are trying to make it work for those companies to begin with. Do what we did in Canada: make the government the insurer and relegate the big health insurers to 'supplementary' land. Upgraded hospital beds, prescriptions, etc.
But I'm biased and foreign, so feel free to ignore my ignorance. From what I can see, however, the bill just seems exceptionally convoluted.
Was enjoying watching the BBC and Gordon Brown pimping the Tobin tax this evening in Scotland. That is a flawless little re-election angle on his part....promoting something he knows the G20 will never support but looks good for re-election. Without trading what will London have? They'll have to figure out how to promote the Barclays Premier League better or something because there ain't nothing left to export out of that country besides finance. That country will be back to the Stone Age with a Tobin Tax.
Is this true or false? Posted by a reader of Seeking Alpha:
"What we think of as "money" in the West is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. When there are no new buyers to take out the old buyers, Government steps in and forces taxpayers to become buyers. When the Government stops buying - once they've bankrupted remaining taxpayers and run out of money themselves - the system will (finally, mercifully) collapse. "
Does the Government ever need to stop buying? If so, why? I really don't think so. I think that gold will go up, and the fiat of the buying-governments will go down. It borders on runaway inflation. But, there's no reason for the Govt to ever stop buying.
And, at the end, when the fiat has dropped in value so much, the frog in the hot pot, then debt will have devalued so much that the crisis will have been resolved.
The losers are obvious, the holders of fiat and treasuries and bonds and local-centric assets. When I talk to the losers, they're sure they are safe, holding fiat and treasuries. So, this is the highest probability, imo.
Disgraceful. Obama didn't want to offend a wealth Wall Streeter - Bloomberg. It really shows allegiances and levels of importance imo.
Maybe in part. But mainly, people here believe it was because Obama just totally misjudged and thought the Democrat had zero chance to win. It was no different than flying off to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid, at taxpayer expense, when Chicago had no chance to win.
Obama just has terrible judgment and priorities. Chicago is important. New York City Democrats are not. Chicago has a great chance to win. Corzine has a great chance to win. The Democrats in NYC do not.
The main reason Obama has such terrible judgment and priorities is...he's so incredibly green, in terms of having done anything important and similar in life. It's like making a janitor President of the United States.
What a stupid f*cking fool Obama was to hire a tone-deaf , greedy Wall St. Tool as Treasury Secretary.
100% agreed. The problem isn't that Geithner is all that much worse than Paulson. The problem is that Obama campaigned on change, and was in a position to make sensible, popular changes, and instead he chose to hire somebody who is basically the same as Paulson but less sophisticated and experienced.
I'm having a really hard time seeing how Obama digs his way out of this one. And it will be significant political issue after the economy tanks again.
rich wrote:
What a stupid f*cking fool Obama was to hire a tone-deaf , greedy Wall St. Tool as Treasury Secretary.
ever heard about birds of feather flocking together?
Exactly! Rich has had so many insightful comments here, but his consistent portrayal of Obama as a dupe is off the mark.
It's like making a janitor President of the United States.
We made a policy wonk with no life experience Prime Minister of Canada. I'd argue that's worse, because no only does he lack any personal ideals, but he also now thinks that he can run the entire government single-handedly. It makes me smile when I hear the teabaggers on CNN talking about how fascist they think Obama is; here in Canada its an epidemic and no one even seems to care.
Now, I am not writing off Barack Obama’s presidency. I do worry he still could see a recessionary relapse which would cause him to seem more Herbert Hoover than Franklin Roosevelt. But, despite his Nobel Prize, it is much to early to know what his legacy will be.
Nonetheless, I believe he has wasted a lot of political capital and this will make ushering through a meaningful legislative agenda very difficult.
Why did Obama throw it all away?
Here’s my answer: I call it the Cheney-Rumsfeld replay.
When historians look back at the Bush 42 presidency, it will be defined by 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While George W. Bush was politically pre-disposed to the Neo-con world view, it was really advice from Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld which made Afghanistan and Iraq possible. George W. Bush was famously not well-versed in foreign affairs, having almost never travelled abroad. He was completely dependent on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to make foreign policy (although he could have listened more to Colin Powell, his actual Secretary of State; again it goes to predisposition).
So, I see George W. Bush’s presidency as having been defined by foreign policy and the War on Terror and, by extension, on Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Fast-forward to Barack Obama’s presidency and you have an almost identical situation, this time with the economy instead of foreign policy and Tim Geithner and Larry Summers instead of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
But, as with George W. Bush, it goes to pre-disposition. Paul Volcker was a critical member of the Obama 2008 campaign. He also was a key member of Obama’s economic policy team. But, he has been speaking a very discordant message that is not in sync with team Obama. So, as with Bush and his marginalization of Powell, one has to believe Barack Obama has chosen to side with Geithner and Summers over Volcker.
The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Barack Obama shares the blinkered and captured view of his policy makers and that this is why he has decided to go down this chosen path. And when it comes to Obama’s other ‘change’ decisions on the Guantanamo closure, torture, rendition, state secrets, and health care, the same logic also applies."
The main reason Obama has such terrible judgment and priorities is...he's so incredibly green, in terms of having done anything important and similar in life. It's like making a janitor President of the United States.
Disagree. Obama seems to have an extraordinary ability to figure things out, weigh consequences and think strategically. I think he made the choice to favor the bankers because they are all part of the same Ivy League club, plus all his policy people told him the New York bankers are the transmission mechanism from Treasury and Fed policy to the real economy. Unfortunately, these were the same policy people who thought the 2005 banking system was just about perfect and could go on expanding credit with no limits.
People also need to understand the Primary Dealers are the mechanism to sell government debt. If the primary dealer mechanism goes bust the US government goes bust. At the height of the crisis almost 1/3 of the primary dealers had disappeared.
Funding the US government ultimately comes above all else when push comes to shove.
Once one accepts the fact that, on September 18, 2008, we witnessed the near meltdown of the US economic and political system, one can begin to accept the proposition that the probability of a total meltdown is greater than zero.
The hazard(s) associated with such a meltdown are catastrophic and, because their probability is greater than zero, the risk is significant.
As I've said before, it's time for folks to start figuring out how to mitigate their risk.
Unfortunately, these were the same policy people who thought the 2005 banking system was just about perfect and could go on expanding credit with no limits.
He possesses the same personality flaw that most of the public has: that there is a group of people within government and the financial sector who 'know' what is going on--the guru's--and he's trying to tap that knowledge to navigate this storm.
In reality, of course, this is a new paradigm and the old guru's are woefully illinformed. What Obama needs to do is hire investigators, not gurus, to actually figure out what is going on.
But so I understand- you are saying that GWB was pre-disposed to accept the Rumsfeld Cheney view just as Obama was predisposed to accept the Geithner /Summers view.
Is this true or false? Posted by a reader of Seeking Alpha:
"What we think of as "money" in the West is nothing but a Ponzi scheme.
It's false but a matter of belief so it isn't worth arguing over unless you are one of those internet cowboys who think that outlasting is winning. The developed world and US in particular has resources and infrastructure and human capital that exists entirely outside the machinations of financial skullduggery. In normal times there is a shifting but essentially one to one with the stuff we call money. We use the filthy lucre because cows don't fit in your wallet and you can't make change easily. These are not normal times. That's where the ponzi bit comes in.
"He possesses the same personality flaw that most of the public has: that there is a group of people within government and the financial sector who 'know' what is going on--the guru's--and he's trying to tap that knowledge to navigate this storm."
We tend to ascribe great powers to those in certain professions. Finance, Medical, Engineering are a few.
But generally the old rule 20% are very good, 60% so-so, 20% crap holds true even in those professions.
aol.com story...'Health Care Hinges on Saturday Vote' ~2397 comments
aol survey: Do you support the proposed health care bill?
No - 72% Yes - 28%
here are some otherr polls
from time inc
By Seth Brohinsky and Mark Schulman, Abt SRBI
TIME Health-Care Poll
As the debate over healthcare reform in Congress continues, a new Time Magazine Poll finds that most Americans (55%) support a major reform of the healthcare system over making just minor adjustments (43%).
The poll does find a sharp partisan divide. While seven in ten (70%) Democrats support major reform, just one third (33%) of Republicans agree that major reform is necessary. Independents however are more divided -- a slim majority (53%) support major reform, while 43% favor making just minor adjustments.
The political and electoral process we have in this country designed to make sure the 20% crap never make it to where they can cause harm virtually guarantees that the top quintile never even tries.
Sales pitch close that never fails...housing bubble, health care reform, whatever...
'You're going to be priced out'...'You're going to be priced out FOREVER!!'
Once one accepts the fact that, on September 18, 2008, we witnessed the near meltdown of the US economic and political system, one can begin to accept the proposition that the probability of a total meltdown is greater than zero.
I think you are asking us to accept what is in doubt. I have no doubt that if you were standing on Wall Street it looked like the world was ending and in probability THEIR WORLD was ending. I strongly dispute that it meant that everybody else's world was ending. There certain steps like expanding deposit limit coverage, guaranteeing money markets that were absolutely the right thing to do. The probably could have gone further with those measure e.g. guaranteeing all transactional accounts regardless of the amount, guaranteeing incremental inter bank deposits by net surplus institutions., had the Fed back stop all repos of government and agency debt , plus margin loans on listed stocks. All these steps would have ensured that the normal activities of people depositing money in banks and knowing that it would have been there to withdraw when they needed would have continued.
The dollar (or any currency) is a ponzi scheme to the extent that a central issuer can arbitrarily expand the float after the system has been operating.
The theory goes that the FED lends the new float (no paper anymore just "credit") to at absurdly low interest so they can lend it to the working man at a profit. Thus, the economy is stimulated to grow and everyone who wants a job can get one. Especially the men and women.
Then they tell you that's fair free-market capitalism at work. As long as 51% of the power of the people benefits or perceives to benefit, the ponzi goes on living the dream.
What makes Obama's conduct and judgment worse is the fact that he decided to work so hard for Corzine but not for Democrats in NYC. Obama just punted on raising a finger for any NYC Democrat, and it won't be forgotten by the Democratic Party in NYC.
What Bloomberg did was one for the political history books. He corrupted the law by personally making term limits null and void, and then he just bought an election, using his own money. Obama did not say one word against a REPUBLICAN doing this.
After this, Obama can't have any credibility talking about campaign reforms or fair elections. Of course, you'll never seen any "town hall" meeting where anybody anywhere (let alone NYC) is allowed to question Obama about this.
Pretty soon, you'll see those town hall meetings disappear, unless everybody who attends is a shill.
"Support for health care reform during September grew, reversing an August slide, although backing for an overhaul of the system has not rebounded to the levels it had at the start of the debate, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll conducted Sept. 11-18.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans say it is more important than ever to take on health care reform, compared to 39 percent who say the U.S. cannot afford to do it now. That compares to the 53-42 level of support in August, which was the low point of the year (and was also the month where loud opposition to the reform proposals at town-hall meetings and other forums dominated the news). In February this year, support peaked at 62 percent to 34 percent."
The poll does find a sharp partisan divide. While seven in ten (70%) Democrats support major reform, just one third (33%) of Republicans agree that major reform is necessary. Independents however are more divided -- a slim majority (53%) support major reform, while 43% favor making just minor adjustments.
Ugh. This is not directed to you, mock, as I appreciate your taking the time to bring us the info. But the only thing more useless than polling is blatant subjective polling. What the hell does 'major reform' mean? What does 'minor adjustments' mean? Is it not plausible to have significant overlap between those two subjective spheres?
Rich,
Maybe the handlers don't really need O for more than 4 years to get all these 'spending' whales (big biz/finance bailouts), credit destruction policies, dollar devaluation policies, etc. passed?
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said he expects the “vast number of banks” that borrowed money from the government during the financial crisis to repay the debt fairly soon"
They should be allowed to repay as soon as possible. We should get back as much of that money as we can before the next crisis, when Country X defaults on their debt.
Part of me is not upset that Bloomberg is now a lame duck.
He will soon be a detested man with no friends, and the last time a decent but ordinary Democrat was mayor, the wingnuts easily blamed Dinkins for every violent crime committed in the City.
in that there is detailed break out of different constituentcy positions and the research pollster is very reputable
heres the summary...tables can be found at link below
"October 8, 2009
Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform Persist
PrintEmailShare
From: To:
Section 2: Opinions of Health Care Proposals
There is strong majority support for many of the key elements of the health care reform legislation being considered on Capitol Hill. But the percentage that generally supports the proposals being discussed is far lower – just 34% in the current survey, down from 42% in the immediate aftermath of President Obama’s Sept. 9 address to Congress. Opposition has not moved much; currently, 47% oppose the proposals, compared with 44% last month. At the same time, however, many of those opposed say they would like to see policymakers try to compromise with supporters to make the legislation better, rather than try to prevent any health care legislation from passing this year.
Intense support for the health care proposals being discussed in Congress also has fallen since September. Currently, 20% favor the proposals very strongly, down from 29% last month. Very strong opposition is essentially unchanged at 35% in the current poll (34% in September). Nearly one-in-five (19%) offer no opinion, compared with 14% last month.
One of the largest declines in support from a month ago has come among independents, particularly among those who lean Democratic. Overall, 26% of independents now say they generally favor the bills being discussed in Congress, down from 37% last month. About four-in-ten (42%) Democratic-leaning independents favor the proposals, compared with 62% in September. Democratic support for the legislation also has declined over the same period, from 68% to 59%. Opinion among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents is mostly unchanged.
The debate over health care reform continues to attract extensive coverage. It was the most heavily covered news story Sept. 28-Oct. 4, accounting for 11% of all news coverage, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index. However, health care reform received considerably more coverage at the time of Obama’s speech to Congress (32% of all coverage)."
"The main reason Obama has such terrible judgment and priorities is...he's so incredibly green, in terms of having done anything important and similar in life. It's like making a janitor President of the United States."
He is NOT green or inexperienced. The election campaign costed a lot of money and Wall Street bankers were the main contributors. If he went against them big time than he would have to say bye bye re-election and THAT is the main objective of any politician. Big Money has corrupted the whole system totally because ALL politicians depend on that juicy cash cow.
That is why Democrats are wimpy asses, not really going to stand up for anything that is right thing to do or decent or wise (unless their contributors say so) and Republicans....well, the same crap as always.
I wish I had my copy of The Great Reckoning with me.
One of their predictions was that the final collapse of the United States would be marked by a headlong rush towards national health care with no apparent funding.
rob dawg, IMO, the game of fractional banking has permitted and recently embraced high risk lending. I'll not repeat what's obvious to us all. At the "end" of this is not a ponzi scheme but both a liquidity and solvency problem. The perception change leads to a cessation of the flow of funds. The outcome, without central bank involvement, is illiquidity, and a massively insolvent financial system, which is exactly what we experienced.
The USG and other gov'ts have ridden to the rescue with newly printed debt, in fact monetizing what arguably should have been and would have been bankrupted. Yes, the damage would have been extensive. Instead, the gov'ts have encapsulated the bad debt, swallowed it, and pretend it doesn't exist. Those who believe in the sanctity of fiat as a store of value are furious because 2 + 2 = 4, and the govts are telling them, "Shh, go to sleep.".
Instead of there being a dead end, a "wall", I believe there will be a long, steady and moderately increasing absorption of this private loss. And I believe the fiats in which this transpires will lose value vis a vis the rest of the world, including PM's, because the concept that store of value must exist truly does exist, and those who have assets are, at the margin, taking positions to defend that belief.
The outcome over a number of years will be a lowering of the value of fiats involved to assets which symbolize a store of value.
Yes, there are external factors, like the demand for the commodity, that will influence the price of some commodities, but the primary PM will attract more and more "money" as those at the margin become more aware and concerned over the loss of their store of value.
It's obvious that it's happening now.
And, btw, I'm no gold bug. I do believe in the concept of a store of value separate from gov't control thereover. And I do believe in the simple logic of 2 + 2 = 4, the self-spoken synthesis of Bernard Baruch's philosophy of investment.
Health care reform is one thing but pharma/medical bailouts is another thing.
Insurance companies books are fried from derivatives, securitization meltdown...it's an insurance/medical industry Bailout from the bubble/bust Crash...this spending whale needs to get passed quickly before The Dump in the stock market really picks up steam and the main St. economy nosedives.
Pharma wants paying customers and so do doctors and hospitals...people who are financially stressed are dropping their insurance coverage so if that spirals out of control, how are pharma, doctors, hospitals going to be able to continue to make profits and have lots of paying customers unless there is a government payer of last resort to pick up the slack of lost insurance premiums from the deflation and high unemployment numbers...
TARP profit for Taxpayers? I better check under my pillow to see if the Tooth Fairy left me some money! Money (including taxes) is the crack cocaine for politicians. We will never see a penny of profit, especially when our tax money will all go to pay the interest on the debt they stole from us.
Many here seem to doubt the actual damage this economy--and the world economy--has sustained.
Yes. And I've been flabbergasted on more than one occasion by intelligent economists I've met who have remarked on the vast level of moral hazard that has been injected into our economic system, and then have followed up that observation with a comment that likens it to some sort of excessive tax that needs to be removed.
If only it were that easy. If only it were even possible.
IMO, there's a pathology at work--a cancer--and nothing can stop it.
So we should move to Wyoming, dig a hole in the ground, get in, surround ourselves with canned goods, and hope for the best? I ask this only partially in jest. What I read between the lines is that you don't see a positive solution or strategy can be achieved. It's whether you suffer and die, or die quickly.
Yes, the damage would have been extensive. Instead, the gov'ts have encapsulated the bad debt, swallowed it, and pretend it doesn't exist.
Madoff's estate in BK wound up with about $2.5BB in assets recovered (so far) against $5+BB in claims. After a long slow process, even more bagholders will get something back. How is that not different from the FED/Treasury/FDIC's ongoing game? Even Warren says we will probably make a profit (without even a "nominal" qualifier).
I've been flabbergasted on more than one occasion by intelligent economists I've met who have remarked on the vast level of moral hazard that has been injected into our economic system...
One of their predictions was that the final collapse of the United States would be marked by a headlong rush towards national health care with no apparent funding.
I think it is the move towards national health care with no mechanism to control costs. Simon Butler of the Heritage Foundation commenting about the British National health care system made the observation that the advantage of systems like that is that brings the spending "on budget" and allows for a rational discussion of how much the country wants to spend and then tries to allocate in the most cost efficient manner. What we are likely to end up with in trying to arrive at a "bipartisan" solution is more likely going to end up being the worst of both systems rather than the best. Fellow Democrats who support the plan - you are idiots. This plan will blow up and with any chance of getting a system that actually works.
"One of their predictions was that the final collapse of the United States would be marked by a headlong rush towards national health care with no apparent funding. "
but not military spending at 10 times that level or more to produce war material maintained on a base in a foreign country?
at least when the taxpayer spends x bucks for a patient to get an mri, or what ever, that money is being spent domestically on salaries for doctors nurses anesthesiologists etc who in turn buy groceries and pay rent etc
most of the industrial nations of europe were able to afford public health care in the years soon after the end of WWII
So we should move to Wyoming, dig a hole in the ground, get in, surround ourselves with canned goods, and hope for the best? I ask this only partially in jest. What I read between the lines is that you don't see a positive solution or strategy can be achieved. It's whether you suffer and die, or die quickly.
I'm not saying that at all, you're saying it. It's a knee-jerk response.
It's the moral equivalent of throwing up your hands and saying to hell with it.
Slumdog,
If you're leveraged or over-leveraged, holding RE & CRE 'investments' and 'assets'...of course you want the deflation 'can' to be kicked down the road with 'artificial stimulus', banking bailouts, or 're-inflation' schemes because you are stuck in a bleeding liquidity trap and can't get out...but as valuations contunue to go south...the longer you stay over-leveraged...the deeper in debt & late payment fees and lost 'asset values' you get...no one wants to take the 'hit' now who are holding leveraged properties...it would have been better to take the foreclosure 'hit a year ago...
You're also a bit of a poet, if I do say so myself.
I think the biggest difference now is that there won't be anyone telling people what to do or what to think as this unfolds. Which will be a bit of a shock to the collective psyche.
You prepare however you wish. But pretending it will not occur simply because you're worried you'll look foolish is...foolish.
You kidding? I uprooted my family in 2005 to prepare for the worst. I'm not in the basement with a water purifier yet, but my eyes are open. I ask the question because what mp implies is that there are no global safe havens if it affects the world economy... a rational exit strategy overseas would be to move to the Pacific Islands, and collect cocoanuts for a living.
It is interesting to see that we are finally starting to look at the situation from a risk mitigation / damage control standpoint instead of a "profit from the crisis" mentality. Moral hazard portends the fundamental breakdown of the social contract, and with it the death of a society that once honored its agreements.
From the NY Times... Geithner speaks at the G20:
"Geithner's key message was that recovery still remains on perilous ground and that it was too soon to discuss the timing for removing the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus that countries around the world have poured into their economies.
"Government policy has to provide a bridge to growth led by the private sector," he said. "We're now in the middle span of that bridge."
That meant policymakers must move cautiously in trying to bring down huge budget deficits without choking off chances for growth led by consumer spending and business investment.
"If we put the brakes on too quickly we will weaken the economy and the financial system, unemployment will rise, more businesses will fail, budget deficits will rise, and the ultimate cost of the crisis will be greater," Geithner said.
"It's too early to start to lean against recovery.""
G. is speaking the line I've just posted... more Govt absorption of the losses, attempting to preserve the Primary Dealer system.
Whether the fodder continue to permit, if they have any power at all, this fabrication of Govt debt, I don't know. But as long as they can, there will be upward movement in gold as those who have wealth, be they countries (BRIC) or institutions/individuals, will continue to move a portion of their assets into the PMs.
Of course the rise in PM's will end, but I've not seen a wave shifting in this magnitude without it becoming parabolic, and that means, for the holders of PM's, a huge profit. I'm there, and I'll be there with buckets and a trainload of coal cars; this is the only fair outcome, dimunition of the value of fiat. 2 + 2 = 4.
The Hard Close...
If you don't go along with this 2000 page 'spending whale'...you will die on the streets with no medical care or starve to death from being against saving people's lives with the benevolence of the payer of last resort Health Care Reform Bill resolution.
The Choice is yours America as in the TARP resolution and the 911 resolutions...vote NO and America is at risk of collapse or destruction...Its that simple! Now back to the dog & pony show Congressional 'debate'...
You kidding? I uprooted my family in 2005 to prepare for the worst. I'm not in the basement with a water purifier yet, but my eyes are open.
Sorry, my response was not directed at you personally, but more at myself. I have found internalizing this to be quite difficult, even as I nibble around the edges and have taken steps to mitigate it.
I ask the question because what mp implies is that there are no global safe havens if it affects the world economy...
What I've gotten from mp' discussion is that there is no global safe haven for those wishing the next 50 years to repeat the last 50. It won't, no matter where you are in the world. This doesn't mean anarchy, but it does mean that quick thinking on your feet, resources at your disposal, and a tight network of useful contacts will differentiate between those who will suffer and those who will find opportunity.
Oxley, meanwhile, is pleased that the guidelines for most banks stop short of capping pay. “I think the Yankees are overpaid, too,” he says, referring to the New York team that won the World Series this year with the highest payroll in Major League Baseball. “But I don’t want to pass a law saying how much Derek Jeter can make playing shortstop.”
Bberg
A stupid analogy. A home run is not a CDO squared. Banks have special access to welfare from TARP, TALF, FDIC, and good old POMO. Dick Fuld didn't really win the World Series in 2006, we found out, but he got the bonus money.
I ask the question because what mp implies is that there are no global safe havens if it affects the world economy
I think this too much of US centric view of the world. There many countries which didn't engage nor have exposure to financial shams. Unfortunately most of those also have very serious ecological challenges but perhaps those can be deferred long enough for the US to go through its convulsion.
This doesn't mean anarchy, but it does mean that quick thinking on your feet, resources at your disposal, and a tight network of useful contacts will differentiate between those who will suffer and those who will find opportunity.
What I've gotten from mp' discussion is that there is no global safe haven for those wishing the next 50 years to repeat the last 50. It won't, no matter where you are in the world.
That's where I was going as well. Anyone thinking they're gonna convert to Euros, and just ride this out in a French cafe like an artist in the 20's is fooling themselves. Sustenance farming will get you to a much better place than that strategy.
And the Truth is with this coming Crash and increasing unemployment or under-employment numbers...people will lose coverage as they can't make insurance premium payments for health care, auto insurance, life insurance, etc. So it is a cluster$$ss...
The congress will not opt to do that because it makes them responsible now the Fed is the lightening attractor. Remember when TARP came into being they gave the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury rather than the president and could it be for the same reason?
Slumdog,
There is no safe haven for 'assets' as the Treasury needs the money to pay for these simulus/bailouts...they are looking for money in every nook and cranny...the govt. deficit Whale must be paid for somehow!
"Major League Baseball. “But I don’t want to pass a law saying how much Derek Jeter can make playing shortstop.”
Bloomberg"
yep
we wanna leave baseball free of government regulation and interference dont we now good little boys and girls the teacher said
(snark meter pined and snapped off
baseball a gov protected monopoly with price controls free market abrogation(try and sell your yakees tickets on the street hahaha) and limitation on regional competition with carve out for exclusive franchises and no compete clauses...yeah ats all free market all day 24/7 on all channels
BTW
similar legislation exists currently for health insurance companies!!!! yeah free market
(some wing nut yelling in the backgroiund "hey they want to take away your freedom...stop healthcare reform...be free to be raped by your insurance company and die destitute...FREEEEEDOMMMMM)
The closest thing to an "exit" remaining is piracy on the high seas under maritime law. We have corporations that are larger than, and would have a higher GDP than, most of the countries you believe you could flee to. Unless you have a personal military, you buy geopolitical instability and the even-more-corrupt governmental structure of a third-world or emerging economy, and a rule of law even less respected than what ours has become. It's a race to the bottom, but we started at the top.
mp,
hyperbole - 'exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect'.
That's what the government uses to get spending whales or banking/medical industry bailouts passed...
mp - I just meant that "I got my gold", or "I got my 3rd world vacation getaway home", or "I got my portfolio in three non-US currencies", or ... anything else. It's just "I got mine, F the rest" dressed up in a new form. We have to stop trying to win this game and look around, realizing we are not the only ones that will be affected, so why are we simply trying to save ourselves and take credit for how clever we were compared to the dumbass peasants. THEY ARE US.
I got my mountain retreat near a LDS church. I figgur I'm doin' sumptin' right.
Enough of TEOTWAWKI. If there is a break we'll have a chance to decide and I've no doubt we'll let the financial system die before destroying the nation defending it for a few more bonus cycles.
someinvestorguy, "It is remarkably difficult to store value over long periods of time, regardless of your country or financial system. "
True. But you're assuming something that's not in evidence, that the store of value remains constant. It doesn't. The store of value shifts over time. And this means there is no one final, at-last ability to say, "I've taken care of that; now I'm free to go about my life." That ain't gonna happen.
A simple reflection on history: car, radio, bw TV, color TV, transistor radio, internet, numerous RE bulges, gold, platinum, all the traded commodities.
Given that this is a fact, the strategy over a lifetime IMO must be to shift and camp out, and to diversify amongst 2 or 3 options. And the strategy when leaving an estate is to assure that the shift will continue and be conducted by competent hands. At the end, if the diversification is not wise and the institutions chosen not be energetically self evolving, the life's effort will be for naught.
They should be allowed to repay as soon as possible. We should get back as much of that money as we can before the next crisis, when Country X defaults on their debt.
Sure, Timmy thinks United Commercial Bank wants like to pay off TARP. LOL
I feel special. Citigroup finally got to me with a rate increase, 20.99%. With a special balance transfer offer. As I have paid off the balance every month, I couldn't care less.
My gf got mad at me for sending back empty envellopes from every card offer: I put a stack of 50 in the mailbox once. Didn't soak them in urine, though.
"If there is a break we'll have a chance to decide and I've no doubt we'll let the financial system die before destroying the nation defending it for a few more bonus cycles."
No, but we might do it for a government pension, a bigger house, a few more bigscreen teevees, premium cable, free internet and a new car.
"Private/public sector" is a false dichotomy that misleads more than it informs.
Ultimately, the voter/consumer decides what kind of baseball salary is appropriate, and whether it should be set by law or unlimited (and just taxed back). There was a players' league in the 19th Century that tried to break away from banker/industrialist monopoly control. It failed. People were murdered and players blacklisted for life in the process, according to some reports. It's an ongoing poker game of chicken: the players threaten to strike, the owners try to manufacture public outrage at them via their media. The players usually settle for a bit more equity, knowing that setting up a new league is easier than starting a competing railroad, but harder than reorganizing a busted bank by dumping losses on the public.
The bailed-out banks are not private entities and were not even before the Treasury took title to shares.
mp, did you and your neighbor get the carburator problem solved? Is he back up and running yet?
barfly, in my mind, that's ancient history.
But, yeah, he was up and running the following morning. We made some of the parts here in our shop--it took all night--as he was fearful of not getting his crop in before the rain.
His crop is in.
edit:
In a manner of speaking, we "mitigated" his risk for him.
Both banks and health insurers have a big concern about competition. For existing banks, it's Walmart, state-owned banks, and to a lesser extent credit unions.
For health insurers, its removing antitrust protections and allowing insurers to operate nationally, rather than be regulated by each state.
mock,
We know the 'health insurer' tricks and the banking tricks...is a reward payout structure 'bailout' the answer or regulatory enforcement of the tricks to make 'unethical* or bending/breaking the rules money (huge profits) a priority for reform? Or should reform and enforcement of regulations protecting consumers be a priority?
Yeah, Paulson really scared those bankers with that bazooka talk. He wanted double TARP. Drown with so many dollars they'll have to piss some down on the serfs.
mp - I get it. There is a social dimension here, and you recognize that.
But the folks suited up for TEOWAWKI, well, I hope they have a lot of ammunition because people are going to come and attempt to take what they have. Those same people, ignorant peasants that they are, will also be trying to figure out how to survive, and banding together, killing you and looting your stuff may be their lowest-cost alternative. Crude, but effective, solution to their lack of preparation and your surplus. Same goes for the clueless rich, in spades.
What people don't realize is Big Pharma and medical equipment industries (plus the hospitals) ARE basically the Health Care Industry. Doctors are scrip writers basically for Big Pharma. And sure there's the chemo and radiation 'therapies'.
How much in this 2000 page bill addresses the rip-off pricing structure in the U.S. from Big Pharma?
I used to work at UCB back when it was United Savings. It was chinese owned and run, owned by the Salim billionaires out of Indonesia. I remember having a loan turned down - an apartment house in north Stockton - on the grounds that "it's awfully dark out there." They were in trouble for not meeting their CRA guidelines - ie having a branch in Oakland (Oakland chinatown), but almost no loans to African Americans.
"bending/breaking the rules money (huge profits) a priority for reform? Or should reform and enforcement of regulations protecting consumers be a priority?"
the greatest travesty of fairness and principles of contract i see is insurance companies throwing people out when they get sick and need the insurance coverage they paid for over the years...the companies do this several ways and heres 2
they raise the rates sky high so you cant afford a payment
and or
while you are sick andd in the middle of chemo,they notoify you that your enrollment and coverage will be terminated at the end of the next billing period and
have a nice day
the propsed legislation in the house and senate eliminates that practice
again...remember all the industrialized nations of europe you know like switzerland, finland, france italy,etc plus canada and mexico costa rica etc, here in north america have universal health care and spend LESS less less
Why are the banks going bankrupt but the homebuilders are not? And let's be clear. Without homebuilder clawbacks then indeed it wasn't the banks we were bailing out.
Did you notice the announcement that homebuilders are going to get their 5-year look-back on losses?
Finally I have the last of my fruit trees in the ground. 2 peaches, 2 apples, key lime, blood orange(won't see fruit from that until TEOTWAWKI), 2 lemons, orange and tangelo tree. My fig and pecan should recover from neglect after a vigorous pruning. This time next year will be planting more after construction finishes.
What people don't realize is Big Pharma and medical equipment industries (plus the hospitals) ARE basically the Health Care Industry.
At the risk of being misunderstood, or too well understood-
What most people don't get is that when you get cancer you are supposed to die. Either that or it's going to take a lot of money to keep you alive. Expensive treatments are expensive for a reason,...because people will pay for that last bit of hope.
"How much in this 2000 page bill addresses the rip-off pricing structure in the U.S. from Big Pharma?"
isnt it interesting that in the land of the free and the home of the brave
we are held prisoners when it comes to buying perscription meds
when bush and the repubs passed part D which was the largest unfunded mandate- benefit ever (remember now that ss and medicare have taxes attached to them..part D does not)
that same legislation instituting part d perscription benefits (right before the election) FORBID the government from using its pricing power to negotiate lower prices and forbid the importation of cheaper generics from abroad
hahahaha
and now one of the right wingers who signed onto the part D bill screams in the background "this new helath care proposal is the most agreigious assault on our freedoms ive seen in my 19 years in congress and the dems want to crush the free market system
and your freeeeedooooom
a bunch of effing liars
actually the democrats are a bunch of pussy-cats and if they had reallnards they would have pushed for universal single payer...gotten the same accusations and abuse and really reformed the system taking profits out of the insurance companies who are nothing but sickness profiteers and death merchants
but no..the dems are wimps and once again bend over for the right wing which is hard as nails cause it believes in the law of the jungle
my wifes fathers family were all a bunch of coal miners...they fought with knuckles and clubs against the mine owners who refused to pay a living wage and would dump a mans broken body at the wifes doorstep without severance pay or widow benefits after the husband was crushed in a mining accident
Health insurers engage in an endless list of deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair practices that deny millions of consumers adequate coverage.
lets suppose for a moment the health insurers paid every claim what do you think would happen to premiums?
Lets assume we made all the CEO's work for zero , magically got rid of all their administrative expenses and somehow convinced investor to take zero profits what would happen to premiums? They would fall but in about 3-5 years we would be back in the exactly the same position we are in now. Except what would you then?
Like so many things we are not willing to confront the simple truth. Medical technology will advance faster than the economy, treatments will be found for rarer and rarer conditions which means almost by definition at higher unit costs and unlike virtually everything else in the economy new medical technology doesn't lower costs it raises.
The implication of that is pretty straight forward- we are not going to be able to provide the same level of care to everybody. Guess what this is not so earth shattering- it is true of everything else we do. does everybody get the same level and quality of food, housing, cars, air schools etc.
The TARP bought the politicians at least a year, maybe even eighteen months of pretending that there is no problem and everyone can just go about their own business. Reality sucks and politicians go to great lengths to avoid discussing it, because it is a losing proposition for them.
mock,
I agree the medical insurance coverage 'system' isn't working...one of the problems has been coping with the price-gouging and continual inflationary pricing run-ups from doctors, big pharma, hospitals, medical equipment industries, etc . in the U.S. especially, forcing insurance companies to continually raise premiums to 'keep up' which finally makes the insurance premiums unaffordable for many Americans...all to keep up with rising 'costs' and 'billing' of health care.
Plus because of prescription drugs that were improperly tested or rushed to market maybe...there's a ton of lawsuits against pharma and doctors for 'malpractice' and such...all of which raises the cost of health care for consumers...
sdtfs,
What's the rate of survival in patients for cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation therapy? Might be interesting to see if the money spent on these treatments is effective...but terminal patients will be open for any treatments in order to prolong life...but what is the 'quality of life' for these patients undergoing these chemo and/or radiation therapies generally...
Their finest moment will turn into the biggest nightmare in history. Small businesses and individuals will see 25% yearly increases in health care premiums. And individuals will get taxed up the ying as well. And no one who has health care now will see any improvement in their care, despite the huge cost increases.
radiation + chemo =! terminal diagnosis
.
Still expensive, painful and draining, but the population of cancer patients who undergo those therapies is significantly larger than the population of cancer patients with a terminal diagnosis...
Americans have more than triple the debt they had in 1982, and less than half the savings. They spend 10 weeks longer off the job. And a bigger share of them have no health insurance, leaving them one medical emergency away from financial ruin.
It is only ostrich liberals who believe that you can require insurance companies to cover everybody, prevent them from dropping people who are likely to generate big claims, not charge those who are likely to generate big claims more and see premiums decline. Unfortunately too many of my fellow liberals think so. They haven't figured out that Obama is really a Republican Manchurian candidate and with this garbage bill he has pretty much discredited most of the progressive agenda. I sincerely hope that this bill fails.
but what is the 'quality of life' for these patients undergoing these chemo and/or radiation therapies generally...
Bought my friend three years so he got to see his daughter graduate from college and his son from high school. He was happy his insurance was there and grateful for the time. Even facing death though, he/we talked about how much it was costing and whether it would "really" make sense for the world at large. He said the chemo wasn't bad but the antibiotics afterward to protect from infection always wiped him out for weeks. He had a roller coaster ride, thought he was in remission, but after the recurrence died in about five months. Leukemia.
IMO, there's a pathology at work--a cancer--and nothing can stop it.
Here is a relevant quote from John Mauldin's latest letter:
"Today in the US there are large constituencies that resist change. We only get to tinker around the edges, when real structural change is needed. Sadly, we agreed that here there is not much chance of major change. We can’t even get the obvious changes needed in the financial regulatory world."
My comment for a long time has been most Americans are not smart enough to be mad. It will take the whole dump truck load of manure to get their attention. That is as long as the beer is still cold, cable TV and sports is working they won't get it.
crazyv,
Is Congress or anyone addressing price gouging and inflationary price run-ups in the Health Care Industry...the 'rising costs' of big pharma, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment industries...why do you think there is 'medical tourism' now?
The cost structure of Big Healthcare is unsustainable and out of control and how many of the 2000 page 'health care reform' resolution addresses these issues. (not sure)
There will be 'spending' cap rates no doubt with govt. financing I'm sure...and then look at the exodus of doctors if the big bucks can't be made any more...more yelling in the 'health care debate' going on...about pricing? No.
lets suppose for a moment the health insurers paid every claim what do you think would happen to premiums?
(my answer why does it have to be either allow fraud or pay every claim....cant there be justice, fairness? do we just throw up our hands and say ..fairness is just to hard or impossible to decide so we wont try)
Lets assume we made all the CEO's work for zero , magically got rid of all their administrative expenses and somehow convinced investor to take zero profits what would happen to premiums? They would fall but in about 3-5 years we would be back in the exactly the same position we are in now. Except what would you then?
(ceo s reduced to making zero,,why,,,why not reasonable compensation ...wed be back where we are now?, no that is not what you would have...you would have the medicare system or the candian system that is more efficient and puts a greater percentage of your health care dollar into treatment and the least into millionaire salaries and administrative costs fact medicare and canada are more addministratively efficient than the private sector)
you know whats happening out there right?
the insurance companies deny expensive claims they know they should pay because it is profitable to do so
nobody can stop them
it costs too much and takes too long for sick people to get a lawyer and sue
the courts have ruled that the contracts people have been "forced" to sign allow no remedies other than if you win in court...7 years later...yep then the insurance company has to pay for your operation or chemo
meanwhile you are dead, and the contracts and case law prohibit the payment of punitive damages for insurance companies failing to pay for benefits they had bargained for
how did this happen
the insurance companies, years ago won the very tort reform that now is being pushed and advocated for hospitals and doctors
Is that a rhetorical question? If not then you haven't been paying attention to my posts. I think what they are trying to in Congress is joke. for precisely some the reasons that you state. BTW I think talking about exodus of doctors is just hysteria and detracts from the other valid points that you are making. Medical schools have far more applicants than they have slots for. That suggests to me that the compensation of doctors is too high not too low.
That debt distress is in addition to the structural changes in the economy that has moved many more people outside of the bucket of who gets counted in that 10% headline UE (U-3), so it is a 'double whammy'.
you are making the assumption that the level of profits and compensation of the CEO are variable. That is the way it should be but it is not. Once you accept that proposition then whether an insurance company pays or doesn't pay a claim has nothing to do with their profitability (directly) but only what the rest of us pay in premiums. It only effects their profitability to the extent that if they paid every claim the premiums the rest of would be paying would sky rocket causing fewer people to be able to afford insurance which would hurt their profits.
Worked for a guy who as a kid went through the whole surgery/chemo route, he is in his mid-40's now so it bought him a life...my MIL is 81 and a year past the trifecta of surgery/chemo/radiation and has an excellent quality of life (seen first hand as she lives with us)...hope she is still with us five years out.
crazyv (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sat, 11/7/2009 - 2:41 pm
comments in parens my response
It is only ostrich liberals (name calling without facts) who believe that you can require insurance companies to cover everybody (canadian system, british system, swiss system, japanese system, italian system etc all have universal coverage and cost less than american system), prevent them from dropping people who are likely to generate big claims (and who is likely to get heart disease or cancer can you tell me/ they dont pre-meptively drop as much as they drop right before the health care is needed arent you listening??) , not charge those who are likely to generate big claims more and see premiums decline (again universal health care costs less and under the proposed legislation you crazyv and anyone else can buy all the private health care you want and can afford have at it). Unfortunately too many of my fellow liberals think so. They haven't figured out that Obama is really a Republican Manchurian (do you have any idea how foolish that sounds..have you read the book...seen the movie...more name calling) candidate and with this garbage bill (again no facts... name the elements of the bill you think are "garbage..you dont like or that you support...let me guess you dont support any of it)he has pretty much discredited most of the progressive agenda. I sincerely hope that this bill fails.
Energycon- leaving aside that we are talking about your MIL - if you had a limited amount of money and could only pay for kid to get the treatment or the 81 year old to get the treatment which one would you pick. It seems to me that if you start out with the proposition that we have only so much money to spend that pretty much encapsulates the debate.
crazyv,
Yeah...if payments to doctors are 'govt. insured' maybe you are right...there will be plenty of doctors maybe from foreign countries too maybe...but they will be scrutinizrd under any govt. paying or 'managed' plan I would think and people don't like govt. scrutiny generally...
Saw this and I can't verify for sure...but under the Pelosi Health Care Plan there is a 'failure to comply' component which could involve civil and/or criminal penalties for people who choose NO health care coverage and for people who choose NOT to pay a mandated health care tax of 2.5% of their income...anyone seen details of this in the Pelosi Plan?
It is already that way - there are already limits on the amount of money available for health care - just the allocation decisions are not made explicit.
Have to choose the MIL.
Odds are good that she'll die anyway, freeing me from further costs.
That fricking kid is just going to get sick again and again and again for years to come.
"...if you had a limited amount of money and could only pay for kid to get the treatment or the 81 year old to get the treatment which one would you pick. It seems to me that if you start out with the proposition that we have only so much money to spend that pretty much encapsulates the debate."
If we were Niger or Mali perhaps that would be rational. I don't believe that the US is too poor to afford health care for every citizen. What would be rational in Mali, perhaps, would be barbarous in the US.
My buddy's AML initial diagnosis: 80% mortality in five years, with treatment.
I cling to the hope that the time and treatment we're paying so much for is teaching us something useful.
"I suspect that most countries won't be stupid enough to follow the US example that greed is the ultimate social good."
If they don't, I suspect they'll be outcompeted by other surviving countries that do. Free-market capitalism is the most efficient economic "technology" we have yet discovered and it will dominate in the third-world too (as it already is beginning to do). Money spreads through cultures like an epidemic. That's why this is so difficult. It seems like 'Greed is good' is a position reached at a certain level of social maturity, shortly after world imperialism and seeing one's culture as the primary export to less 'enlightened' countries, but it seems to be the beginning of the end.
Mock Turtle - as I read the bill I don't believe that Universal single payer is on the table. What is on the table right now is the proposition that if we require private insurers to do all the things that magically everybody's premiums will go down.
I have no problem with a single payer system and in fact have repeatedly said that one financed with a sales tax is the right way to go. A bill that seeks to provide health care via employers is doomed to fail in globalized economy when your competitors don't have to do it. I find it amazing that this idea is so difficult for people to grasp.
Lastly, all the countries that you have cited have one crucial thing that the Obama plan lacks- serious price control measures. They all have rationing of one sort or the other. They all have made decisions on what treatments will be covered and for whom and which won't.
As to Obama being the Manchurian candidate - what would a Republican have done differently with the banking crisis and if this health care plan blows up as I predict it will he would have done more for the Republican party than any Republican possibly could have.
The question is as broke and in debt as the U.S. govt. is bailing out failed Big Banks, can the govt. afford to support a high-priced, bloated, 'for-profit' health care system supporting the high costs and billing continually without pricing caps and/or reforms...especially with all the unfunded liabilities outstanding...Medicare and SS...and more Big Banks bailouts coming plus funding endless wars and occupations...and funding growing unemployment benefits, etc.
I don't believe that the US is too poor to afford health care for every citizen. What would be rational in Mali, perhaps, would be barbarous in the US.
Faith-based budgeting?
Better subtract the losses we have taken and are continuing to take before we decide how poor we are.
just the allocation decisions are not made explicit.
That is precisely the problem. 20,000 people die each year because they couldn't get health care . I think that is pretty extreme rationing. Compare that with having to wait 4 months to get elective surgery.
“I get so angry when I feel people pushing a weight-loss agenda,” said Linda Bacon, a nutrition professor at City College of San Francisco and author of “Health at Every Size,” a book published last year whose title has become the rallying cry of the fat pride community.
crazyv wrote (in reply to...) on 2:54 pm (my comments, responses in parens)
crazyv said
...you are making the assumption that the level of profits and compensation of the CEO are variable...
mock said
(they arent variable??...are you saying they are fixed?? by what... by whom ... what do you mean???
crazy v said
whether an insurance company pays or doesn't pay a claim has nothing to do with their profitability (directly) but only what the rest of us pay in premiums
mock said
(what? are you saying premiums versus payouts do not effect bottom line... are you saying loss mitigation doesnt effect profitability?)
why are you against medical care that covers everybody and lets you buy more, better, extra ,if you are wealth and want it...? wheres the harm?
thats what the french and the canadians do a...the poor and the middle class have very good coverage
and the rich are free to do what they have always been able to do...get better care and at the head of the line...so whats new, at least people like me who pay 6k permiums per year for self and wife with 10k deductible and 50% co pay and 250k ceiling... get health care
look i dont want a free ride
at 6k premiums per year im paying more than per capita cost than any other modern nation andd getting less than half the coverage
I don't believe that the US is too poor to afford health care for every citizen.
First define what you consider health care. Breast implant health care. What about getting a new joint because your existing one doesn't allow you to play golf, what about a treatment that cost a huge amount and provides only a few months extra of life. If you think we have enough money to cover every definition of health care well what can I say.
It was worse than that - the kid grew up and I ran his first state house campaign in Alaska - he spent the next ten years or thereabouts in office (I moved on and went back to school).
Exactly - that constraint would exist at a macro level only as a choice in allocating resources to other activities - with our current production possibilities frontier...
You are putting words in Pavel's mouth there - don't go down the straw man avenue - the sub-thread started along the lines of survival, and implicitly when do we start putting the old folks out on an ice floe...
Rep. Peter Roskam (R - Illinois) made this comment in the health care debate today-
Why do you have to criminalize people to coax them into something that is fabulous?
they arent variable??...are you saying they are fixed?? by what... by whom ... what do you mean???
yes absolutely- Wall Street tells the insurance company the level of profits they expect per share and the CEO decides what he wants via compensation. The insurance company figures out what amounts to per subscriber and then they figure what they expect the average claim is and that is what your premium on your policy is. If claims come in higher premiums just go up so that basic balance is maintained. There might be some variability on a year to year basis but over time that is the name of the game. As I said an insurance company could decide to pay all claims they would assume a higher average level and price the premium accordingly. The only reason they don't do that is partly competitively although with their anti-trust exemption that is not much of an issue but more important they need to keep the premium low enough for people to afford.
im going outside as it just stopped raining (hard very hard for 3 hours) here and been couped up all day
best wishes to you and will read later any back-at-me comments the commentariat have
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
merchants of fear
you said above
under the Pelosi Health Care Plan there is a 'failure to comply' component which could involve civil and/or criminal penalties for people who choose NO health care coverage and for people who choose NOT to pay a mandated health care tax of 2.5% of their income..."
mt back
i believe that is wrong ...can you give a link or quote sec sub sec of bill?
thanks again
"Facing Defeat, Fat Pride Lobby Threatens Hunger Strike". Nation says go for it.
LOL. Unfortunately, they would more likely call for an Eat-In, and we would have to subsidize the expense of additional forklift-equipped ambulances to take them on their final ride to the hospital.
mock you really have to read what people have written not what you think they have said based on preconceived notions. I challenge you find one place where I have said that our system is good . My contention is that problem is only tangentially the insurance companies. That even if you took them out of the equation your would buy maybe 3-5 years and we would be back in exactly the same position.
sm -- it's just a natural version of unrestrained free market 'greed is good' brought to its natural conclusion in dangerously unhealthy folks who can't stop eating and have become Too Big To Fail.
Why do you have to criminalize people to coax them into something that is fabulous?
disingenuous...
if people can stay out of the health care system until they get sick (no mandate for insurance), then those that buy insurance will pay higher premiums. It is that simple. The bill contains a mandate for people to buy insurance. The only other way to achieve everyone paying (spreading the cost and risk) is to add the cost of insurance to taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, you get fined or imprisoned.
For those who cry out about moral risk, not mandating insurance is pure hypocrisy. This is part of the reason folks are required by law to carry minimum auto insurance.
I think you are conflating two issues- if I understand you correctly. First, whether a globalized economy is inevitable I don't believe so that is a choice we have made that can be reversed. I have done that on a individual basis through where and what I buy. However, if we are going to have a globalized economy then trying to provide health insurance via employment is doomed to fail. Employers will either drop insurance or ship jobs overseas - ironically they are more likely to do the latter rather than the former since there is less stigma associated with it rather than the former.
you are answering a different question that you posed
i understand the wall street game of profit expectations...thats not the issue i understood you to queried
you indicated, i thought, that private insurance companies throwing people out had nothing to do with the bottom line profits or ceo pay
and that is not true and i challenged you on it
throwing people off theirr overage, and denying their claims, has everything to do with the bottom line
and i would like to hear you recognize that
claiming that there is no incentive to eff the policy holder cause the insurance companies can just raise premiums for everybody else flies in the face of experience, facts on the ground... and what we see in real time going on in the market place today
I firmly disagree- it is the crux of the question. Are we wealthy enough to ensure that no child dies because they don't have access to antibiotics absolutely. Are we wealthy enough to provide equal access to everything anybody thinks of health care absolutely not. The question is where do you draw the line. Yes it is a rationing question. You can do it in a rational and open manner which is what most civilized countries have done or you can to it the way we do it in the US which results in deaths of many people who could have been saved through rather inexpensive interventions.
All I can say is that people this stupid deserve to be taken advantage of.
Your positions are inconstent - those same people are the ones who are dying due to easily preventable illness - ah, I see mock has captured it succintly:
you are answering a different question that you posed
I'm sorry, did you say "million"?
How did anybody even notice?
if TARP lost this money , then who found it?
there isnt a tarp big enuf to cover their ass
This will make it increasingly difficult for the taxpayer to realize a profit from TARP.
these failed banks should become the infrastructure of a new National Bank.
from half way down previous thread
barfly wrote - 7:39 am
"Are we on the road to nationalize the banks? all we need is one "public option" bank. Just one. "
did i hear a call for
"bank of the united states of america"?
no more mark to fantasy no more dark , off book black hole banking
place failed banks into receivership to the B of the USA
btw...FFEDRESRV
whats a few hundred million between friends, huh guys? cmon.. no biggie
A generous bunch, taxpayers.
But don't worry, we're gonna make a profit. Really. The government told me so.
sdtfs wrote:
what do you define as profit? It seems to me we should be resisting this notion to describe any receipts by the tax payer in excess of funds disbursed as a "profit". Treasury is soooo proud that they made a profit of 17% on the JPM bailout that they forget the other investors made 150%. That to me doesn't sound like a profit at all.
I'll take the over on the $1.4 billion FDIC losses. There is no way these guys' assets are marked anywhere near reality.
Remember when Obama and his buddies were high fiving each other for their fiscal thriftiness over saving 230 "million" dollars by doing such things as not painting forest service vehicles green? "Billions" don't seem to get much attention.
Why doesn't the Fed buy those preferreds for $300 million so "no one loses" (except nobody future taxpayers)? Just add it to the $1.2 trillion in MBS purchases, and $300 in Treasury purchases, that they are already printing, er, making.
"Public option bank":
Direct loans from the Fed with no intermediary banking cartel. No one benefits from creating inflation and the food chain becomes a mesh. Banks can still innovate and loan to private parties and businesses.
albrt, I agree. These guys had plenty of problems with the "deliberate and improper actions and omissions of certain bank officers." Ouch
Best wishes
Why are the banks going bankrupt but the homebuilders are not? And let's be clear. Without homebuilder clawbacks then indeed it wasn't the banks we were bailing out.
ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:
Why not cut out the middleman? Allow Congressmen to print legal tender and hand it out (or lend it, whatever they prefer) to their chosen recipients.
dafox wrote:
My personal beef is that these bailouts are constantly referred to as 'investments'.
Allow Congressmen to print legal tender and hand it out (or lend it, whatever they prefer) to their chosen recipients.
That differs from our current system how?
Don't you worry, do you honestly think American taxpayers are really going to pay all these debts any other way than through dollar crash and (hyper)inflation.
yes, the particularly egregious "It's not a bailout, it's a buy-in!"
(3C - T)
Nemo wrote:
How? We now have more middlemen. Fannie, Freddie, the Fed, propped-up insolvent banks continuing to make bad loans.....
patientrenter wrote
"Why not cut out the middleman? Allow Congressmen to print legal tender and hand it out (or lend it, whatever they prefer) to their chosen recipients."
sheeeit,,,lets cut out the congress critters as well
and go direct
each and every citizen can just print what they need
now thats a stimulus package!
Good job Timmay. I cannot wait til he leaves government and starts his own hedge fund. Gonna be sweeet..
deanfv wrote:
Given the way he's acting, I'm pretty sure he's already started.
Double plus good.
It's not just the buy-ins, it's the re-buys. Hmmm, let's see, in poker tournament theory, the chips become less valuable as players are knocked out. I think chip management theory says,...
Ah hell, this is too difficult, I'm all-in.
yeah, hes already started his hedged fund
and timmays hedge fund is named....
the treasury of the united states of america
Looks like the House of 'Representatives' is passing the Health Care Bill 'resolution'...the massive government 'bailout' of the medical/pharma industry and insurance companies...
sdtfs
yeah thats the problem
like it or not we are all...all in
some protected with concrete and lead others not so much
but what it comes down to...is
we will be swimming in an angry sea
mock - now you're thinking! Let private banks compete against the ability of every citizen to get as much money as they want, provided they are willing to pay a risk-adjusted discount rate. If they are not, perhaps banking institutions can offer them a better deal or shoulder some of the risk of financing them... if not, they go out of business. These guys claim to be experts in risk management and financial innovation, so let's put them to the test.
Oct 2009
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said he expects the “vast number of banks” that borrowed money from the government during the financial crisis to repay the debt fairly soon"
Geithner sees more bank TARP repayments soon - Investment News
This proposed government (taxpayer) 'bailout' of the medical/pharma industry and large insurance companies needs to get done quickly before the stock market and economy takes the Dump...the Closer was brought in today to close the (expensive) trillion $ 'deal'...
what I still don't understand is why hasn't WalMart started a bank? Do you know how well a bank could do if they positioned themselves as a brand-new, "good" bank? All you would need is a little capital to get started.
Danny wrote:
They have a reputation as a penny-pinching corporation. Who wants to deposit their money there?
Actually, in Canada this is pretty common. Many major retailers up here have started in-store banks, or online banks that carry the store brand. Some of them are even a decent deal for depositors, when compared to major banks.
Chump change.... and we're the chumps.
Danny wrote:
IIRC, they tried to do this in the late 90's or early 00's and got smacked down. Don't recall the details, though.
4 hours of general debate in the House of 'Reps' coming in the Health Care Bill resolution...should be interesting...with nearly 2000 pages in the bill, there's much to discuss...like wiping out the education debt of veterinarians and other neat stuff like that in the proposed bill...wonder what the Closer O said today...'Get 'er done!'...
G-20 finance officials: Too early to end stimulus - Yahoo! News
Geithner said the "process of growth is now beginning" but warned that ending stimulus measures too early would be damaging to the economy.
Danny wrote:
WalMart applied for a banking license.. They already own an industrial bank in Utah and they wanted a full banking license so they could process their own credit card payments through. The application was withdrawn when it was clear that the small bank lobby was going to be successful in pushing for the rejection of the application.
"Geithner said the "process of growth is now beginning" but warned that ending stimulus measures too early would be damaging to the economy."
from the audience w.c. fields replied ah yes..
ahhhh yesssss..."never give a sucker an even break"
and
"It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money".
I'm going by this bank today to check on my CDs. Will report from the front-lines what's going on.
Their online system still works and I can see my CDs still. Guess my CDs are going down to Pasadena, CA now apparently.
It may be a doom loop, but it's great for banker bonuses, political CONtributions and lobbyists. The impoverishment of the American middle class is a small price to pay. A necessary evil. Just ask Bernanke and Paulson. We have to save Wall St. to....well, save faux wealth and banker bonuses.
".like wiping out the education debt of veterinarians and other neat stuff like that in the proposed bill.."
In the health-care bill? Dang!!
My wife doesn't normally swear but she let out a whopper after hearing that one.
wait a minute
the tittle of the thread is doom LOOP
shit i get it now
i thought it was doom lap
you know the last lap you take around the track before they kill you
for coming in last
Yeah, the Walmart Bank rejection was a giant sham designed to perpetuate our current banking shams.
It takes shams to perpetuate shams. We have shamflation.
mock - do you still get a trophy?
Angry Saver wrote:
Sham-wow!
High Tech Horror - Wall Street Examiner Forums
thanks for new charts energyecon
aol.com story...'Health Care Hinges on Saturday Vote' ~2397 comments
aol survey: Do you support the proposed health care bill?
No - 72% Yes - 28%
Total Votes: 15,859
House Passes Health Care Overhaul
No one benefits from creating inflation
RIF,
Wall St. thrives on inflation. Real dividends grow at less than 1% annually (glacially). Real earning grow at less than 2%.
Our highest paid industies (FIRE) would be 1/10th their current size without inflation. Wall St. does not earn money. They shuffle inflation and they don't even do that competently.
Shamflation.
It's become obvious that Geithner represents the interests of Wall Street and bankers, not the taxpayers who pay his salary. He should just wear a sign around his neck that says: "Wall St Tool."
His goal is to make a lot of money on Wall Street in a few years, after shafting taxpayers. His loyalty will be rewarded.
Geithner is perfectly consistent and transparent. The problem isn't his, it's Obama's.
What a stupid f*cking fool Obama was to hire a tone-deaf , greedy Wall St. Tool as Treasury Secretary.
Angry - Exactly. In a system of distributed, direct public lending, there would be no money market intermediaries that would disproportionately be benefited by inflation based upon their position in the money flow food chain.
merchants of fear wrote:
I would expect those results from people still interacting with AOL in 2009.
Hopefully their paid their executive bonuses before the FDIC seized the bank.
~splat
It's turning into "No-Pork-Left-Behind" phase 2
~splat
That should be "Do you support the proposed health care cluster f##k" ?
~splat
Rich,
How about the fact that Obama did not lend his support to the Democratic candidate for Mayor in NYC.
Disgraceful. Obama didn't want to offend a wealth Wall Streeter - Bloomberg. It really shows allegiances and levels of importance imo.
Spunkmeyer wrote:
We finally got my father-in-law off of AOL, thank goodness. That only took us about 5 years of pestering.
Ignorance is closely related to stubbornness.
rich wrote:
You're right Paulson was better.
WTF?
Since when has Treasury not been a tool of Wall Street. Or the entire Executive Branch for that matter. Perhaps 1938 was the last year for that....
If you health care reform watchers have a minute explain to me what went on these last two weeks to get so many organizations to 180 and come out in support? It's like Rahm has a file drawer full of blackmail all of a sudden.
Rob Dawg wrote:
The other white meat.
noob goldberg wrote:
My mother still sometimes asks me about her Microsoft Internet, and why it's acting up.
Spunkmeyer wrote:
Three years ago, when my mother needed to replace her old computer, I convinced her to get a Dell instead of me building one for her. The principle reason was because they have a 24 hour support line.
merchants of fear wrote:
All I can say is that people this stupid deserve to be taken advantage of.
Where did all the CRE loan money go from these banks being closed...commercial projects have probably been sitting with no construction activity for a while now in many cases...so loans go out then default and are written off as 'losses'.
Then FDIC money comes in to close these failed banks for their 'bad' loans or merger 'deals' are made to transfer deposits and bad paper...in the end how much loan money is really lost with FDIC 'closing costs' added to the loan 'losses'...anyway the money went somewhere...did it all go into CRE construction costs before, during, or after default...since loan payments have become delinquent...did money go into salaries & bonuses?...when commercial building projects and sales have been shut down for a while now...
rich wrote:
You're right.....Paulson was better.
Since when has Treasury not been a Wall Street tool. 1938 maybe? And the entire executive branch. This surprises you? We have been choosing between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in presidential elections for the last 40 years.
rich wrote:
ever heard about birds of feather flocking together?
Spunkmeyer,
What's the deal with aol? And their 'surveys'?
Well I just called UCB to check on my CDs. They are still open on a Saturday and identifying themselves now as East West Bank. CDs still show-up online.
Appears to be a pretty seamless transition thank the lord.
Maudlin's take on UE. So glad the V shaped recovery is imminent to make this all better.
"Let's look at the real number in the establishment survey. If you don't seasonally adjust the number, the actual change in unemployment for October was 641,000, or about 450,000 more than the seasonally adjusted number. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics added 86,000 jobs that they simply guess were created through the so-called birth-death ratio. Interestingly, the birth-death ratio number is not seasonally adjusted, so it is just added to the unemployment number. Fake Jobs
The total (U-6) employment rate is at a record high of 17.5% (this includes those who are part-time for economic reasons). There are now over 10.5 million people who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the downturn.
My favorite slicer and dicer of data, Greg Weldon (http://www.weldononline.com) offers up an even more horrific number. As I have noted before, if you have not looked for work in the last four weeks, the BLS does not count you as unemployed. Quoting Greg:
"Moreover, when we combine the monthly change in the number of Unemployed, with the number Not in the Labor Force, we might consider the result to be a proxy for the actual 'change' in the underlying labor market situation ... in which case, October's figure of 817,000 represents the fourth LARGEST yet, behind last month's (September's) second largest figure of 1,021,000 ... for a two-month combined figure of 1.838 million, in newly Unemployed, or no longer 'in' the Labor Force ...
"... the second LARGEST two-month total EVER posted, barely trailing the December-08/January-09 total 1.955 million.
"Bottom line ... basis this measure AND the 'Total Unemployment Rate,' we could conclude that not only is there NO 'improvement' in the labor market, but moreover, that it continues to DETERIORATE, intently."
crazyv - I didn't do the 'sheep' quote you cited above...I try not to use internet misinfo lingo...
crazyv wrote:
I don't know why you guys are trying to make it work for those companies to begin with. Do what we did in Canada: make the government the insurer and relegate the big health insurers to 'supplementary' land. Upgraded hospital beds, prescriptions, etc.
But I'm biased and foreign, so feel free to ignore my ignorance. From what I can see, however, the bill just seems exceptionally convoluted.
Was enjoying watching the BBC and Gordon Brown pimping the Tobin tax this evening in Scotland. That is a flawless little re-election angle on his part....promoting something he knows the G20 will never support but looks good for re-election. Without trading what will London have? They'll have to figure out how to promote the Barclays Premier League better or something because there ain't nothing left to export out of that country besides finance. That country will be back to the Stone Age with a Tobin Tax.
We should rename him Prime Minister Nero.
Is this true or false? Posted by a reader of Seeking Alpha:
"What we think of as "money" in the West is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. When there are no new buyers to take out the old buyers, Government steps in and forces taxpayers to become buyers. When the Government stops buying - once they've bankrupted remaining taxpayers and run out of money themselves - the system will (finally, mercifully) collapse. "
Does the Government ever need to stop buying? If so, why? I really don't think so. I think that gold will go up, and the fiat of the buying-governments will go down. It borders on runaway inflation. But, there's no reason for the Govt to ever stop buying.
And, at the end, when the fiat has dropped in value so much, the frog in the hot pot, then debt will have devalued so much that the crisis will have been resolved.
The losers are obvious, the holders of fiat and treasuries and bonds and local-centric assets. When I talk to the losers, they're sure they are safe, holding fiat and treasuries. So, this is the highest probability, imo.
What do you think?
Maybe in part. But mainly, people here believe it was because Obama just totally misjudged and thought the Democrat had zero chance to win. It was no different than flying off to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid, at taxpayer expense, when Chicago had no chance to win.
Obama just has terrible judgment and priorities. Chicago is important. New York City Democrats are not. Chicago has a great chance to win. Corzine has a great chance to win. The Democrats in NYC do not.
The main reason Obama has such terrible judgment and priorities is...he's so incredibly green, in terms of having done anything important and similar in life. It's like making a janitor President of the United States.
rich wrote:
100% agreed. The problem isn't that Geithner is all that much worse than Paulson. The problem is that Obama campaigned on change, and was in a position to make sensible, popular changes, and instead he chose to hire somebody who is basically the same as Paulson but less sophisticated and experienced.
I'm having a really hard time seeing how Obama digs his way out of this one. And it will be significant political issue after the economy tanks again.
crazyv wrote:
Exactly! Rich has had so many insightful comments here, but his consistent portrayal of Obama as a dupe is off the mark.
rich wrote:
Sadly, even that is an improvement over his predecessor or the alternative.
rich wrote:
We made a policy wonk with no life experience Prime Minister of Canada. I'd argue that's worse, because no only does he lack any personal ideals, but he also now thinks that he can run the entire government single-handedly. It makes me smile when I hear the teabaggers on CNN talking about how fascist they think Obama is; here in Canada its an epidemic and no one even seems to care.
A rather interesting article and I will cut and paste a particularly relevant part.
The less optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis « naked capitalism
"The Cheney-Rumsfeld replay
Now, I am not writing off Barack Obama’s presidency. I do worry he still could see a recessionary relapse which would cause him to seem more Herbert Hoover than Franklin Roosevelt. But, despite his Nobel Prize, it is much to early to know what his legacy will be.
Nonetheless, I believe he has wasted a lot of political capital and this will make ushering through a meaningful legislative agenda very difficult.
Why did Obama throw it all away?
Here’s my answer: I call it the Cheney-Rumsfeld replay.
When historians look back at the Bush 42 presidency, it will be defined by 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While George W. Bush was politically pre-disposed to the Neo-con world view, it was really advice from Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld which made Afghanistan and Iraq possible. George W. Bush was famously not well-versed in foreign affairs, having almost never travelled abroad. He was completely dependent on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to make foreign policy (although he could have listened more to Colin Powell, his actual Secretary of State; again it goes to predisposition).
So, I see George W. Bush’s presidency as having been defined by foreign policy and the War on Terror and, by extension, on Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Fast-forward to Barack Obama’s presidency and you have an almost identical situation, this time with the economy instead of foreign policy and Tim Geithner and Larry Summers instead of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
But, as with George W. Bush, it goes to pre-disposition. Paul Volcker was a critical member of the Obama 2008 campaign. He also was a key member of Obama’s economic policy team. But, he has been speaking a very discordant message that is not in sync with team Obama. So, as with Bush and his marginalization of Powell, one has to believe Barack Obama has chosen to side with Geithner and Summers over Volcker.
The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Barack Obama shares the blinkered and captured view of his policy makers and that this is why he has decided to go down this chosen path. And when it comes to Obama’s other ‘change’ decisions on the Guantanamo closure, torture, rendition, state secrets, and health care, the same logic also applies."
Blackhalo wrote:
Hey, if McCain was in power there'd be gang-rape for everyone!
rich wrote:
Disagree. Obama seems to have an extraordinary ability to figure things out, weigh consequences and think strategically. I think he made the choice to favor the bankers because they are all part of the same Ivy League club, plus all his policy people told him the New York bankers are the transmission mechanism from Treasury and Fed policy to the real economy. Unfortunately, these were the same policy people who thought the 2005 banking system was just about perfect and could go on expanding credit with no limits.
noob goldberg wrote:
Something tells me nova would actually be doing a documentary under the circumstances of a McCain win.
People also need to understand the Primary Dealers are the mechanism to sell government debt. If the primary dealer mechanism goes bust the US government goes bust. At the height of the crisis almost 1/3 of the primary dealers had disappeared.
Funding the US government ultimately comes above all else when push comes to shove.
Once one accepts the fact that, on September 18, 2008, we witnessed the near meltdown of the US economic and political system, one can begin to accept the proposition that the probability of a total meltdown is greater than zero.
The hazard(s) associated with such a meltdown are catastrophic and, because their probability is greater than zero, the risk is significant.
As I've said before, it's time for folks to start figuring out how to mitigate their risk.
As usual Yves nails it.
But why did intellectual darling Elizabeth Warren say so also this week. (At least with respect to guarantees for C, AIG, etc).
?
"Shamflation". + %
Never heard that. Original?
albrt wrote:
He possesses the same personality flaw that most of the public has: that there is a group of people within government and the financial sector who 'know' what is going on--the guru's--and he's trying to tap that knowledge to navigate this storm.
In reality, of course, this is a new paradigm and the old guru's are woefully illinformed. What Obama needs to do is hire investigators, not gurus, to actually figure out what is going on.
poic- I think that was a very good analysis.
But so I understand- you are saying that GWB was pre-disposed to accept the Rumsfeld Cheney view just as Obama was predisposed to accept the Geithner /Summers view.
So the big question is why?
Slumdog wrote:
It's false but a matter of belief so it isn't worth arguing over unless you are one of those internet cowboys who think that outlasting is winning. The developed world and US in particular has resources and infrastructure and human capital that exists entirely outside the machinations of financial skullduggery. In normal times there is a shifting but essentially one to one with the stuff we call money. We use the filthy lucre because cows don't fit in your wallet and you can't make change easily. These are not normal times. That's where the ponzi bit comes in.
"He possesses the same personality flaw that most of the public has: that there is a group of people within government and the financial sector who 'know' what is going on--the guru's--and he's trying to tap that knowledge to navigate this storm."
We tend to ascribe great powers to those in certain professions. Finance, Medical, Engineering are a few.
But generally the old rule 20% are very good, 60% so-so, 20% crap holds true even in those professions.
poic,
'The Re-play' article
So O has 'handlers'...
uly 29, 2009
Most Americans Eager for Healthcare Reform;
merchants of fear wrote 12:10 pm
aol.com story...'Health Care Hinges on Saturday Vote' ~2397 comments
aol survey: Do you support the proposed health care bill?
No - 72% Yes - 28%
here are some otherr polls
from time inc
By Seth Brohinsky and Mark Schulman, Abt SRBI
TIME Health-Care Poll
As the debate over healthcare reform in Congress continues, a new Time Magazine Poll finds that most Americans (55%) support a major reform of the healthcare system over making just minor adjustments (43%).
The poll does find a sharp partisan divide. While seven in ten (70%) Democrats support major reform, just one third (33%) of Republicans agree that major reform is necessary. Independents however are more divided -- a slim majority (53%) support major reform, while 43% favor making just minor adjustments.
Time/Abt SRBI Poll: Most Americans Eager for Healthcare Reform
The political and electoral process we have in this country designed to make sure the 20% crap never make it to where they can cause harm virtually guarantees that the top quintile never even tries.
Sales pitch close that never fails...housing bubble, health care reform, whatever...
'You're going to be priced out'...'You're going to be priced out FOREVER!!'
mp wrote:
I think you are asking us to accept what is in doubt. I have no doubt that if you were standing on Wall Street it looked like the world was ending and in probability THEIR WORLD was ending. I strongly dispute that it meant that everybody else's world was ending. There certain steps like expanding deposit limit coverage, guaranteeing money markets that were absolutely the right thing to do. The probably could have gone further with those measure e.g. guaranteeing all transactional accounts regardless of the amount, guaranteeing incremental inter bank deposits by net surplus institutions., had the Fed back stop all repos of government and agency debt , plus margin loans on listed stocks. All these steps would have ensured that the normal activities of people depositing money in banks and knowing that it would have been there to withdraw when they needed would have continued.
The dollar (or any currency) is a ponzi scheme to the extent that a central issuer can arbitrarily expand the float after the system has been operating.
The theory goes that the FED lends the new float (no paper anymore just "credit") to
at absurdly low interest so they can lend it to the working man at a profit. Thus, the economy is stimulated to grow and everyone who wants a job can get one. Especially the 
men and women.
Then they tell you that's fair free-market capitalism at work. As long as 51% of the power of the people benefits or perceives to benefit, the ponzi goes on living the dream.
What makes Obama's conduct and judgment worse is the fact that he decided to work so hard for Corzine but not for Democrats in NYC. Obama just punted on raising a finger for any NYC Democrat, and it won't be forgotten by the Democratic Party in NYC.
What Bloomberg did was one for the political history books. He corrupted the law by personally making term limits null and void, and then he just bought an election, using his own money. Obama did not say one word against a REPUBLICAN doing this.
After this, Obama can't have any credibility talking about campaign reforms or fair elections. Of course, you'll never seen any "town hall" meeting where anybody anywhere (let alone NYC) is allowed to question Obama about this.
Pretty soon, you'll see those town hall meetings disappear, unless everybody who attends is a shill.
Mock,
Have the people who a participate in these Health Care Reform polls or surveys read the 2000 pages of the proposed 'resolution'?
And there's the rub, isn't it?
according to the kaiser family foundation poll
"Support for health care reform during September grew, reversing an August slide, although backing for an overhaul of the system has not rebounded to the levels it had at the start of the debate, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll conducted Sept. 11-18.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans say it is more important than ever to take on health care reform, compared to 39 percent who say the U.S. cannot afford to do it now. That compares to the 53-42 level of support in August, which was the low point of the year (and was also the month where loud opposition to the reform proposals at town-hall meetings and other forums dominated the news). In February this year, support peaked at 62 percent to 34 percent."
Support for Health Care Reform Rebounds in September -- Politics Daily
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters to them is whether you BELIEVE.
If you believe, it continues to work.
If you don't, it doesn't.
mock turtle wrote:
Ugh. This is not directed to you, mock, as I appreciate your taking the time to bring us the info. But the only thing more useless than polling is blatant subjective polling. What the hell does 'major reform' mean? What does 'minor adjustments' mean? Is it not plausible to have significant overlap between those two subjective spheres?
Rich,
Maybe the handlers don't really need O for more than 4 years to get all these 'spending' whales (big biz/finance bailouts), credit destruction policies, dollar devaluation policies, etc. passed?
You guys have no sense of humor anymore.
Q: What's the difference between Geithner and Paulson?
A: Hair!
Q: What's the difference between Obama and Bush?
A: $56 trillion!
REBear wrote:
They should be allowed to repay as soon as possible. We should get back as much of that money as we can before the next crisis, when Country X defaults on their debt.
Part of me is not upset that Bloomberg is now a lame duck.
He will soon be a detested man with no friends, and the last time a decent but ordinary Democrat was mayor, the wingnuts easily blamed Dinkins for every violent crime committed in the City.
heres the "best" poll i can found out there
in that there is detailed break out of different constituentcy positions and the research pollster is very reputable
heres the summary...tables can be found at link below
"October 8, 2009
Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform Persist
PrintEmailShare
From: To:
Section 2: Opinions of Health Care Proposals
There is strong majority support for many of the key elements of the health care reform legislation being considered on Capitol Hill. But the percentage that generally supports the proposals being discussed is far lower – just 34% in the current survey, down from 42% in the immediate aftermath of President Obama’s Sept. 9 address to Congress. Opposition has not moved much; currently, 47% oppose the proposals, compared with 44% last month. At the same time, however, many of those opposed say they would like to see policymakers try to compromise with supporters to make the legislation better, rather than try to prevent any health care legislation from passing this year.
Intense support for the health care proposals being discussed in Congress also has fallen since September. Currently, 20% favor the proposals very strongly, down from 29% last month. Very strong opposition is essentially unchanged at 35% in the current poll (34% in September). Nearly one-in-five (19%) offer no opinion, compared with 14% last month.
One of the largest declines in support from a month ago has come among independents, particularly among those who lean Democratic. Overall, 26% of independents now say they generally favor the bills being discussed in Congress, down from 37% last month. About four-in-ten (42%) Democratic-leaning independents favor the proposals, compared with 62% in September. Democratic support for the legislation also has declined over the same period, from 68% to 59%. Opinion among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents is mostly unchanged.
The debate over health care reform continues to attract extensive coverage. It was the most heavily covered news story Sept. 28-Oct. 4, accounting for 11% of all news coverage, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index. However, health care reform received considerably more coverage at the time of Obama’s speech to Congress (32% of all coverage)."
Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform Persist: Section 2: Opinions of Health Care Proposals - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
"The main reason Obama has such terrible judgment and priorities is...he's so incredibly green, in terms of having done anything important and similar in life. It's like making a janitor President of the United States."
He is NOT green or inexperienced. The election campaign costed a lot of money and Wall Street bankers were the main contributors. If he went against them big time than he would have to say bye bye re-election and THAT is the main objective of any politician. Big Money has corrupted the whole system totally because ALL politicians depend on that juicy cash cow.
That is why Democrats are wimpy asses, not really going to stand up for anything that is right thing to do or decent or wise (unless their contributors say so) and Republicans....well, the same crap as always.
I wish I had my copy of The Great Reckoning with me.
One of their predictions was that the final collapse of the United States would be marked by a headlong rush towards national health care with no apparent funding.
rob dawg, IMO, the game of fractional banking has permitted and recently embraced high risk lending. I'll not repeat what's obvious to us all. At the "end" of this is not a ponzi scheme but both a liquidity and solvency problem. The perception change leads to a cessation of the flow of funds. The outcome, without central bank involvement, is illiquidity, and a massively insolvent financial system, which is exactly what we experienced.
The USG and other gov'ts have ridden to the rescue with newly printed debt, in fact monetizing what arguably should have been and would have been bankrupted. Yes, the damage would have been extensive. Instead, the gov'ts have encapsulated the bad debt, swallowed it, and pretend it doesn't exist. Those who believe in the sanctity of fiat as a store of value are furious because 2 + 2 = 4, and the govts are telling them, "Shh, go to sleep.".
Instead of there being a dead end, a "wall", I believe there will be a long, steady and moderately increasing absorption of this private loss. And I believe the fiats in which this transpires will lose value vis a vis the rest of the world, including PM's, because the concept that store of value must exist truly does exist, and those who have assets are, at the margin, taking positions to defend that belief.
The outcome over a number of years will be a lowering of the value of fiats involved to assets which symbolize a store of value.
Yes, there are external factors, like the demand for the commodity, that will influence the price of some commodities, but the primary PM will attract more and more "money" as those at the margin become more aware and concerned over the loss of their store of value.
It's obvious that it's happening now.
And, btw, I'm no gold bug. I do believe in the concept of a store of value separate from gov't control thereover. And I do believe in the simple logic of 2 + 2 = 4, the self-spoken synthesis of Bernard Baruch's philosophy of investment.
Many here seem to doubt the actual damage this economy--and the world economy--has sustained.
Those folks think it can be fixed.
IMO, there's a pathology at work--a cancer--and nothing can stop it.
merchants of fear wrote - 12:54 pm
Mock,
Have the people who a participate in these Health Care Reform polls or surveys read the 2000 pages of the proposed 'resolution'?
id bet not
and i have not either
i have read 20 page executive summaries on 3 of the biggest pieces of proposed legislation
one from senate..two from HR
Health care reform is one thing but pharma/medical bailouts is another thing.
Insurance companies books are fried from derivatives, securitization meltdown...it's an insurance/medical industry Bailout from the bubble/bust Crash...this spending whale needs to get passed quickly before The Dump in the stock market really picks up steam and the main St. economy nosedives.
Pharma wants paying customers and so do doctors and hospitals...people who are financially stressed are dropping their insurance coverage so if that spirals out of control, how are pharma, doctors, hospitals going to be able to continue to make profits and have lots of paying customers unless there is a government payer of last resort to pick up the slack of lost insurance premiums from the deflation and high unemployment numbers...
TARP profit for Taxpayers? I better check under my pillow to see if the Tooth Fairy left me some money! Money (including taxes) is the crack cocaine for politicians. We will never see a penny of profit, especially when our tax money will all go to pay the interest on the debt they stole from us.
mp wrote:
Yes. And I've been flabbergasted on more than one occasion by intelligent economists I've met who have remarked on the vast level of moral hazard that has been injected into our economic system, and then have followed up that observation with a comment that likens it to some sort of excessive tax that needs to be removed.
If only it were that easy. If only it were even possible.
mp wrote:
So we should move to Wyoming, dig a hole in the ground, get in, surround ourselves with canned goods, and hope for the best? I ask this only partially in jest. What I read between the lines is that you don't see a positive solution or strategy can be achieved. It's whether you suffer and die, or die quickly.
Madoff's estate in BK wound up with about $2.5BB in assets recovered (so far) against $5+BB in claims. After a long slow process, even more bagholders will get something back. How is that not different from the FED/Treasury/FDIC's ongoing game? Even Warren says we will probably make a profit (without even a "nominal" qualifier).
Moral hazard is the cancer.
broward wrote:
I think it is the move towards national health care with no mechanism to control costs. Simon Butler of the Heritage Foundation commenting about the British National health care system made the observation that the advantage of systems like that is that brings the spending "on budget" and allows for a rational discussion of how much the country wants to spend and then tries to allocate in the most cost efficient manner. What we are likely to end up with in trying to arrive at a "bipartisan" solution is more likely going to end up being the worst of both systems rather than the best. Fellow Democrats who support the plan - you are idiots. This plan will blow up and with any chance of getting a system that actually works.
broward wrote - 1:00 pm
"One of their predictions was that the final collapse of the United States would be marked by a headlong rush towards national health care with no apparent funding. "
but not military spending at 10 times that level or more to produce war material maintained on a base in a foreign country?
at least when the taxpayer spends x bucks for a patient to get an mri, or what ever, that money is being spent domestically on salaries for doctors nurses anesthesiologists etc who in turn buy groceries and pay rent etc
most of the industrial nations of europe were able to afford public health care in the years soon after the end of WWII
bu ameirica cant afford it...and why is that?
Spunkmeyer wrote:
You prepare however you wish. But pretending it will not occur simply because you're worried you'll look foolish is...foolish.
Spunkmeyer wrote:
On the contrary, I see possible positive solutions.
I don'l see a country with enough honest people to pursue them, though.
I'm not saying that at all, you're saying it. It's a knee-jerk response.
It's the moral equivalent of throwing up your hands and saying to hell with it.
That's not how I operate.
I mitigate.
Slumdog,
If you're leveraged or over-leveraged, holding RE & CRE 'investments' and 'assets'...of course you want the deflation 'can' to be kicked down the road with 'artificial stimulus', banking bailouts, or 're-inflation' schemes because you are stuck in a bleeding liquidity trap and can't get out...but as valuations contunue to go south...the longer you stay over-leveraged...the deeper in debt & late payment fees and lost 'asset values' you get...no one wants to take the 'hit' now who are holding leveraged properties...it would have been better to take the foreclosure 'hit a year ago...
In a war the first casualty is truth. In an economic collapse the first victim is ethics.
mp wrote:
You're also a bit of a poet, if I do say so myself.
I think the biggest difference now is that there won't be anyone telling people what to do or what to think as this unfolds. Which will be a bit of a shock to the collective psyche.
noob goldberg wrote:
You kidding? I uprooted my family in 2005 to prepare for the worst. I'm not in the basement with a water purifier yet, but my eyes are open. I ask the question because what mp implies is that there are no global safe havens if it affects the world economy... a rational exit strategy overseas would be to move to the Pacific Islands, and collect cocoanuts for a living.
Again. There is no "exit" strategy. There is no "escape."
You have to mitigate.
what about this?
Walmart.com: Pharmacy: Clinics
or this
Target : Clinic
It is interesting to see that we are finally starting to look at the situation from a risk mitigation / damage control standpoint instead of a "profit from the crisis" mentality. Moral hazard portends the fundamental breakdown of the social contract, and with it the death of a society that once honored its agreements.
Slumdog,
You are making this entirely too complex.
Here is a simper version. It is remarkably difficult to store value over long periods of time, regardless of your country or financial system.
when politicians, mostly on the right, started claiming that gov involvement in health care...be it single payer or public option
would result in killing grandma...death panels
that was one of the most un ethical and biggest "truth casualties" of this war.... i mean debate
From the NY Times... Geithner speaks at the G20:
"Geithner's key message was that recovery still remains on perilous ground and that it was too soon to discuss the timing for removing the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus that countries around the world have poured into their economies.
"Government policy has to provide a bridge to growth led by the private sector," he said. "We're now in the middle span of that bridge."
That meant policymakers must move cautiously in trying to bring down huge budget deficits without choking off chances for growth led by consumer spending and business investment.
"If we put the brakes on too quickly we will weaken the economy and the financial system, unemployment will rise, more businesses will fail, budget deficits will rise, and the ultimate cost of the crisis will be greater," Geithner said.
"It's too early to start to lean against recovery.""
G. is speaking the line I've just posted... more Govt absorption of the losses, attempting to preserve the Primary Dealer system.
Whether the fodder continue to permit, if they have any power at all, this fabrication of Govt debt, I don't know. But as long as they can, there will be upward movement in gold as those who have wealth, be they countries (BRIC) or institutions/individuals, will continue to move a portion of their assets into the PMs.
Of course the rise in PM's will end, but I've not seen a wave shifting in this magnitude without it becoming parabolic, and that means, for the holders of PM's, a huge profit. I'm there, and I'll be there with buckets and a trainload of coal cars; this is the only fair outcome, dimunition of the value of fiat. 2 + 2 = 4.
Clawback exces bonuses since tarp funds were applied
ok --this topic has been covered, right-
Exactly.
The Hard Close...
If you don't go along with this 2000 page 'spending whale'...you will die on the streets with no medical care or starve to death from being against saving people's lives with the benevolence of the payer of last resort Health Care Reform Bill resolution.
The Choice is yours America as in the TARP resolution and the 911 resolutions...vote NO and America is at risk of collapse or destruction...Its that simple! Now back to the dog & pony show Congressional 'debate'...
Spunkmeyer wrote:
Sorry, my response was not directed at you personally, but more at myself. I have found internalizing this to be quite difficult, even as I nibble around the edges and have taken steps to mitigate it.
What I've gotten from mp' discussion is that there is no global safe haven for those wishing the next 50 years to repeat the last 50. It won't, no matter where you are in the world. This doesn't mean anarchy, but it does mean that quick thinking on your feet, resources at your disposal, and a tight network of useful contacts will differentiate between those who will suffer and those who will find opportunity.
mp wrote:
I understand what you're saying. We're more on the same wavelength than you may believe. The examples I'm offering are exaggerated for effect.
slumdog
you know how to tell when geithner lies right?
when ever he opens his mouth
**a rational exit strategy overseas would be to move to the Pacific Islands, and collect cocoanuts for a **
gotta do an update on the global warming thingy...some of them islands are flooding regularly
Bberg
A stupid analogy. A home run is not a CDO squared. Banks have special access to welfare from TARP, TALF, FDIC, and good old POMO. Dick Fuld didn't really win the World Series in 2006, we found out, but he got the bonus money.
As mp says, "there is no exit strategy". This is a GLOBAL plantation.
Spunkmeyer wrote:
I think this too much of US centric view of the world. There many countries which didn't engage nor have exposure to financial shams. Unfortunately most of those also have very serious ecological challenges but perhaps those can be deferred long enough for the US to go through its convulsion.
YES!
noob goldberg wrote:
That's where I was going as well. Anyone thinking they're gonna convert to Euros, and just ride this out in a French cafe like an artist in the 20's is fooling themselves. Sustenance farming will get you to a much better place than that strategy.
And the Truth is with this coming Crash and increasing unemployment or under-employment numbers...people will lose coverage as they can't make insurance premium payments for health care, auto insurance, life insurance, etc. So it is a cluster$$ss...
The congress will not opt to do that because it makes them responsible now the Fed is the lightening attractor. Remember when TARP came into being they gave the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury rather than the president and could it be for the same reason?
Slumdog,
There is no safe haven for 'assets' as the Treasury needs the money to pay for these simulus/bailouts...they are looking for money in every nook and cranny...the govt. deficit Whale must be paid for somehow!
1CNY
yes yes excellent post
plus
as you quoted
"Major League Baseball. “But I don’t want to pass a law saying how much Derek Jeter can make playing shortstop.”
Bloomberg"
yep
we wanna leave baseball free of government regulation and interference dont we now good little boys and girls the teacher said
(snark meter pined and snapped off
baseball a gov protected monopoly with price controls free market abrogation(try and sell your yakees tickets on the street hahaha) and limitation on regional competition with carve out for exclusive franchises and no compete clauses...yeah ats all free market all day 24/7 on all channels
BTW
similar legislation exists currently for health insurance companies!!!! yeah free market
(some wing nut yelling in the backgroiund "hey they want to take away your freedom...stop healthcare reform...be free to be raped by your insurance company and die destitute...FREEEEEDOMMMMM)
Slumdog,
You think your gold is safe?
The closest thing to an "exit" remaining is piracy on the high seas under maritime law. We have corporations that are larger than, and would have a higher GDP than, most of the countries you believe you could flee to. Unless you have a personal military, you buy geopolitical instability and the even-more-corrupt governmental structure of a third-world or emerging economy, and a rule of law even less respected than what ours has become. It's a race to the bottom, but we started at the top.
There is way too much hyperbole here.
Too much crotch thinking.
It's bordering on hysteria.
What do you think the 'volunteer disclosure' of offshore assets was all about? Needed Money to pay the stimulus bailouts.
More like 10% are very good, 60% so-so 20% barely competent and 10% crap
mp wrote:
Well, this is the Internet...
mp - "I got mine, F the rest" in a new form, you mean?
you'll see those town hall meetings disappear, unless everybody who attends is a shill.
that's not current sop?
I'm going to say this again.
Get yourself a copy of FM101-5 and study Appendix J.
Learn how to use it.
Start doing a RISK ASSESSMENT.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/101_5.pdf
If suffering is your thing, that's your business.
Just because you want to doesn't mean I have to suffer along with you.
mp,
hyperbole - 'exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect'.
That's what the government uses to get spending whales or banking/medical industry bailouts passed...
Concerning my recommendation of FM101-5, don't read any survivalist crap into it.
It just happens to be an extremely good document on planning and decision making.
'The gentleman is asked to respect the Rules of the House'
The 'health care debate' is getting nasty...some yelling now...tune in to C-Span Weekend...
mp - I just meant that "I got my gold", or "I got my 3rd world vacation getaway home", or "I got my portfolio in three non-US currencies", or ... anything else. It's just "I got mine, F the rest" dressed up in a new form. We have to stop trying to win this game and look around, realizing we are not the only ones that will be affected, so why are we simply trying to save ourselves and take credit for how clever we were compared to the dumbass peasants. THEY ARE US.
"Over 47 million Americans are now uninsured, and premiums have risen over 120 percent in the past decade for those who do have coverage.
Health insurers engage in an endless list of deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair practices that deny millions of consumers adequate coverage.
10 of the largest health insurers saw their profits balloon from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $13 billion in 2007.
The health insurance industry is one of only two industries that are exempt from federal antitrust laws (baseball is the other).
The McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed in 1945, effectively grants all insurers an exemption from federal antitrust or consumer protection enforcement. "
Unlocking Competition: Eliminating the Antitrust Exemption for Health Insurers
I got my mountain retreat near a LDS church. I figgur I'm doin' sumptin' right.
Enough of TEOTWAWKI. If there is a break we'll have a chance to decide and I've no doubt we'll let the financial system die before destroying the nation defending it for a few more bonus cycles.
someinvestorguy, "It is remarkably difficult to store value over long periods of time, regardless of your country or financial system. "
True. But you're assuming something that's not in evidence, that the store of value remains constant. It doesn't. The store of value shifts over time. And this means there is no one final, at-last ability to say, "I've taken care of that; now I'm free to go about my life." That ain't gonna happen.
A simple reflection on history: car, radio, bw TV, color TV, transistor radio, internet, numerous RE bulges, gold, platinum, all the traded commodities.
Given that this is a fact, the strategy over a lifetime IMO must be to shift and camp out, and to diversify amongst 2 or 3 options. And the strategy when leaving an estate is to assure that the shift will continue and be conducted by competent hands. At the end, if the diversification is not wise and the institutions chosen not be energetically self evolving, the life's effort will be for naught.
some investor guy wrote:
Sure, Timmy thinks United Commercial Bank wants like to pay off TARP. LOL
@Resistance
Look, I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'll say this:
In 2006 and 2007, I was warning all of my associates to batten down the hatches. Most didn't.
In other words, I did my duty.
Having said that, I am not my brother's keeper. I warned these guys, now some of them are coming to me looking for help.
To hell with them. There is a limit, you know?
and i want IDA to disipate right now,!this minute,!
I feel special. Citigroup finally got to me with a rate increase, 20.99%. With a special balance transfer offer. As I have paid off the balance every month, I couldn't care less.
My gf got mad at me for sending back empty envellopes from every card offer: I put a stack of 50 in the mailbox once. Didn't soak them in urine, though.
"If there is a break we'll have a chance to decide and I've no doubt we'll let the financial system die before destroying the nation defending it for a few more bonus cycles."
No, but we might do it for a government pension, a bigger house, a few more bigscreen teevees, premium cable, free internet and a new car.
mp, did you and your neighbor get the carburator problem solved? Is he back up and running yet?
"Private/public sector" is a false dichotomy that misleads more than it informs.
Ultimately, the voter/consumer decides what kind of baseball salary is appropriate, and whether it should be set by law or unlimited (and just taxed back). There was a players' league in the 19th Century that tried to break away from banker/industrialist monopoly control. It failed. People were murdered and players blacklisted for life in the process, according to some reports. It's an ongoing poker game of chicken: the players threaten to strike, the owners try to manufacture public outrage at them via their media. The players usually settle for a bit more equity, knowing that setting up a new league is easier than starting a competing railroad, but harder than reorganizing a busted bank by dumping losses on the public.
The bailed-out banks are not private entities and were not even before the Treasury took title to shares.
barfly, in my mind, that's ancient history.
But, yeah, he was up and running the following morning. We made some of the parts here in our shop--it took all night--as he was fearful of not getting his crop in before the rain.
His crop is in.
edit:
In a manner of speaking, we "mitigated" his risk for him.
Think about it.
Both banks and health insurers have a big concern about competition. For existing banks, it's Walmart, state-owned banks, and to a lesser extent credit unions.
For health insurers, its removing antitrust protections and allowing insurers to operate nationally, rather than be regulated by each state.
When Paulson was around
were getting in line to become 
.
mp - good work.
mock,
We know the 'health insurer' tricks and the banking tricks...is a reward payout structure 'bailout' the answer or regulatory enforcement of the tricks to make 'unethical* or bending/breaking the rules money (huge profits) a priority for reform? Or should reform and enforcement of regulations protecting consumers be a priority?
mp acting all virtuous and such about warning and helping his fellow man
i know the truth
it was conjure that made him be nice (has sharp teeth im told)
but now even conjure has lost patience with the teaming multitudes of lemmings
all funnin aside
yeah , like mp ive been here a long time, issuing warnings to friends and family with few listening
as the system wobbles and lurches from side to side i tend to agree its not if but when
i still think there is a chance to save the republic but the odds are dropping like that door in the movie, temples of doom
where indiana jones doubled back to geth his hat and almost lost his arm
mp wrote:
Deposit in the favor bank.
Yeah, Paulson really scared those bankers with that bazooka talk. He wanted double TARP. Drown
with so many dollars they'll have to piss some down on the serfs.
mp - I get it. There is a social dimension here, and you recognize that.
But the folks suited up for TEOWAWKI, well, I hope they have a lot of ammunition because people are going to come and attempt to take what they have. Those same people, ignorant peasants that they are, will also be trying to figure out how to survive, and banding together, killing you and looting your stuff may be their lowest-cost alternative. Crude, but effective, solution to their lack of preparation and your surplus. Same goes for the clueless rich, in spades.
What people don't realize is Big Pharma and medical equipment industries (plus the hospitals) ARE basically the Health Care Industry. Doctors are scrip writers basically for Big Pharma. And sure there's the chemo and radiation 'therapies'.
How much in this 2000 page bill addresses the rip-off pricing structure in the U.S. from Big Pharma?
Everyone, I'd like to hang around for a while, but duty calls.
The "do" list is getting longer as I type.
Have a good day.
Please think about what we discussed here today and do some reading.
You don't have to be roadkill.
I used to work at UCB back when it was United Savings. It was chinese owned and run, owned by the Salim billionaires out of Indonesia. I remember having a loan turned down - an apartment house in north Stockton - on the grounds that "it's awfully dark out there." They were in trouble for not meeting their CRA guidelines - ie having a branch in Oakland (Oakland chinatown), but almost no loans to African Americans.
mechants of fear wrote
"bending/breaking the rules money (huge profits) a priority for reform? Or should reform and enforcement of regulations protecting consumers be a priority?"
the greatest travesty of fairness and principles of contract i see is insurance companies throwing people out when they get sick and need the insurance coverage they paid for over the years...the companies do this several ways and heres 2
they raise the rates sky high so you cant afford a payment
and or
while you are sick andd in the middle of chemo,they notoify you that your enrollment and coverage will be terminated at the end of the next billing period and
have a nice day
the propsed legislation in the house and senate eliminates that practice
again...remember all the industrialized nations of europe you know like switzerland, finland, france italy,etc plus canada and mexico costa rica etc, here in north america have universal health care and spend LESS less less
than we do per capita here in the usa
Rob Dawg wrote:
Did you notice the announcement that homebuilders are going to get their 5-year look-back on losses?
Homebuilders have excellent lobbiests.
1 currency now -yogi wrote:
Not really. Paulson used 350B of the 700B that was allotted under TARP. Now start adding Timmy's numbers.
Finally I have the last of my fruit trees in the ground. 2 peaches, 2 apples, key lime, blood orange(won't see fruit from that until TEOTWAWKI), 2 lemons, orange and tangelo tree. My fig and pecan should recover from neglect after a vigorous pruning. This time next year will be planting more after construction finishes.
At the risk of being misunderstood, or too well understood-
What most people don't get is that when you get cancer you are supposed to die. Either that or it's going to take a lot of money to keep you alive. Expensive treatments are expensive for a reason,...because people will pay for that last bit of hope.
"How much in this 2000 page bill addresses the rip-off pricing structure in the U.S. from Big Pharma?"
isnt it interesting that in the land of the free and the home of the brave
we are held prisoners when it comes to buying perscription meds
when bush and the repubs passed part D which was the largest unfunded mandate- benefit ever (remember now that ss and medicare have taxes attached to them..part D does not)
that same legislation instituting part d perscription benefits (right before the election) FORBID the government from using its pricing power to negotiate lower prices and forbid the importation of cheaper generics from abroad
hahahaha
and now one of the right wingers who signed onto the part D bill screams in the background "this new helath care proposal is the most agreigious assault on our freedoms ive seen in my 19 years in congress and the dems want to crush the free market system
and your freeeeedooooom
a bunch of effing liars
actually the democrats are a bunch of pussy-cats and if they had reallnards they would have pushed for universal single payer...gotten the same accusations and abuse and really reformed the system taking profits out of the insurance companies who are nothing but sickness profiteers and death merchants
but no..the dems are wimps and once again bend over for the right wing which is hard as nails cause it believes in the law of the jungle
my wifes fathers family were all a bunch of coal miners...they fought with knuckles and clubs against the mine owners who refused to pay a living wage and would dump a mans broken body at the wifes doorstep without severance pay or widow benefits after the husband was crushed in a mining accident
is that what wee have to return to for justice?
Anyone had a re-read of commentary from a year ago recently? A lot of it could be re-posted en bloc.
So what's changed? Not much for the better as far as I can see. That's a long time in policy and politics for no great substance to be bedded in.
C
mock turtle wrote:
lets suppose for a moment the health insurers paid every claim what do you think would happen to premiums?
Lets assume we made all the CEO's work for zero , magically got rid of all their administrative expenses and somehow convinced investor to take zero profits what would happen to premiums? They would fall but in about 3-5 years we would be back in the exactly the same position we are in now. Except what would you then?
Like so many things we are not willing to confront the simple truth. Medical technology will advance faster than the economy, treatments will be found for rarer and rarer conditions which means almost by definition at higher unit costs and unlike virtually everything else in the economy new medical technology doesn't lower costs it raises.
The implication of that is pretty straight forward- we are not going to be able to provide the same level of care to everybody. Guess what this is not so earth shattering- it is true of everything else we do. does everybody get the same level and quality of food, housing, cars, air schools etc.
Counterpointer wrote:
The TARP bought the politicians at least a year, maybe even eighteen months of pretending that there is no problem and everyone can just go about their own business. Reality sucks and politicians go to great lengths to avoid discussing it, because it is a losing proposition for them.
mock,
I agree the medical insurance coverage 'system' isn't working...one of the problems has been coping with the price-gouging and continual inflationary pricing run-ups from doctors, big pharma, hospitals, medical equipment industries, etc . in the U.S. especially, forcing insurance companies to continually raise premiums to 'keep up' which finally makes the insurance premiums unaffordable for many Americans...all to keep up with rising 'costs' and 'billing' of health care.
Plus because of prescription drugs that were improperly tested or rushed to market maybe...there's a ton of lawsuits against pharma and doctors for 'malpractice' and such...all of which raises the cost of health care for consumers...
Meeting with Democrats in a rare Saturday visit to Capitol Hill, Obama said they were approaching what may be their finest moment in politics
scuse me...?
A pity they're not Japanese. Sounds like preps for mass sepukku.
C
/rajesh - sigh, yes.
He thinks the R.A.F. will save us?
sdtfs,
What's the rate of survival in patients for cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation therapy? Might be interesting to see if the money spent on these treatments is effective...but terminal patients will be open for any treatments in order to prolong life...but what is the 'quality of life' for these patients undergoing these chemo and/or radiation therapies generally...
Their finest moment will turn into the biggest nightmare in history. Small businesses and individuals will see 25% yearly increases in health care premiums. And individuals will get taxed up the ying as well. And no one who has health care now will see any improvement in their care, despite the huge cost increases.
ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:
I suspect that most countries won't be stupid enough to follow the US example that greed is the ultimate social good.
merchants of fear wrote:
of course they will and they should have the right to do that with their dollars but not with mine.
radiation + chemo =! terminal diagnosis
.
Still expensive, painful and draining, but the population of cancer patients who undergo those therapies is significantly larger than the population of cancer patients with a terminal diagnosis...
Jobless: 10 percent is tougher than it used to be - Yahoo! News
It is only ostrich liberals who believe that you can require insurance companies to cover everybody, prevent them from dropping people who are likely to generate big claims, not charge those who are likely to generate big claims more and see premiums decline. Unfortunately too many of my fellow liberals think so. They haven't figured out that Obama is really a Republican Manchurian candidate and with this garbage bill he has pretty much discredited most of the progressive agenda. I sincerely hope that this bill fails.
Bought my friend three years so he got to see his daughter graduate from college and his son from high school. He was happy his insurance was there and grateful for the time. Even facing death though, he/we talked about how much it was costing and whether it would "really" make sense for the world at large. He said the chemo wasn't bad but the antibiotics afterward to protect from infection always wiped him out for weeks. He had a roller coaster ride, thought he was in remission, but after the recurrence died in about five months. Leukemia.
We need a 'bowl of doom loops' emoticon.
mp wrote:
Here is a relevant quote from John Mauldin's latest letter:
"Today in the US there are large constituencies that resist change. We only get to tinker around the edges, when real structural change is needed. Sadly, we agreed that here there is not much chance of major change. We can’t even get the obvious changes needed in the financial regulatory world."
My comment for a long time has been most Americans are not smart enough to be mad. It will take the whole dump truck load of manure to get their attention. That is as long as the beer is still cold, cable TV and sports is working they won't get it.
crazyv,
Is Congress or anyone addressing price gouging and inflationary price run-ups in the Health Care Industry...the 'rising costs' of big pharma, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment industries...why do you think there is 'medical tourism' now?
The cost structure of Big Healthcare is unsustainable and out of control and how many of the 2000 page 'health care reform' resolution addresses these issues. (not sure)
There will be 'spending' cap rates no doubt with govt. financing I'm sure...and then look at the exodus of doctors if the big bucks can't be made any more...more yelling in the 'health care debate' going on...about pricing? No.
much current TARP info here:
FinancialStability.gov | U.S. Department of the Treasury
particular notice to the section Reports and Documents
Dump truck. Great words to teach toddlers, cuz they usually say dumb f**k
crazyv wrote (in reply to...) 2:29 pm
lets suppose for a moment the health insurers paid every claim what do you think would happen to premiums?
(my answer why does it have to be either allow fraud or pay every claim....cant there be justice, fairness? do we just throw up our hands and say ..fairness is just to hard or impossible to decide so we wont try)
Lets assume we made all the CEO's work for zero , magically got rid of all their administrative expenses and somehow convinced investor to take zero profits what would happen to premiums? They would fall but in about 3-5 years we would be back in the exactly the same position we are in now. Except what would you then?
(ceo s reduced to making zero,,why,,,why not reasonable compensation ...wed be back where we are now?, no that is not what you would have...you would have the medicare system or the candian system that is more efficient and puts a greater percentage of your health care dollar into treatment and the least into millionaire salaries and administrative costs fact medicare and canada are more addministratively efficient than the private sector)
you know whats happening out there right?
the insurance companies deny expensive claims they know they should pay because it is profitable to do so
nobody can stop them
it costs too much and takes too long for sick people to get a lawyer and sue
the courts have ruled that the contracts people have been "forced" to sign allow no remedies other than if you win in court...7 years later...yep then the insurance company has to pay for your operation or chemo
meanwhile you are dead, and the contracts and case law prohibit the payment of punitive damages for insurance companies failing to pay for benefits they had bargained for
how did this happen
the insurance companies, years ago won the very tort reform that now is being pushed and advocated for hospitals and doctors
Merchants of Fear,
Is that a rhetorical question? If not then you haven't been paying attention to my posts. I think what they are trying to in Congress is joke. for precisely some the reasons that you state. BTW I think talking about exodus of doctors is just hysteria and detracts from the other valid points that you are making. Medical schools have far more applicants than they have slots for. That suggests to me that the compensation of doctors is too high not too low.
Jobless: 10 percent is tougher than it used to be - Yahoo! News
Oxtail,
That debt distress is in addition to the structural changes in the economy that has moved many more people outside of the bucket of who gets counted in that 10% headline UE (U-3), so it is a 'double whammy'.
barfly
thanks for the link notice reports and documents
Mock Turtle-
you are making the assumption that the level of profits and compensation of the CEO are variable. That is the way it should be but it is not. Once you accept that proposition then whether an insurance company pays or doesn't pay a claim has nothing to do with their profitability (directly) but only what the rest of us pay in premiums. It only effects their profitability to the extent that if they paid every claim the premiums the rest of would be paying would sky rocket causing fewer people to be able to afford insurance which would hurt their profits.
Wait a minute! UCB is headquartered in the home town of none other than San Fran Nan Pelosi, couldn't she stop this?
probably not a campaign contributor
sdtfs,
Worked for a guy who as a kid went through the whole surgery/chemo route, he is in his mid-40's now so it bought him a life...my MIL is 81 and a year past the trifecta of surgery/chemo/radiation and has an excellent quality of life (seen first hand as she lives with us)...hope she is still with us five years out.
on a lighter note I thought that this was from the Onion when I first started to read it,
Overweight Americans Push Back With Vigor in the Health Care Debate - NY Times
crazyv (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sat, 11/7/2009 - 2:41 pm
comments in parens my response
It is only ostrich liberals (name calling without facts) who believe that you can require insurance companies to cover everybody (canadian system, british system, swiss system, japanese system, italian system etc all have universal coverage and cost less than american system), prevent them from dropping people who are likely to generate big claims (and who is likely to get heart disease or cancer can you tell me/ they dont pre-meptively drop as much as they drop right before the health care is needed arent you listening??) , not charge those who are likely to generate big claims more and see premiums decline (again universal health care costs less and under the proposed legislation you crazyv and anyone else can buy all the private health care you want and can afford have at it). Unfortunately too many of my fellow liberals think so. They haven't figured out that Obama is really a Republican Manchurian (do you have any idea how foolish that sounds..have you read the book...seen the movie...more name calling) candidate and with this garbage bill (again no facts... name the elements of the bill you think are "garbage..you dont like or that you support...let me guess you dont support any of it)he has pretty much discredited most of the progressive agenda. I sincerely hope that this bill fails.
Energycon- leaving aside that we are talking about your MIL - if you had a limited amount of money and could only pay for kid to get the treatment or the 81 year old to get the treatment which one would you pick. It seems to me that if you start out with the proposition that we have only so much money to spend that pretty much encapsulates the debate.
crazyv,
Yeah...if payments to doctors are 'govt. insured' maybe you are right...there will be plenty of doctors maybe from foreign countries too maybe...but they will be scrutinizrd under any govt. paying or 'managed' plan I would think and people don't like govt. scrutiny generally...
Saw this and I can't verify for sure...but under the Pelosi Health Care Plan there is a 'failure to comply' component which could involve civil and/or criminal penalties for people who choose NO health care coverage and for people who choose NOT to pay a mandated health care tax of 2.5% of their income...anyone seen details of this in the Pelosi Plan?
crazyv,
It is already that way - there are already limits on the amount of money available for health care - just the allocation decisions are not made explicit.
crazyv wrote:
Have to choose the MIL.
Odds are good that she'll die anyway, freeing me from further costs.
That fricking kid is just going to get sick again and again and again for years to come.
The capitalist final solution!
cravyv - "We're all in this life raft together".
Well, not with all you fat bastards in it.
C
"...if you had a limited amount of money and could only pay for kid to get the treatment or the 81 year old to get the treatment which one would you pick. It seems to me that if you start out with the proposition that we have only so much money to spend that pretty much encapsulates the debate."
If we were Niger or Mali perhaps that would be rational. I don't believe that the US is too poor to afford health care for every citizen. What would be rational in Mali, perhaps, would be barbarous in the US.
My buddy's AML initial diagnosis: 80% mortality in five years, with treatment.
I cling to the hope that the time and treatment we're paying so much for is teaching us something useful.
"I suspect that most countries won't be stupid enough to follow the US example that greed is the ultimate social good."
If they don't, I suspect they'll be outcompeted by other surviving countries that do. Free-market capitalism is the most efficient economic "technology" we have yet discovered and it will dominate in the third-world too (as it already is beginning to do). Money spreads through cultures like an epidemic. That's why this is so difficult. It seems like 'Greed is good' is a position reached at a certain level of social maturity, shortly after world imperialism and seeing one's culture as the primary export to less 'enlightened' countries, but it seems to be the beginning of the end.
Mock Turtle - as I read the bill I don't believe that Universal single payer is on the table. What is on the table right now is the proposition that if we require private insurers to do all the things that magically everybody's premiums will go down.
I have no problem with a single payer system and in fact have repeatedly said that one financed with a sales tax is the right way to go. A bill that seeks to provide health care via employers is doomed to fail in globalized economy when your competitors don't have to do it. I find it amazing that this idea is so difficult for people to grasp.
Lastly, all the countries that you have cited have one crucial thing that the Obama plan lacks- serious price control measures. They all have rationing of one sort or the other. They all have made decisions on what treatments will be covered and for whom and which won't.
As to Obama being the Manchurian candidate - what would a Republican have done differently with the banking crisis and if this health care plan blows up as I predict it will he would have done more for the Republican party than any Republican possibly could have.
Greed is good but laziness is better!
The question is as broke and in debt as the U.S. govt. is bailing out failed Big Banks, can the govt. afford to support a high-priced, bloated, 'for-profit' health care system supporting the high costs and billing continually without pricing caps and/or reforms...especially with all the unfunded liabilities outstanding...Medicare and SS...and more Big Banks bailouts coming plus funding endless wars and occupations...and funding growing unemployment benefits, etc.
pavel.chichikov wrote:
Faith-based budgeting?
Better subtract the losses we have taken and are continuing to take before we decide how poor we are.
cravyv - "We're all in this life raft together".
Well, not with all you fat bastards in it.
LOL. Yes, plus less of you means more raft space for me!
energyecon wrote:
That is precisely the problem. 20,000 people die each year because they couldn't get health care . I think that is pretty extreme rationing. Compare that with having to wait 4 months to get elective surgery.
Are you sure it's not from The Onion?
ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:
Turning everything into a shitpile isn't a good solution.
The E. F. Schumacher Society • Buddhist Economics
broward - agreed. but the locusts will just move on to a new unsullied field.
crazyv wrote (in reply to...) on 2:54 pm (my comments, responses in parens)
crazyv said
...you are making the assumption that the level of profits and compensation of the CEO are variable...
mock said
(they arent variable??...are you saying they are fixed?? by what... by whom ... what do you mean???
crazy v said
whether an insurance company pays or doesn't pay a claim has nothing to do with their profitability (directly) but only what the rest of us pay in premiums
mock said
(what? are you saying premiums versus payouts do not effect bottom line... are you saying loss mitigation doesnt effect profitability?)
why are you against medical care that covers everybody and lets you buy more, better, extra ,if you are wealth and want it...? wheres the harm?
thats what the french and the canadians do a...the poor and the middle class have very good coverage
and the rich are free to do what they have always been able to do...get better care and at the head of the line...so whats new, at least people like me who pay 6k permiums per year for self and wife with 10k deductible and 50% co pay and 250k ceiling... get health care
look i dont want a free ride
at 6k premiums per year im paying more than per capita cost than any other modern nation andd getting less than half the coverage
our system is effed, cant you understand that?
pavel.chichikov wrote:
First define what you consider health care. Breast implant health care. What about getting a new joint because your existing one doesn't allow you to play golf, what about a treatment that cost a huge amount and provides only a few months extra of life. If you think we have enough money to cover every definition of health care well what can I say.
crazyv wrote:
Yes, the problem is that we keep dicking around with a "global economy" and reciting the fallacy that it's "inevitable".
It is not.
It never was.
That's more knee-jerk bullshit from guys who live for greed and lies.
lol broward,
It was worse than that - the kid grew up and I ran his first state house campaign in Alaska - he spent the next ten years or thereabouts in office (I moved on and went back to school).
Right. It wasn't inevitable. Until someone found or stole enough resources to make it inevitable because it profited them to do so.
broward wrote:
Is something inevitable if it has already happened?
pavel,
Exactly - that constraint would exist at a macro level only as a choice in allocating resources to other activities - with our current production possibilities frontier...
crazyv,
You are putting words in Pavel's mouth there - don't go down the straw man avenue - the sub-thread started along the lines of survival, and implicitly when do we start putting the old folks out on an ice floe...
Rep. Peter Roskam (R - Illinois) made this comment in the health care debate today-
Why do you have to criminalize people to coax them into something that is fabulous?
"Fat Pride Lobby Promotes Bloated Health Care Bill"
This stuff writes itself.
"Facing Defeat, Fat Pride Lobby Threatens Hunger Strike". Nation says go for it.
C
mock turtle wrote:
yes absolutely- Wall Street tells the insurance company the level of profits they expect per share and the CEO decides what he wants via compensation. The insurance company figures out what amounts to per subscriber and then they figure what they expect the average claim is and that is what your premium on your policy is. If claims come in higher premiums just go up so that basic balance is maintained. There might be some variability on a year to year basis but over time that is the name of the game. As I said an insurance company could decide to pay all claims they would assume a higher average level and price the premium accordingly. The only reason they don't do that is partly competitively although with their anti-trust exemption that is not much of an issue but more important they need to keep the premium low enough for people to afford.
sm_landlord wrote:
I want you personally to remember this comment when the shooting starts.
Because that's what's coming.
crazyv
thanks for the lively debate
im going outside as it just stopped raining (hard very hard for 3 hours) here and been couped up all day
best wishes to you and will read later any back-at-me comments the commentariat have
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
merchants of fear
you said above
under the Pelosi Health Care Plan there is a 'failure to comply' component which could involve civil and/or criminal penalties for people who choose NO health care coverage and for people who choose NOT to pay a mandated health care tax of 2.5% of their income..."
mt back
i believe that is wrong ...can you give a link or quote sec sub sec of bill?
thanks again
Counterpointer wrote:
LOL. Unfortunately, they would more likely call for an Eat-In, and we would have to subsidize the expense of additional forklift-equipped ambulances to take them on their final ride to the hospital.
mock turtle wrote:
mock you really have to read what people have written not what you think they have said based on preconceived notions. I challenge you find one place where I have said that our system is good . My contention is that problem is only tangentially the insurance companies. That even if you took them out of the equation your would buy maybe 3-5 years and we would be back in exactly the same position.
broward wrote:
Are you predicting a trade war with guns?
If not, I'm not sure what you mean.
sm -- it's just a natural version of unrestrained free market 'greed is good' brought to its natural conclusion in dangerously unhealthy folks who can't stop eating and have become Too Big To Fail.
Any Judge Dread fans here? Mega-city One, fatties, belly-wheels, disobedience...
C
merchants of fear wrote:
disingenuous...
if people can stay out of the health care system until they get sick (no mandate for insurance), then those that buy insurance will pay higher premiums. It is that simple. The bill contains a mandate for people to buy insurance. The only other way to achieve everyone paying (spreading the cost and risk) is to add the cost of insurance to taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, you get fined or imprisoned.
For those who cry out about moral risk, not mandating insurance is pure hypocrisy. This is part of the reason folks are required by law to carry minimum auto insurance.
broward-
I think you are conflating two issues- if I understand you correctly. First, whether a globalized economy is inevitable I don't believe so that is a choice we have made that can be reversed. I have done that on a individual basis through where and what I buy. However, if we are going to have a globalized economy then trying to provide health insurance via employment is doomed to fail. Employers will either drop insurance or ship jobs overseas - ironically they are more likely to do the latter rather than the former since there is less stigma associated with it rather than the former.
crazyv
i just read you last answer going out the door
you are answering a different question that you posed
i understand the wall street game of profit expectations...thats not the issue i understood you to queried
you indicated, i thought, that private insurance companies throwing people out had nothing to do with the bottom line profits or ceo pay
and that is not true and i challenged you on it
throwing people off theirr overage, and denying their claims, has everything to do with the bottom line
and i would like to hear you recognize that
claiming that there is no incentive to eff the policy holder cause the insurance companies can just raise premiums for everybody else flies in the face of experience, facts on the ground... and what we see in real time going on in the market place today
I firmly disagree- it is the crux of the question. Are we wealthy enough to ensure that no child dies because they don't have access to antibiotics absolutely. Are we wealthy enough to provide equal access to everything anybody thinks of health care absolutely not. The question is where do you draw the line. Yes it is a rationing question. You can do it in a rational and open manner which is what most civilized countries have done or you can to it the way we do it in the US which results in deaths of many people who could have been saved through rather inexpensive interventions.
An excellent colloquy
Beween mock and crazyv
+10!
(mock by a TKO, imo)
crazyv wrote:
Your positions are inconstent - those same people are the ones who are dying due to easily preventable illness - ah, I see mock has captured it succintly: