No fair confusing conservatives by posting numbers.
Yeah… I have to admit that I STILL don’t get how this Obamacare thing is going to work. Apparently, now, neither does anyone else. Can you share how it is working out and maybe “post those numbers?” I am like really looking forward to being even more confused by all of these intelligent liberals. Don’t cry for me Argentina! ahahahahah
When 4 trillion dollars worth of quantitative check kiting were inflating the economy the numbers indeed looked rosy but now that the air is slowly being let out the numbers for stocks and bonds don’t look so rosy. After all, those 4 trillion dollars had to go somewhere.
With Ben and his liquidity pump history though even BrentGolf can confirm that stocks and bonds are little better now than fool’s gold. So with Obamanomics finally on its own it will be interesting to see what the sagging numbers are for the rest of the year.
[quote=“Winston Smith”]When 4 trillion dollars worth of quantitative check kiting were inflating the economy the numbers indeed looked rosy but now that the air is slowly being let out the numbers for stocks and bonds don’t look so rosy. After all, those 4 trillion dollars had to go somewhere.
With Ben and his liquidity pump history though even BrentGolf can confirm that stocks and bonds are little better now than fool’s gold. So with Obamanomics finally on its own it will be interesting to see what the sagging numbers are for the rest of the year.[/quote]
Again with respect, at some point people are going to have to just admit they were wrong. They sized up the economy in 2009, they analyzed Fed policy from their perspective and what they thought quantitative easing was, and they invested (or didn’t invest) accordingly. Anybody who was in the negative camp, was simply wrong. It’s been 7 years now. 7 YEARS ! At what point, and after how many years are people going to be able to admit they were wrong? The economy grew at 2-3%, the unemployment rate is below 5%, the all time record for consecutive job growth was smashed, the US is even stronger now compared to it’s competitors, and the debt and deficits didn’t run away like some predicted. What more do you want? No other country in the world got anywhere near that. What more do you want?
And if it was so obvious that the money was going to have to go into stocks, and anybody can see how this economic policy would play out, it really does beg the question… Why didn’t they invest? 
You mean, it was SO OBVIOUS that they chose to miss it? Intersting. Stocks beat gold by about 80% in the last 5 years. In this day in age, that’s about 20 years worth of retirement fund growth. You’re saying they chose to miss out on 20 years of retirement fund growth, because gold is better 20 years from now?
You do realize that people who understood what QE was and how it would effect things rode the stock run up and many are now in cash waiting for the next recession. Some of whom might even be buying gold now. Gained 80% advantage and at the end of it, are in the same thing you are.
Yeah… I have to admit that I STILL don’t get how this Obamacare thing is going to work. Apparently, now, neither does anyone else. Can you share how it is working out and maybe “post those numbers?” I am like really looking forward to being even more confused by all of these intelligent liberals. Don’t cry for me Argentina! ahahahahah[/quote]
I’ve posted the numbers before when you’ve asked for them , but here they are again- with pictures
[quote]The Congressional Budget Office announced on Monday that the Affordable Care Act will cost $142 billion, or 11 percent, less over the next 10 years, compared to what the agency had projected in January.
…
And to be sure, the law is still expensive – expected to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
…
In March 2010, the CBO predicted that the law would cost $710 billion during the period from 2015 to 2019, without trying to come up with projections beyond that. After several revisions, the law is now expected to cost $506 billion – 29 percent less – during those same five years, as shown in the chart.
[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/news/won … -cbo-says/
So, while health care in America continues to cost much more than in other developed countries the cost of health care is increasing more slowly, Obamacare is coming in under budget, the rate of uninsured people is the lowest ever (and would be lower still if Republican governments in most red states gave a damn about their lower income people). Oh, and the CBO figures it cuts about 135 bilion out of the budget deficit - though this in fact is too low, as they overestimated the number of people leaving the labor force due to being able to obtain non-employer insurance.
I cashed out of equities and real estate in late 2012 and invested in gold for the first time ever in 2015 so, other than having gotten off the quantitative gravy train a tad early and buying gold a tad above its 1049 low, you’re describing my investment strategy. So, yes, I loved quantitative check kiting once but the romance is over. Now I’m loving Obamanomics.
lowest EVER? or at least since 2008 when the recession began? So we are paying $750 billion to achieve a rate of uninsured that existed before Obamacare in 2008… then, er, why did we need to spend the $750 billion… you see where I am going with this? What if the number of uninsured would have returned naturally to its pre-recession numbers once the economy started growing again so… er… 
and now we have a complicated new bureaucracy which (I assume you will try to tell me) will THIS time prove efficient, effective and responsible? And with all the tax implications and human resource unknowns, many would argue the U.S. economy would have recovered faster and grown stronger without all of these complications and then maybe the number of uninsured would have fallen even faster AND without $750 billion in government “investment” in health care.
I cashed out of equities and real estate in late 2012 and invested in gold for the first time ever in 2015 so, other than having gotten off the quantitative gravy train a tad early and buying gold a tad above its 1049 low, you’re describing my investment strategy. So, yes, I loved quantitative check kiting once but the romance is over. Now I’m loving Obamanomics.[/quote]
Yes I’m not talking about specifics to you or your investing, just the general narrative you’re putting forward about gold and stocks and QE. It’s clear that most people still have no idea what QE is and why it worked. And really, why would they? It’s not like FOX news or MSNBC has done anything to explain it properly. All they say is money printing, and the viewers soak that shit up. It’s hilarious how off base that explanation is.
Honestly I think people will be out to lunch for the rest of their lives. This is the new normal. It’s been 7 damn years already. People might want to understand the direction the world is heading, rather than having their education stuck in the year they graduated from University. Getting a quick knowledge update, especially on something so important as advanced economic policy might be a good idea.
Something tells me though, people will be saying money printing until their grave. Just completely off base, but it’s catchy right? People love those catchy little phrases they can just repeat ad nauseam, regardless of how ass backwards wrong they are :loco:
Kind of like Donald Trump being a successful businessman. It’s catchy right? Sounds good. A businessman is going to fix America. Let’s just ignore the fact that he’s a monumental failure who nearly ran his fathers empire into the ground. :roflmao:
lowest EVER? or at least since 2008 when the recession began? So we are paying $750 billion to achieve a rate of uninsured that existed before Obamacare in 2008… then, er, why did we need to spend the $750 billion… you see where I am going with this? What if the number of uninsured would have returned naturally to its pre-recession numbers once the economy started growing again so… er… and now we have a complicated new bureaucracy which (I assume you will try to tell me) will THIS time prove efficient, effective and responsible? And with all the tax implications and human resource unknowns, many would argue the U.S. economy would have recovered faster and grown stronger without all of these complications and then maybe the number of uninsured would have fallen even faster AND without $750 billion in government “investment” in health care.[/quote]
You’re kind of missing a major point though. The economy improving doesn’t actually increase the number of uninsured by very much. They are uninsured because they are in the bottom percentile of the earners. That doesn’t change when the economy grows, they are still there. The upper and middle class grows, but the low end is still just that. The unemployment rate is very low right now, yet they are still there earning what they earn.
The only way to insure the uninsured is to GIVE them insurance, at the cost of the earners above them in the hierarchy. That’s what it really comes down to Fred. Do you GIVE them insurance, or don’t you?
I vote yes, GIVE them insurance, regardless of the cost. You apparently say no. To each his own. I’m a firm believer in the economics of proper and equitable income redistribution. A more equal society is richer, both in monetary terms and standard of living.
If you give a rich person an extra 1000$, they spend about 5-10% of it. If you give a poor person an extra 1000$, they spend 100% of it. Equality makes ethical and financial sense.
“Quantitative easing” isn’t a difficult concept to understand. It’s just made difficult because so many ideologically motivated economists like to pretend that the Fed actually had 4 trillion dollars in its coffers in one form or another with which to buy U.S. treasuries and troubled mortgage backed securities from banks. If it were to be openly admitted that the Fed actually took a financial shortcut in the form of money created “ex nihilo” the all important “full faith and credit” of the U.S. financial system might be shaken. Of course if individuals create money “ex nihilo” with the stroke of a pen or keyboard it’s called “kiting” or “papering”, which are considered crimes. Perhaps that association is why so many faithful are so reluctant to discuss the provenance of “quantitative easing’s” trillions other than to point out that they weren’t printed.
[quote]The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.
A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.
“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks. However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”. Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States and United Kingdom during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.[/quote]
Correction, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand, but apparently it very much is. I have no idea why so many people think the Fed is a regular bank. Quantitative easing is a mechanism only available to the Fed, because it’s not a regular bank. It can, and in fact it is part of it’s job to do balance sheet swaps. You can basically consider it an investment in the US economy. That’s it, it’s an investment, that gets paid back through increased economic activity as well as coupons on the purchases. Why do so few people understand what a central bank is? Didn’t they teach this stuff in school?
It ain’t the end of the world or the collapse of the American economy. It’s a mechanism for stimulating the economy, and in case you hadn’t noticed, it worked. It doesn’t always, so it should be used sparingly and only by countries that can actually benefit from it. Japan shouldn’t touch it, and Europe shouldn’t be going nearly to the extent they are. This is why Canada has held off. It would be a mistake for the Canadian economy. But in the case of the US, the most staggeringly rich nation on earth, give it up already. It’s a good investment.
People should be far more concerned with current Fed policy which is a mistake. QE was an investment, and a good one. What has happened since then is a mistake. Interest rates should already have been well on their way to being normalized. THAT’s the problem. QE worked. Why they didn’t end it sooner and go the other way is the error. You’re looking in the wrong direction.
So will rates be raised again tomorrow? If so, the Fed is doing their job, albeit too slowly. They should have started January 2015, but they waited until December to start. They should raise rates to 3% in the next few years, regardless of what it does to the stock market or whether it causes recession. 7 year bull market is third longest in history. It’s time already. Raise rates, once per quarter for 3 years.
If they don’t raise rates tomorrow, then I’ll join you in the Fuck the Fed sentiment.
lowest EVER? or at least since 2008 when the recession began? So we are paying $750 billion to achieve a rate of uninsured that existed before Obamacare in 2008… then, er, why did we need to spend the $750 billion… you see where I am going with this? What if the number of uninsured would have returned naturally to its pre-recession numbers once the economy started growing again so… er… and now we have a complicated new bureaucracy which (I assume you will try to tell me) will THIS time prove efficient, effective and responsible? And with all the tax implications and human resource unknowns, many would argue the U.S. economy would have recovered faster and grown stronger without all of these complications and then maybe the number of uninsured would have fallen even faster AND without $750 billion in government “investment” in health care.[/quote]
fred, we had this exact same discussion six months ago and I put up the numbers then
MikeN, July 22, 2015
[quote] The first one, from the Census, shows the uninsured rate at about 13.5% in 1987, rising gradually to 15.4% in 2008 as companies dropped coverage due to increasing cost and the rise of jobs without benefits (temporary, “permanent part-time” etc.). In the second graph, Gallup starts from 14.6% in 2009 (different polls); the number rose to a peak of 18% in 2013 due to the effects of the recession, then dropped as Obamacare kicked in, currently standing at 11.9%
[/quote]
The 15.4% was before the recession- the number of workers without health insurance had already risen for the reasons I gave last time.
So I don’t have to keep repeating it every time , maybe you could use what my cousins from Atlanta told me last fall was a “redneck iPad” i.e. write it on the back of your hand, .
[quote=“BrentGolf”]
It’s time already. Raise rates, once per quarter for 3 years.
If they don’t raise rates tomorrow, then I’ll join you in the Fuck the Fed sentiment.[/quote]
Nope, the last rate rise in December was ill-timed with Europe and Japan already slowing from very anaemic recoveries, China also slowing, and the US showing very low inflation and interest rates.
I’m with you, MikeN. Here’s hoping the Fed joins the herd and goes from ZIRP to NIRP and gold rises even further:
[quote]The currency wars are intensifying. Out of desperation, more central banks, including Japan, are running headlong into negative interest rate policy, or “NIRP.”
Negative interest rate policy by the world’s central banks is getting out of control. The latest cut was from the central bank of Sweden, the Riksbank. Interest rates in Sweden were already negative, but the Riksbank cut them even further, from minus 0.35% to minus 0.50%.
The Riksbank has joined the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan in this negative rate madness.
Central banks are engaged in a similar contest, but they may all end up as losers. They want inflation, but negative rates feed deflationary expectations. This causes consumers to hold onto cash in the expectation that goods will get even cheaper.
Stress is rising throughout the global financial market as investors start questioning the negative consequences of central bank policies.
Who knows what lies at the end of NIRP policy — or even if it’s reversible?
Thus far, the reaction from the financial markets is that NIRP is not good. Stock markets are spooked, and investors are piling into Treasury bonds and gold.[/quote]
I dispute that your 11.9% source is correct. Even so, 14.6% to 11.9% at a cost of $750 billion over five years does not seem like incredible management or financial wizardry to me. Well, maybe I am wrong about the wizardry part…
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“BrentGolf”]
It’s time already. Raise rates, once per quarter for 3 years.
If they don’t raise rates tomorrow, then I’ll join you in the Fuck the Fed sentiment.[/quote]
Nope, the last rate rise in December was ill-timed with Europe and Japan already slowing from very anaemic recoveries, China also slowing, and the US showing very low inflation and interest rates.[/quote]
We shouldn’t care any longer about whether a recession is coming or not, it’s time already. It’s been 7 years, that’s a good run, actually longer than most. Every possible target anybody could have had in 2009 for what we want in 2016 was reached and wildly surpassed. The extreme measures were a great investment in America and they worked.
But you can’t keep rates at zero indefinitely. Throughout history economies grow and they contract, and through it all we had interest rates. Why central banks around the world have forgotten this simple fact is beyond me. If they don’t raise rates now, they will miss their window and the damage will be much worse than a simple recession in the long run.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think they will raise rates, but that doesn’t change the fact that they should. The economy is not the stock market. Economic policy should not be made with an eye to the stock market. If they keep raising rates now, that will likely push the US into recession. After a year or two, it will recover in a healthier state than it is now and the US will once again take a giant leap past it’s developed world competitors.
But if they don’t, I cringe to think where we will be in 5-10 years time…
A lot of people are there already, which explains why a sharp-tongued huckster was able to roll over everything the Republican Party establishment was able to throw at him. People who apparently haven’t gotten the memo that their lives are back to normal and the economy is fine.
A lot of people are there already, which explains why a sharp-tongued huckster was able to roll over everything the Republican Party establishment was able to throw at him. People who apparently haven’t gotten the memo that their lives are back to normal and the economy is fine.[/quote]
“People” are dumb. Individuals are smart, but as a group people are dumb. Of course their lives are back to normal. Have you not seen the literal mountain of evidence that proves this? If it looks like a duck and walks like one, guess what?
The unemployment rate is at multi year lows, jobs growth has smashed a century of historical records, and household debt as a share of personal income is at levels we haven’t seen in ages. I could go on for days about the positive data points in the US compared to the rest of the world. How on earth haven’t people gotten the memo? I for one am looking forward to the next recession, which should be right around the corner. This latest expansion phase has been good, but it’s time to take a breather.
If an individual on their own sits down and looks at the data, they will rationally conclude that the US economy has done fantastically well in the last 7 years compared to the rest of the world. If a group of people talk about it, it’s all about fuck Obama, the Fed, and the US is collapsing like the Roman empire. 
Is that the same omniscient data that alerted everyone to the fact that the worst recession since the Great Depression was about to hit?
I like data too but when I talk to people who are contractors now with no benefits because the job they lost in the Great Recession never came back, or former professionals who are working two or three low wage jobs now to make ends meet, or people who have just given up ever finding a job again and no longer count in anybody’s data, or people living on savings earning zero interest then I’m reminded that sometimes blind faith in data can make people “stupid” too.
What is it about the household financial obligations chart that reminds me of those used to prove global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!)?