sell! sell! sell!

[tiznow]

[h=1]Does Obama Care About Black People? Louisiana Asks The President To Cut Vacation Short[/h]Who can forget the controversy created when, in 2005, President Bush took just enough time off vacation to "fly-over" Louisiana to survey the devastating damage from Hurricane Katrina. The backlash against Bush was massive with Kanye going so far as to use a televised fundraiser as an opportunity to label Bush a racist:
Even Senator Obama took to the Senate floor to question the "unconscionable ineptitude" of Bush's response:

"Indeed, if there's any bright light that has come out of this disaster, it's the degree to which ordinary Americans have responded with speed and determination even as their government has responded with unconscionable ineptitude."
​

So with Louisiana once again suffering from a catastrophic flood, Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, is asking "where is Obama?"

Last week, as torrential rains brought death, destruction and misery to Louisiana, the president continued his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, a playground for the posh and well-connected.
Like his predecessors, Obama has no doubt discovered that crises keep their own calendar, even when commanders-in-chief are trying to take some time off the clock. It’s an inconvenience of the presidency, but it’s what chief executives sign up for when they take the oath of office.
And if the president can interrupt his vacation for a swanky fundraiser for fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, as he did on Monday, then surely he can make time to show up for a catastrophe that’s displaced thousands.
The president’s vacation is scheduled to wrap up on Sunday. But he should pack his bags now, and pay a call on communities who need to know that in a national catastrophe, they are not alone.
​

Well, turns out Obama was extremely "busy" today but he sends his best.

"Shockingly", we haven't seen much backlash in the media from Obama's missing presence in Louisiana nor has Kanye volunteered his thoughts on the matter.

 

[tiznow]

What do you think the ideal solution would look like? Every time I look into it, I never really come to much consensus that doesn't just involve a ton of belt tightening (literally and figuratively)

Unlike the places like Nordic countries, America is not a homogeneous society at all and living decadently is encouraged. Gluttonous consumption in all facets of life, including food/beverage.

[h=1]Boeing Takes Lead on Healthcare, As Insurers Battle DOJ[/h]As the U.S. Department of Justice moves to block two mega-mergers in the healthcare industry, Aetna’s (AET) $37 billion deal with Humana (HUM) and Anthem’s (ANTM) $48 billion bid for Cigna (CI), has left many wondering what happens next to the health insurance industry? While the government and lawyers for the insurance companies battle it out, healthcare experts say the move could spur more innovation in the industry and create more choices for consumers.
Continue Reading Below

“What we need from our health insurance industry is alot of innovation and I think that if we allowed the health insurance market to coalesce around a few mega-insurance companies that would hurt innovation,” says Alain Enthoven, healthcare economist and professor at Stanford University, who helped design the framework for managed competition in the healthcare industry.
[h=2]Boeing Leads Innovation[/h]Enthoven says by allowing more companies to compete, competition will give birth to new initiatives aimed at improving managed care and lowering costs. He says it is already happening. Boeing (BA), for example, is negotiating directly with some medical service providers to offer healthcare to its employees, bypassing insurance companies. In California, the aerospace giant has teamed up with MemorialCare Health Systems to provide healthcare to its 15,000 employees in the state. If employees choose the plan, they can expect smaller paycheck deductions, full coverage for generic drug prescriptions and zero co-payments for primary care visits. Boeing, meantime, can negotiate better pricing and bring down healthcare expenses.

Total health spending in the U.S. is expected to soar to $3.4 trillion this year a 13% jump from 2014
​

Boeing isn’t alone in coming up with new cost-saving solutions. Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in Iowa, has also implemented a program to reward certain hospitals and clinics with financial incentives for providing high quality care and keeping patients healthy. The insurer said the move saved the company about $35 million in health care costs last year.
[h=2]Healthcare Costs Soar[/h]Total health spending in the U.S. is expected to soar to $3.4 trillion this year, up 13 percent from $3 trillion dollars in 2014. One contributing factor is the Affordable Care Act. More people are now insured and many are in need of medical attention, more than anticipated, therefore costs are ballooning. As a consequence, premiums for state healthcare exhanges in California, New Mexico, Maine and other states are expected to climb in 2017 and the increase could be dramatic. In Tennessee, Blue Cross and Blue Shield has asked for an average increase of 62 percent in premiums next year, citing higher than expected medical costs.
Premiums for Medicare plans run by private insurers, known as Medicare Advantage plans, have held steady over the past few years. Not the case for out-of-pocket spending limits according to Gretchen Jacobson, analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. She says out-of-pocket spending limits on these plans have gone from an average of $4,300 in 2013 to $5,300 this year, an increase of more than 23 percent. “We have seen that the out-of-pocket limits have increased pretty sharply over the past few years. So the out-of-pocket limits may be indicative that they (insurers) are changing other costs and benefits as well,” she says.
Continue Reading Below
ADVERTISEMENT

[h=2]New Solutions Lower Costs[/h]Enthoven says to better manage rising costs expect employers, insurers and medical providers to continue to find new ways to bring expenses down and improve medical care. He says greater competition and new initiatives like the one Boeing and others are implementing will help give consumers more choices and help drive down costs. “I am caustiously optimistic that competition for cost conscious and informed consumers could mitigate the growth in spending,” he says. “Competition can work, it’s a good thing for consumers and employers.”

 

[tiznow]

Best succinct explanation of Feds failed policies I've seen...

------------

What the Fed Hasn't Fixed (and Actually Made Worse)

The Fed has not only failed to fix what's broken in the U.S. economy--it has actively mad those problems worse.
The Federal Reserve claims its monetary interventions saved America from economic ruin in 2009, and have bolstered growth ever since. Don't hurt yourself patting your own backs, Fed governors past and present: it's bad enough that the Fed can't fix the economy's real problems--its policies actively make them worse.
After seven long years of politicos and the financial media glorifying the Federal Reserve's policies as god-like in their power and efficacy, let's take a quick look at the results of these vaunted policies: ZIRP (zero interest rates), (QE) quantitative easing, both of which are ways of shoving nearly-free money ( a.k.a. liquidity) into the banking sector, where all this free money is supposed to filter into the global economy, working miracles of prosperity.
The stated goal of the Fed's zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) and quantitative easing (QE) was to make borrowing easier for both corporations and consumers, the idea being that companies would borrow to invest in new productive capacity and consumers would buy the new goods and services being produced with the Fed's cheap credit.
The secondary publicly stated goal was to spark a rally in stocks, bonds and real estate that would spark a wealth effect: as households saw their net worth rise, they would feel wealthier and thus more likely to borrow money to buy more goods and services.
Let's start by stipulating that the Fed's policies are unprecedented. Keeping interest rates near-zero for over seven years and pumping up its balance sheet from $800 billion to over $4 trillion are both completely off the scale of central bank policy in the U.S.
The most charitable assessment we can make of Fed policy is that the "prosperity" it created is concentrated in the most parasitic and politically powerful sector: finance. Why should we be surprised that the Fed, itself a servant of the banking sector, should devise policies that enrich financiers?
The Fed's policies have been an unqualified success for financiers and an abject failure for everyone who has to work for a living. The Fed has not just failed to rectify the nation's obscene inequality in wealth and income; it has actively widened it by handing guaranteed returns to the banks and financiers while stripmining what's left of the middle and working classes' non-labor income, i.e. interest on savings.
So let's see what corporations and financiers did with the Fed's free money for financiers:
They borrowed billions to buy back their own stocks:

Which boosted the the value of the stocks, enriching the corporate managers and big shareholders:

Did corporations share the wealth with their employees? The top 5% have done very well, the bottom 95%--well, their real incomes stagnated or declined:

Did corporations and financiers create more breadwinner jobs? That is, full-time jobs that pay enough to support a household (i.e. the employee doesn't have to live in his/her parents' basement).
Nope. Breadwinner jobs have declined. The "growth" measured by GDP is mostly increases in prices, not growth in full-time jobs or wages for the bottom 95%.

Did they invest the Fed's free money for financiers in new productive capacity? No, productivity has tanked:

But the Fed's near-zero interest rates and easy credit must have encouraged investors and entrepreneurs to launch a tsunami of new businesses, right? Wrong -- new business growth has collapsed since the Fed's policies were put in place:

But certainly the Fed's policies have kept inflation low, correct? No--not if you pay rent, college tuition or healthcare:

But surely the Fed's vaunted wealth effect has trickled down to all households? Not even close--wealth/income inequality has soared:

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%:
Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez put out an update to his estimates of income inequality, and the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%.
The Fed has not only failed to fix what's broken in the U.S. economy--it has actively made those problems worse. The first step in solving these problems is to eliminate whatever is making them worse--i.e. the Federal Reserve.


My new book is #5 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website.

 

[tiznow]

This the most telling graph for me is the net annual change in number of firms.. hadn't seen it before just knew it was happening.. This explains why I keep saying we heading for Mexico north.. Rigged game.. Few will own pretty much everything.. And most will be poor slaves to the corporations... Or pushed out entirely by automation...

 

[eek.]

You said it yourself earlier in here

A "new policy" of the FED is to jack up the markets, which keeps everyone smiling

 

[tiznow]

Latest market bubble/prop job via fed policy only creating a near term facade that everything is OK..

Slowly but surely people waking up to reality (trump part of that even though I think he's a plant/false idol)... Most won't understand till it slaps them in the face they become jobless and/or see standard of living greatly impacted..

also the media/politics system does a hell of a job with divide and conquer pointing finger for middle class demise at the wrong targets

when the root of the problem is the status quo/mega corporatism in bed with corrupt career politicians/fed economic policy that is rigged for elite..

 

[PatsFan1283]

Boeing Takes Lead on Healthcare, As Insurers Battle DOJ

As the U.S. Department of Justice moves to block two mega-mergers in the healthcare industry, Aetna’s (AET) $37 billion deal with Humana (HUM) and Anthem’s (ANTM) $48 billion bid for Cigna (CI), has left many wondering what happens next to the health insurance industry? While the government and lawyers for the insurance companies battle it out, healthcare experts say the move could spur more innovation in the industry and create more choices for consumers.
Continue Reading Below

“What we need from our health insurance industry is alot of innovation and I think that if we allowed the health insurance market to coalesce around a few mega-insurance companies that would hurt innovation,” says Alain Enthoven, healthcare economist and professor at Stanford University, who helped design the framework for managed competition in the healthcare industry.
Boeing Leads Innovation

Enthoven says by allowing more companies to compete, competition will give birth to new initiatives aimed at improving managed care and lowering costs. He says it is already happening. Boeing (BA), for example, is negotiating directly with some medical service providers to offer healthcare to its employees, bypassing insurance companies. In California, the aerospace giant has teamed up with MemorialCare Health Systems to provide healthcare to its 15,000 employees in the state. If employees choose the plan, they can expect smaller paycheck deductions, full coverage for generic drug prescriptions and zero co-payments for primary care visits. Boeing, meantime, can negotiate better pricing and bring down healthcare expenses.

Total health spending in the U.S. is expected to soar to $3.4 trillion this year a 13% jump from 2014
​

Boeing isn’t alone in coming up with new cost-saving solutions. Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in Iowa, has also implemented a program to reward certain hospitals and clinics with financial incentives for providing high quality care and keeping patients healthy. The insurer said the move saved the company about $35 million in health care costs last year.
Healthcare Costs Soar

Total health spending in the U.S. is expected to soar to $3.4 trillion this year, up 13 percent from $3 trillion dollars in 2014. One contributing factor is the Affordable Care Act. More people are now insured and many are in need of medical attention, more than anticipated, therefore costs are ballooning. As a consequence, premiums for state healthcare exhanges in California, New Mexico, Maine and other states are expected to climb in 2017 and the increase could be dramatic. In Tennessee, Blue Cross and Blue Shield has asked for an average increase of 62 percent in premiums next year, citing higher than expected medical costs.
Premiums for Medicare plans run by private insurers, known as Medicare Advantage plans, have held steady over the past few years. Not the case for out-of-pocket spending limits according to Gretchen Jacobson, analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. She says out-of-pocket spending limits on these plans have gone from an average of $4,300 in 2013 to $5,300 this year, an increase of more than 23 percent. “We have seen that the out-of-pocket limits have increased pretty sharply over the past few years. So the out-of-pocket limits may be indicative that they (insurers) are changing other costs and benefits as well,” she says.
Continue Reading Below
ADVERTISEMENT

New Solutions Lower Costs

Enthoven says to better manage rising costs expect employers, insurers and medical providers to continue to find new ways to bring expenses down and improve medical care. He says greater competition and new initiatives like the one Boeing and others are implementing will help give consumers more choices and help drive down costs. “I am caustiously optimistic that competition for cost conscious and informed consumers could mitigate the growth in spending,” he says. “Competition can work, it’s a good thing for consumers and employers.”

That's great but that is for corporate employees of a company that has mostly high-end knowledge workers.

What about the bottom 20% of society, what about the elderly who are living longer, what about the 19 million going on medicare in the next 10 years? Solution for that is a little more difficult.

And as far as universal goes, easy for other countries to do that because they piggyback off of our innovations and new drugs, who would we piggyback off of?

 

[tiznow]

Yeah you bring up a good point about the R&D aspect of healthcare how we pump so much into it and world gets to use it to cheapen their systems..

-----

as far as poor side goes my number one idea is if you want food stamps you can only spend it on healthy stuff.. I know this will never happen now that our food system has become so corporate/in bed with politicians.. Cheap unhealthy food is very profitable..

 

[PatsFan1283]

Yeah, obviously lifestyle changes needed and corporate food lobby probably way too imbedded into the economy at this point. Some of the companies that sell the worst shit are some of the most iconic (Pepsi, Coke, McD) These companies are America.

If you look at stuff like plastic surgery, lasik eye surgery or hair transplants, the costs for these have barely gone up the last 20-25 years as demand has greatly increased. Government is not involved in these fields and people pay out of pocket, it seems to make a world of difference.

Atleast tell people that healthcare isn't free and it is a real expense, more out of pocket payments, less 3rd party payments. When you get a flat tire and it costs $100 to fix, you don't use insurance to pay for that.

And lastly, this will never happen because we don't do anything grand anymore but I'd want some type of healthcare initiative. If you wanna go into medicine, nursing, research (I know a lot of this already paid), any type of field that includes providing care then we should subsidize the educational/training costs and get more workers to go into this field. Obviously subsidies on a larger scale are a clusterfuck, but something like this would probably have a very legitimate and tangible ROI to society.


Another good 1 (and we have it now but seems politicians try to limit it) is health savings accounts. But then you get the responsible people saving and the irresponsible people not saving and the first group is needed in insurance to pay for the second group to begin with. So gov't doesn't like this policy much, not much different than something like social security.

 

[tiznow]

Huh hsa are awesome and promote people not overusing/abusing the system.. Nothing like social security..

hsa a personal account like an ira or 401k.. What you don't spend that year is yours to keep and invest how you see fit.. Also investment gains aren't taxed.. And if you need to withdraw a lot for major medical issue down the road that's tax free as well..

 

[PatsFan1283]

Yeah, but when people contribute to HSA, who is contributing? The responsible and/or more well off people. Who isn't? The opposite.

Same with if SS was privatized and people were responsible for their own retirement. You would have 1 group saving and another group not saving, the way the system works is 1 group subsidizes the other.

I know HSAs are awesome, but I am saying why gov't doesn't like them.

 

[PatsFan1283]

Tiz, as far as the business formation issues, I know a lot of it is due to bad policy but I do think at the small business level that a lot of it may just be do to more efficient capitalism. A lot of your typical businesses that built wealth in the past are a little tougher to pull off today.

The economies of scale, marketing, technology and expertise that the big boys have make it tougher to compete in industries that don't have a ton of knowledge/expertise. The industries where it is just taking a relatively simple idea and multiplying it across the nation thousandfold.

Having a cafe is harder when Starbucks has stores on every block.

Owning a gas station is harder when Quiktrip and Cumberland Farms can expand their operations as fast as they want.

Owning a restaurant a lot harder with all the chains out there.

So some stuff is just harder and was more low hanging fruit say 30-35 years ago when boomer population was coming into prime working years.

 

[tiznow]

Yeah, but when people contribute to HSA, who is contributing? The responsible and/or more well off people. Who isn't? The opposite.

Same with if SS was privatized and people were responsible for their own retirement. You would have 1 group saving and another group not saving, the way the system works is 1 group subsidizes the other.

I know HSAs are awesome, but I am saying why gov't doesn't like them.

most companies are moving to hsa only.. So the overuse/abuse crowd will have no other choice..

So the people who use a ton of health care for whatever reason big family and/or unhealthy will max out their deductible.. The responsible ones that don't use a ton of health care get to stash money in an account vs paying it all in premiums

every company has their to own health care rates based on use as a whole...

With hsa the responsible ones get to keep a good chunk of change tax free vs having to pay tons on increasing premiums and saving nothing/no tax benefits due to overuse/abuse by others..

 

[tiznow]

Tiz, as far as the business formation issues, I know a lot of it is due to bad policy but I do think at the small business level that a lot of it may just be do to more efficient capitalism. A lot of your typical businesses that built wealth in the past are a little tougher to pull off today.

The economies of scale, marketing, technology and expertise that the big boys have make it tougher to compete in industries that don't have a ton of knowledge/expertise. The industries where it is just taking a relatively simple idea and multiplying it across the nation thousandfold.

Having a cafe is harder when Starbucks has stores on every block.

Owning a gas station is harder when Quiktrip and Cumberland Farms can expand their operations as fast as they want.

Owning a restaurant a lot harder with all the chains out there.

So some stuff is just harder and was more low hanging fruit say 30-35 years ago when boomer population was coming into prime working years.

nah it's due to rigged system for elite.. Boom/bust cycles as I talked about earlier.. Lots of mom and pops were cleaned out by last two bubbles and more to come when latest bursts... Boom/bust great for the status quo/big corporations long term...causes A cleansing out of competition and they get to gobble up cheap assets... Leading us on the path of Mexico north.. Few own everything and rest are poor corporate slaves that no longer control their own destiny via small business ownership..

 

[PatsFan1283]

most companies are moving to hsa only.. So the overuse/abuse crowd will have no other choice..

So the people who use a ton of health care for whatever reason big family and/or unhealthy will max out their deductible.. The responsible ones that don't use a ton of health care get to stash money in an account vs paying it all in premiums

every company has their to own health care rates based on use as a whole...

With hsa the responsible ones get to keep a good chunk of change tax free vs having to pay tons on increasing premiums and saving nothing/no tax benefits due to overuse/abuse by others..

Yeah, I know that. It is good but I'm just saying the reason the gov't doesn't like it is because then the irresponsible/poor/etc get screwed.

The reason SS works is because some subsidize others. If you privatized then it would be better for some. Obviously it is a good solution just like privatizing SS and allowing people to invest the $ rather than the gov't do nothing with it for 40 years is a good solution (in a normalized environment)

All these big gov't programs need productive and responsible to buy-in or pay-in or else they're screwed and then the programs collapse.

 

[PatsFan1283]

nah it's due to rigged system for elite.. Boom/bust cycles as I talked about earlier.. Lots of mom and pops were cleaned out by last two bubbles and more to come when latest bursts... Boom/bust great for the status quo/big corporations long term...causes A cleansing out of competition and they get to gobble up cheap assets... Leading us on the path of Mexico north.. Few own everything and rest are poor corporate slaves that no longer control their own destiny via small business ownership..

I'm not saying that isn't true obviously, of course wealth concentration is greatly exacerbated through our terrible system. But there are certainly benefits to technology and the flattening of the earth that allows for business operations of the big boys to scale much easier.

Even if you look online, a lot of the profits go to like 5 or 6 big companies. Amazon, Priceline, Facebook, few others.

In a lot of ways it is just easier to expand these days because of improved efficiency and technology.

5 corporations owning a huge # of gas stations vs tons of mom and pops 30-40 years ago doesn't really have anything to do with a rigged system I don't think.

 

[PatsFan1283]

https://www.aei.org/publication/startups-americas-economic-calcification/

This speaks a little bit about network effects and economies of scale that I was talking about.

Basically natural monopolies.

 

[tiznow]

I agree it's the "natural" course of things to some extent but when u toss in heavily corrupt government/lobbying, fed policy that promotes massive boom/bust cycles and too big to fail policies.. The system is heavily rigged/biased for the big corporations..

11 weeks left for the status quo to keep this bubble propped up for queen Hillary., so the status quo will get their puppet who does everything they want once shit hits the fan..

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]Which States Have The Most Millennials Living At Home With Mom[/h]We've written frequently over the years about the legions of "safe space" seeking Millennials moving back in with mom (see "More Young Americans Live With Their Parents Than At Any Time Since The Great Depression"). As the Pew Research Center reported back in May, for the first time ever more 18-34 year olds are living at home with mom than are "married or cohabiting in their own households." According to Pew research the biggest reason for Millennials moving back home is their inability find jobs to support their independence. Take, for example, "young" Lisa Jacobs:

Lisa Jacobs holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in photography and one in graphic design. But work has been sporadic, so this year she moved back in with her parents in Somerset, New Jersey.
​

“My parents have a lovely home, but nobody’s happy to be living at home at 32,” Jacobs said, adding that she needs to make at least $20 an hour to afford an apartment. “There are plenty of places that would pay me $15 an hour. But that’s not getting me any closer to moving out.”
​

Frankly, we're shocked that someone with TWO uselessamazing bachelor degrees wouldn't be able to find a job in such a robust economy. But don't strain yourself, young Lisa Jacobs, with a $15 per hour job that is beneath your level of enlightenment...no you just move in with mom and wait for your dreams to come true!
For parents who might find themselves in similar situations, the University of Minnesota has developed a very helpful map to assess the risk of your over-educated, entitled, self-indulging offspring moving back home. Unsurprisingly, parents are most at risk in the states with large, expensive metropolitan cities where recently-educated, residentially-challenged young adults like to return to indulge their "social" desires but can't necessarily afford to live. The states with the highest percentage of Millennials living at home were New Jersey (43.9%), Connecticut (38.8%), New York (37.4%) Florida (37.2%) and California (36.7%).
If you're the parent of a Millennial and just want to be left alone might we suggest a nice "fly-over" state like North Dakota where only 15.6% of Millennials are found to be living at home. Sure it's a little cold but the remote, barren landscapes are amazing Millennial deterrents.
(click on map below to be redirected to interactive version with additional stats)

 

[tiznow]