Oregonians were agitating for something - some for single-payer.
Vermont has adopted single-payer, but it will almost certainly be struck down by federal courts because the federal Act of 2010 ('ObamaCare') failed to include amendment of ERISA.
Insurers are preparing suit against Vermont ... but maybe they won't proceed.
The Federal Reserve is a fundamental lie to begin with. It masquerades as some sort of government agency dedicated to helping the little people, when it is in fact a private banking cabal substantially owned by the Rothschild banking family and JP Morgan.
The only thing it is dedicated to is keeping the wallets of bankers inflated. It has blown one bubble after another forcing the malinvestment of tens of trillions of dollars over the past 20 years, and in doing so perpetrated the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in world history.
The cabal didn't see the savings and loans blowing up, it didn't see the dot com bubble, it didn't see the housing bubble, it didn't see the 2008 meltdown, it denied the recession.
What has to stop is this endless lunacy of idolizing this cabal of private bankers. Nowhere was it ever intended that such an institution should exist. And here we are constantly turning to this unelected unaccountable private banking cabal to "do something" about problems that this unholy den of thieves caused to begin with.
This never ending idiocy of turning to the Federal Reserve to solve problems that the Federal Reserve caused is utter madness.
Even someone as reasonably mainstream as James Grant sees the potential of a gold standard down the line. There are some alternatives:
1) An oil standard. Control money supply, or growth in the monetary base if you prefer, to the price of oil. This was a lot more palatable when the US was not such a big importer of oil.
2) A commodity basket standard. Control money supply, etc. to a basket of important commodities.
3) A fiat currency with strict controls on money supply growth come heck or high water. You could go the Karl Denninger way, wherein no depreciation of the currency is allowed (zero inflation). You could go the Ben Bernanke way, where 2% annual depreciation is allowed. But you have to be extremely strict about things, forcing the Fed to tighten no matter how many people scream.
All of these assume some degree of strictness, to the point where the Fed is only a caretaker with no option as to where the levers are pulled. In such a system, the manipulation could then occur at the point of definition - changing the commodities in the basket, redefining money supply, shifting from Brent Crude to WTI, e.g.
None of these systems is as attractive as a gold standard in one basic respect: it is hard to have the currency backed by a real asset unless you use precious metals. It has always been argued that a gold standard will place the whole world in the hands of the Russians and South Africans as the only countries with any sizable mining operations (maybe the Australians too). Because of limited production, global economic growth would be much less than we are used to; China for example on such a standard would not be able to grow at 10% a year. On the other hand, with global population growth slowing, then stagnating, and eventually turning down, it is possible to postulate a world economic order, say around 2025, where a gold standard works precisely because growth is no longer expected or possible since population has ceased to expand. This fits in nicely to a world of neo-Feudalism that some of us here see coming as a replacement for capitalism.
Yes, I quoted a spin machine as from "well-heeled community of WTO apologists." I intended the quote to be identified as from a spin machine.
The only information from that quote is that even "very minor weak things" are condemned as "protectionist" - but that condemnation did not come from what you term "the government" (certainly not from the White House) that failed us but from interests seeking to undermine us.
I think that if there is any possibility of political reform, then I want to focus my condemnation of legislation on the legislative branch - which, under the Constitution, is independent of the Executive. I think that's an important distinction, as opposed to just "the government" -- unless we are pursuing an anarchist solution.
Thanks again for the summary information. (I wasn't following or even aware of EP in 2009.)
We don't do ethic based special interests on EP. The reality of the statistics are Mexicans are 62% of all national origins of illegals, which means 2.5% of the U.S. population are illegals from Mexico. EOM. This is an economics site and I'm not going to bring over here the never ending dribble on how some special ethnicity agenda is an except to the law of supply and demand or any of it. Not here but we're not going to deny the realities of global migration agendas of cheap labor market MNCs and other special interest groups or claim that magically the laws of labor economics and how they interact with migration are magically turned upside down.
Sure the situations are different (realities of migration across our northern border versus migration across our southern border) but the principle is the SAME.
Do we supporters of enforcement of labor laws and proponents of a return to full employment policies really care about the sources of illegal immigration that negatively impacts employment in the U.S.? Findamentally, I don't, and I don't think Mexicans or Mexico is the issue. I hope that we do not need to lower our conversation to level of a mob to call ourselves populist!
Or have things turned so sour that we can no longer afford to think in terms of principle? Where is the consistency of law? What should a Mexican think, seeing that immigrants from Cuba are showered with government benefits, while Mexicans are often trucked like cattle back across the border with little regard for humanitarian principles such as splitting up of families?
As noted recently by some leaders of the current Arizona legislature, there is nothing unusual, racist or anti-Mexican in the Arizona statute that has come under so much scrutiny and condemnation. States are inherently authorized to enforce federal law when state and federal law are specifically aligned for that purpose. Enforcement of labor law should not need to be defended as some kind of emergency legislation!
Immigration of workers negatively impacting U.S. economy and working conditions IS one of many "out of control" realities or factors today, but immigration of workers negatively impacting U.S. economy and working conditions is hardly limited to Mexican illegal immigrants.
This is another global systemic problem, not really a U.S. problem specific to one other nation (that is an ally). Look at the flood coming across the Mediterranean from Africa. The problem really is what we are all supposed to deny -- global over-population trends (in some areas much more than in others).
BY THE WAY: Friends of mine recently returning from Guadalajara (NOT big spenders who live behind security fences) report that much of Mexico is still peaceful, friendly ... and QUITE AFFORDABLE for visitors from the U.S.! My friends lived, not in some plush walled resort, but among Mexican residents, and they found themselves to be surrounded by GOOD neighbors.
there was no buy America clause actually. We had stimulus money going to China to create green jobs....in China.
That never ending claim of "protectionist", it wasn't in the bill, some very minor weak things.
There also was never a "must hire U.S. citizens, perm residents" i.e. hire America in the bill as well.
You're quoting a spin machine. At that time, I actually was reading the bill and reviewed it, in detail on this site.
Generally, do not quote opinions or spin but instead, at least quote those reading the actual legislative text. Makes a huge difference. A 2000 page+ bill, believe me, tons of people out there claiming a bill has legislative language that actually does not exist.
Also, remember, they go through two passages and then a conference, so maybe something is up for consideration, an amendment, even passes both houses, but more often than not, it's ripped out in conference at the end. Such was any real regulation on derivatives.
My recollection was that there was a 'Buy American' clause in the Stimulus as enacted in 2009.
So, I have googled and come up with that there may not have been as much of a Buy American clause as we needed, but there was definitely more of it than the well-heeled community of WTO apologists found tolerable. How else explain the substantial reaction organized in condemnation of Obama for promoting as much Buy American legislation and regulation as he did.
"Barack Obama ran on a platform of protectionism, where “defending U.S. jobs” was one of his primary campaign themes. This gave rise to the inclusion of a “Buy American” provision in the initial stimulus bill in early February, shortly after his inauguration. As the stimulus debate wore on (to the degree there was ever really a debate), Barack Obama and Congress finally tampered down the “Buy American” language in the stimulus bill, at the urging of international allies [2OLD4OKEYDOKE: "which allies exactly? PRC?"].
"[S]uch a provision in the stimulus package was a clandestine form of protectionism which many feared could spark a trade war. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and Congress did not tamper down the language enough and therefore some level of “Buy American” remained in the final bill."
I think that many have a tendency to use the name 'Obama' to represent actions and trends over which the President has much less than full control and, thus, for which he can hardly bear full responsibility.
President Obama is, after all, a professional politician and a political survivalist - for better or for worse. I don't agree, probably, with his interpretation of the Constitution, but I think that his intention and the thrust of his presidency is to manage his job, to the greatest possible extent, in a way that is compatible with constitutional provisions, our traditions as those have evolved, and, the obvious necessity of uniting the American people at this time in history.
We are dealing with a systemic global crisis, and Obama is really just a cog in a huge machine.
I am not a Democrat, but neither am I a Republican. As an American, born and bred, I ask this question:
"Of the three branches of government today, how would you rate them as to combined efficiency, effort, willingness to represent enlightened self-interest of the American people, and, independence from corrosive corrupting influences?"
Sadly, I have to rate the White House (Executive Branch) as best (in this "best of all possible worlds"), the SCOTUS (Judicial) worse, and the current Congress (Legislative) among the worst and most corrupt we have ever seen. (Oh, yes, the Tea Party talks a good game ... but where are their real solutions? ... what do they have to offer but obstructionism? ... why do they talk obstruction to everything BUT further "free" trade agreements?)
Unacceptable though he may be to either a majority of voters or a majority of campaign dollars, President Obama is like a bright light compared to the darkness surrounding him. I believe that I am a realist, but if evaluation of the U.S. government at this time makes me an apologist for Obama, so be it.
PS: So where do we rate our extra-constitutional Fourth branch - the Fed? You tell me.
Numerian notes that "continued existence of the Federal Reserve is at stake."
On the one hand, I sure hope so. On the other hand, as Robert Oak has pointed out, what would replace the Fed when our Congress is so hopelessly corrupted and/or in denial of reality? -- when the economy is so shock-ridden that the people are numb, disintegrating, confused and totally cynical?
Maybe you know my opinion - the crisis is systemic and requires structural reform. For example, income from trading in derivatives should generally be treated by the same IRS rules as apply to other gambling. Also, let's bring back tariffs, but not targeted - one big across-the-board tariff.
Even my favorite guy to quote lately, the Nobelist in economics, Robert Lucas, Jr., notes succinctly that "a fractional reserve banking system will ALWAYS be fragile, a house of cards" (emphasis in original, Milliman lecture PDF).
In this "best of all possible worlds," JP Morgan Chase is probably one of the more solid houses of cards, but even they are just a little nervous about where things are headed.
Try being 60+ and buying Blue Cross insurance in NC. My premium has increased from $200 a month to $400 in 2011 and is going to $780 in 2012. I will have to drop coverage and just die because I can't afford those kinds of rates. No one seems to care...I worked for 40+ years spent time in the service serving the country and never complained as my wages were taxed and taken. Now that I am reaching retirement age what I have been able to save will soon be gone. I will then have to sell my home give all that to the government and be living in the streets to qualify for any kind of help. No one that is just an everyday Joe can afford to live longer than the day their health begins to fail and the health system takes hold.
The young people (our children and grandchildren) should sit down and refuse to be a part of this system.... What do they have to look forward to...? starving to pay for medical help or the medicine they may need to survive.
Which is better?, refusing to be a part of a corrupt system or starving when they get old and can no longer work...
HBO seems to think so in the piece likely sponsored by Goldman - "Too Big To Fail". It seems it was all Vuld's fault. Even Blankfein and Thain are completely blameless. At least it showed Congress to be stooges.
Hey folks, for anyone else making spelling and other mistakes, you should have an edit button on your comment box.
The laundry list was great, oh really? For a second there I thought the Fed actually did some positive things. I thought the ambush was over new capital requirements, 7% proposed of quality capital for banks with > $50 billion in assets.
That will affect them and they hate the idea of going back to smaller leverage and capital requirements. Oh shucks. I guess they didn't cause financial Armageddon, just some rogue quant did it all somewhere. Yeah right, blame the geek.
Nice analysis, yuppers, they have sucked the consumer bone dry, now kicking millions out of their homes and vacuuming out the last bit of equity, seemingly not caring that it is further depressing the housing market.
I haven't followed the latest of this global capital requirements but I'll bet they whittle that down to nothing.
I don't see how these cats can say this affected GDP growth, the real economy. Last I saw and this would be a nice chart, they were busy pouring investment capital into EEs, refusing to invest commercially in the U.S. as a general rule.
Why doesn't Ben give banks some subsidy for them to act as VCs, fund startups made up purely of the U.S. unemployed and the business plan of the start-up has production 100% or 99.9% located in the United States.
They could even enlist other VCs to help incubate these companies. I know there are many with executive level management experience out of a job and hell, no reason a lower level skills set couldn't be turned into a CEO/COO and so on.
BTW: We have a massive new round of layoffs coming from the financial sector today.
Under the terms of the new health insurance exchange law, a nine member board will be appointed by the Governor to oversee standards for participation and ensure transparency. The governing board must include at least two consumer representatives and no more than two representatives from various health care sectors, including insurance. The board will also provide a plan for overall management of the exchange including the creation of a public corporation for the exchange by 2012.
Consumers will have more information than ever before about the policies available to them and will be able to keep policies that they got from their employer even if they leave their position. Small business is also expected to get a boost from the bill which gives them more flexibility in choosing benefits and allows employees to choose their own policies.
I don't see what good this is really going to do. It takes more work, but one can compare plans and premiums themselves now, it just takes a hell of a lot of study.
The problem is the risk pool, the premiums, and the gouging.
You mean Jamie Dimon. I thought his laundry list of things that have changed was reasonably comprehensive. In fact, he got to the point you and I were discussing last week: the US is operating on a credit platform that has regressed back to the 1990s. He was asking Bernanke whether any studies have been done on the amount of credit (and GDP growth) has been lost due to all these new regulations and other changes, but that gets back to our question of just where are we in 1990s credit scenario. Are we back to 1990? 1995? Bernanke said he has seen no such studies, but it shows both of them are aware of the fundamental reality that the economy is operating on what some would consider an antediluvian financial system, in which credit derivatives don't exist, and neither do mortgage backed securities, nor other asset backed securities.
The part that is strange is that Dimon suggests over-regulation is holding him and his bankers back from lending. What is really holding him back is that investors no longer trust banks to sell them securities at anything other than rip-off prices, banks have extracted as much equity from the American consumer as is possible, they are holding on to hundreds of billions of securities and derivatives that no one wants to buy and none of them want to properly value, and the Fed is squeezing their net interest margins to nothing with its ZIRP. All of this means banker bonuses are going to collapse with the rest of the economy - unless the Fed puts in QE3 with more guaranteed profits for the trading desks.
The one bit of regulation Dimon does have reason to worry about is the 3% surcharge on capital that will also crush ROEs, as well as hurt banker bonuses. Maybe that is what he was referring to, but the laundry list above ought to be enough to worry him.
If you have not seen this exchange, here is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, ambushing Bernanke in a press conference. Oh, what's with all of those pesky regulations? Those regulations, has anyone analyzed how this is dragging on the economy?
Give me a break, they are not enough regulations!
Dimon makes Bernanke look like a Saint, which I think gives some insight of what the government is up against with the corporate oligarchy.
First, I don't think the high price of oil, commodities can be directly correlated to QE2. The reason is 2008. There was no QE2 in 2008 yet oil was higher. Gold, as well, has much to do with PIGS, safe haven generally, globally. And then there is speculation. On food commodities, there was a physical shortage due to global disasters in 2010, Russian fires being a large one.
On the Fed being able to do all things, the real problem is this government. They did not enact real stimulus. They refused to add Buy American and Hire only America clauses in the Stimulus. They did not fund infrastructure jobs enough, the best bang for the buck. It was not Keynes, it was some globalization, special interest spending soup. They would not cancel offshore outsourcing contracts or any such thing to make sure America was put back to work. They refused to confront China on currency manipulation.
The Fed has no control over these globalist written bills and agendas. The Fed cannot put together a WPA. At best Bernanke could only recommend such a thing which is overstepping his charter.
Fed bashing really lies at Greenspan's feet and Ben's bail outs, loans and subsidies helping make the financial sector even bigger and perpetuating the financial sector fraud.
I have no idea why the Fed maintains industrial production even. What have they done and what can they do to revitalize U.S. manufacturing as an example?
Meanwhile ... watching what happens with the Oregon State Bank thing.
Oregonians were agitating for something - some for single-payer.
Vermont has adopted single-payer, but it will almost certainly be struck down by federal courts because the federal Act of 2010 ('ObamaCare') failed to include amendment of ERISA.
Insurers are preparing suit against Vermont ... but maybe they won't proceed.
SNAFU.
The Federal Reserve is a fundamental lie to begin with. It masquerades as some sort of government agency dedicated to helping the little people, when it is in fact a private banking cabal substantially owned by the Rothschild banking family and JP Morgan.
The only thing it is dedicated to is keeping the wallets of bankers inflated. It has blown one bubble after another forcing the malinvestment of tens of trillions of dollars over the past 20 years, and in doing so perpetrated the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in world history.
The cabal didn't see the savings and loans blowing up, it didn't see the dot com bubble, it didn't see the housing bubble, it didn't see the 2008 meltdown, it denied the recession.
What has to stop is this endless lunacy of idolizing this cabal of private bankers. Nowhere was it ever intended that such an institution should exist. And here we are constantly turning to this unelected unaccountable private banking cabal to "do something" about problems that this unholy den of thieves caused to begin with.
This never ending idiocy of turning to the Federal Reserve to solve problems that the Federal Reserve caused is utter madness.
Even someone as reasonably mainstream as James Grant sees the potential of a gold standard down the line. There are some alternatives:
1) An oil standard. Control money supply, or growth in the monetary base if you prefer, to the price of oil. This was a lot more palatable when the US was not such a big importer of oil.
2) A commodity basket standard. Control money supply, etc. to a basket of important commodities.
3) A fiat currency with strict controls on money supply growth come heck or high water. You could go the Karl Denninger way, wherein no depreciation of the currency is allowed (zero inflation). You could go the Ben Bernanke way, where 2% annual depreciation is allowed. But you have to be extremely strict about things, forcing the Fed to tighten no matter how many people scream.
All of these assume some degree of strictness, to the point where the Fed is only a caretaker with no option as to where the levers are pulled. In such a system, the manipulation could then occur at the point of definition - changing the commodities in the basket, redefining money supply, shifting from Brent Crude to WTI, e.g.
None of these systems is as attractive as a gold standard in one basic respect: it is hard to have the currency backed by a real asset unless you use precious metals. It has always been argued that a gold standard will place the whole world in the hands of the Russians and South Africans as the only countries with any sizable mining operations (maybe the Australians too). Because of limited production, global economic growth would be much less than we are used to; China for example on such a standard would not be able to grow at 10% a year. On the other hand, with global population growth slowing, then stagnating, and eventually turning down, it is possible to postulate a world economic order, say around 2025, where a gold standard works precisely because growth is no longer expected or possible since population has ceased to expand. This fits in nicely to a world of neo-Feudalism that some of us here see coming as a replacement for capitalism.
Did not dispute your numbers. Just reacting to "I would hate to be a Mexican".
I don't intend to bring ethnic stuff onto EP. That was my point - Arizona law not about ethnicity.
Immigration law enforcement not about ethnicity - about citizenship, legal entry and lawful employment practice.
Yes, I quoted a spin machine as from "well-heeled community of WTO apologists." I intended the quote to be identified as from a spin machine.
The only information from that quote is that even "very minor weak things" are condemned as "protectionist" - but that condemnation did not come from what you term "the government" (certainly not from the White House) that failed us but from interests seeking to undermine us.
I think that if there is any possibility of political reform, then I want to focus my condemnation of legislation on the legislative branch - which, under the Constitution, is independent of the Executive. I think that's an important distinction, as opposed to just "the government" -- unless we are pursuing an anarchist solution.
Thanks again for the summary information. (I wasn't following or even aware of EP in 2009.)
We don't do ethic based special interests on EP. The reality of the statistics are Mexicans are 62% of all national origins of illegals, which means 2.5% of the U.S. population are illegals from Mexico. EOM. This is an economics site and I'm not going to bring over here the never ending dribble on how some special ethnicity agenda is an except to the law of supply and demand or any of it. Not here but we're not going to deny the realities of global migration agendas of cheap labor market MNCs and other special interest groups or claim that magically the laws of labor economics and how they interact with migration are magically turned upside down.
Sure the situations are different (realities of migration across our northern border versus migration across our southern border) but the principle is the SAME.
Do we supporters of enforcement of labor laws and proponents of a return to full employment policies really care about the sources of illegal immigration that negatively impacts employment in the U.S.? Findamentally, I don't, and I don't think Mexicans or Mexico is the issue. I hope that we do not need to lower our conversation to level of a mob to call ourselves populist!
Or have things turned so sour that we can no longer afford to think in terms of principle? Where is the consistency of law? What should a Mexican think, seeing that immigrants from Cuba are showered with government benefits, while Mexicans are often trucked like cattle back across the border with little regard for humanitarian principles such as splitting up of families?
As noted recently by some leaders of the current Arizona legislature, there is nothing unusual, racist or anti-Mexican in the Arizona statute that has come under so much scrutiny and condemnation. States are inherently authorized to enforce federal law when state and federal law are specifically aligned for that purpose. Enforcement of labor law should not need to be defended as some kind of emergency legislation!
Immigration of workers negatively impacting U.S. economy and working conditions IS one of many "out of control" realities or factors today, but immigration of workers negatively impacting U.S. economy and working conditions is hardly limited to Mexican illegal immigrants.
This is another global systemic problem, not really a U.S. problem specific to one other nation (that is an ally). Look at the flood coming across the Mediterranean from Africa. The problem really is what we are all supposed to deny -- global over-population trends (in some areas much more than in others).
BY THE WAY: Friends of mine recently returning from Guadalajara (NOT big spenders who live behind security fences) report that much of Mexico is still peaceful, friendly ... and QUITE AFFORDABLE for visitors from the U.S.! My friends lived, not in some plush walled resort, but among Mexican residents, and they found themselves to be surrounded by GOOD neighbors.
there was no buy America clause actually. We had stimulus money going to China to create green jobs....in China.
That never ending claim of "protectionist", it wasn't in the bill, some very minor weak things.
There also was never a "must hire U.S. citizens, perm residents" i.e. hire America in the bill as well.
You're quoting a spin machine. At that time, I actually was reading the bill and reviewed it, in detail on this site.
Generally, do not quote opinions or spin but instead, at least quote those reading the actual legislative text. Makes a huge difference. A 2000 page+ bill, believe me, tons of people out there claiming a bill has legislative language that actually does not exist.
Also, remember, they go through two passages and then a conference, so maybe something is up for consideration, an amendment, even passes both houses, but more often than not, it's ripped out in conference at the end. Such was any real regulation on derivatives.
My recollection was that there was a 'Buy American' clause in the Stimulus as enacted in 2009.
So, I have googled and come up with that there may not have been as much of a Buy American clause as we needed, but there was definitely more of it than the well-heeled community of WTO apologists found tolerable. How else explain the substantial reaction organized in condemnation of Obama for promoting as much Buy American legislation and regulation as he did.
See, "Foolishness of Barack Obama's Buy American stimulus package" at AmericanMissive.com (May 16, 2009) --
I think that many have a tendency to use the name 'Obama' to represent actions and trends over which the President has much less than full control and, thus, for which he can hardly bear full responsibility.
President Obama is, after all, a professional politician and a political survivalist - for better or for worse. I don't agree, probably, with his interpretation of the Constitution, but I think that his intention and the thrust of his presidency is to manage his job, to the greatest possible extent, in a way that is compatible with constitutional provisions, our traditions as those have evolved, and, the obvious necessity of uniting the American people at this time in history.
We are dealing with a systemic global crisis, and Obama is really just a cog in a huge machine.
I am not a Democrat, but neither am I a Republican. As an American, born and bred, I ask this question:
Sadly, I have to rate the White House (Executive Branch) as best (in this "best of all possible worlds"), the SCOTUS (Judicial) worse, and the current Congress (Legislative) among the worst and most corrupt we have ever seen. (Oh, yes, the Tea Party talks a good game ... but where are their real solutions? ... what do they have to offer but obstructionism? ... why do they talk obstruction to everything BUT further "free" trade agreements?)
Unacceptable though he may be to either a majority of voters or a majority of campaign dollars, President Obama is like a bright light compared to the darkness surrounding him. I believe that I am a realist, but if evaluation of the U.S. government at this time makes me an apologist for Obama, so be it.
PS: So where do we rate our extra-constitutional Fourth branch - the Fed? You tell me.
Numerian notes that "continued existence of the Federal Reserve is at stake."
On the one hand, I sure hope so. On the other hand, as Robert Oak has pointed out, what would replace the Fed when our Congress is so hopelessly corrupted and/or in denial of reality? -- when the economy is so shock-ridden that the people are numb, disintegrating, confused and totally cynical?
Maybe you know my opinion - the crisis is systemic and requires structural reform. For example, income from trading in derivatives should generally be treated by the same IRS rules as apply to other gambling. Also, let's bring back tariffs, but not targeted - one big across-the-board tariff.
Even my favorite guy to quote lately, the Nobelist in economics, Robert Lucas, Jr., notes succinctly that "a fractional reserve banking system will ALWAYS be fragile, a house of cards" (emphasis in original, Milliman lecture PDF).
In this "best of all possible worlds," JP Morgan Chase is probably one of the more solid houses of cards, but even they are just a little nervous about where things are headed.
I did not know that HBO had anything like that kind of in-depth stuff (even if sponsored by Goldman).
Try being 60+ and buying Blue Cross insurance in NC. My premium has increased from $200 a month to $400 in 2011 and is going to $780 in 2012. I will have to drop coverage and just die because I can't afford those kinds of rates. No one seems to care...I worked for 40+ years spent time in the service serving the country and never complained as my wages were taxed and taken. Now that I am reaching retirement age what I have been able to save will soon be gone. I will then have to sell my home give all that to the government and be living in the streets to qualify for any kind of help. No one that is just an everyday Joe can afford to live longer than the day their health begins to fail and the health system takes hold.
The young people (our children and grandchildren) should sit down and refuse to be a part of this system.... What do they have to look forward to...? starving to pay for medical help or the medicine they may need to survive.
Which is better?, refusing to be a part of a corrupt system or starving when they get old and can no longer work...
HBO seems to think so in the piece likely sponsored by Goldman - "Too Big To Fail". It seems it was all Vuld's fault. Even Blankfein and Thain are completely blameless. At least it showed Congress to be stooges.
Hey folks, for anyone else making spelling and other mistakes, you should have an edit button on your comment box.
The laundry list was great, oh really? For a second there I thought the Fed actually did some positive things. I thought the ambush was over new capital requirements, 7% proposed of quality capital for banks with > $50 billion in assets.
That will affect them and they hate the idea of going back to smaller leverage and capital requirements. Oh shucks. I guess they didn't cause financial Armageddon, just some rogue quant did it all somewhere. Yeah right, blame the geek.
Nice analysis, yuppers, they have sucked the consumer bone dry, now kicking millions out of their homes and vacuuming out the last bit of equity, seemingly not caring that it is further depressing the housing market.
I haven't followed the latest of this global capital requirements but I'll bet they whittle that down to nothing.
I don't see how these cats can say this affected GDP growth, the real economy. Last I saw and this would be a nice chart, they were busy pouring investment capital into EEs, refusing to invest commercially in the U.S. as a general rule.
Why doesn't Ben give banks some subsidy for them to act as VCs, fund startups made up purely of the U.S. unemployed and the business plan of the start-up has production 100% or 99.9% located in the United States.
They could even enlist other VCs to help incubate these companies. I know there are many with executive level management experience out of a job and hell, no reason a lower level skills set couldn't be turned into a CEO/COO and so on.
BTW: We have a massive new round of layoffs coming from the financial sector today.
How about that instead of free robo trades?
Oregon just passed heatlh insurance exchanges.
I don't see what good this is really going to do. It takes more work, but one can compare plans and premiums themselves now, it just takes a hell of a lot of study.
The problem is the risk pool, the premiums, and the gouging.
You mean Jamie Dimon. I thought his laundry list of things that have changed was reasonably comprehensive. In fact, he got to the point you and I were discussing last week: the US is operating on a credit platform that has regressed back to the 1990s. He was asking Bernanke whether any studies have been done on the amount of credit (and GDP growth) has been lost due to all these new regulations and other changes, but that gets back to our question of just where are we in 1990s credit scenario. Are we back to 1990? 1995? Bernanke said he has seen no such studies, but it shows both of them are aware of the fundamental reality that the economy is operating on what some would consider an antediluvian financial system, in which credit derivatives don't exist, and neither do mortgage backed securities, nor other asset backed securities.
The part that is strange is that Dimon suggests over-regulation is holding him and his bankers back from lending. What is really holding him back is that investors no longer trust banks to sell them securities at anything other than rip-off prices, banks have extracted as much equity from the American consumer as is possible, they are holding on to hundreds of billions of securities and derivatives that no one wants to buy and none of them want to properly value, and the Fed is squeezing their net interest margins to nothing with its ZIRP. All of this means banker bonuses are going to collapse with the rest of the economy - unless the Fed puts in QE3 with more guaranteed profits for the trading desks.
The one bit of regulation Dimon does have reason to worry about is the 3% surcharge on capital that will also crush ROEs, as well as hurt banker bonuses. Maybe that is what he was referring to, but the laundry list above ought to be enough to worry him.
If you have not seen this exchange, here is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, ambushing Bernanke in a press conference. Oh, what's with all of those pesky regulations? Those regulations, has anyone analyzed how this is dragging on the economy?
Give me a break, they are not enough regulations!
Dimon makes Bernanke look like a Saint, which I think gives some insight of what the government is up against with the corporate oligarchy.
First, I don't think the high price of oil, commodities can be directly correlated to QE2. The reason is 2008. There was no QE2 in 2008 yet oil was higher. Gold, as well, has much to do with PIGS, safe haven generally, globally. And then there is speculation. On food commodities, there was a physical shortage due to global disasters in 2010, Russian fires being a large one.
On the Fed being able to do all things, the real problem is this government. They did not enact real stimulus. They refused to add Buy American and Hire only America clauses in the Stimulus. They did not fund infrastructure jobs enough, the best bang for the buck. It was not Keynes, it was some globalization, special interest spending soup. They would not cancel offshore outsourcing contracts or any such thing to make sure America was put back to work. They refused to confront China on currency manipulation.
The Fed has no control over these globalist written bills and agendas. The Fed cannot put together a WPA. At best Bernanke could only recommend such a thing which is overstepping his charter.
Fed bashing really lies at Greenspan's feet and Ben's bail outs, loans and subsidies helping make the financial sector even bigger and perpetuating the financial sector fraud.
I have no idea why the Fed maintains industrial production even. What have they done and what can they do to revitalize U.S. manufacturing as an example?
Pages