Monday, November 9, 2009
Unintended Consequences: Obamacare
Fewer insured, higher costs might be the result.
Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.
Here's why: A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
The higher premium level would cause others who are currently insured to drop coverage, pushing premiums even higher. The result would be a spiral of rising premiums and shrinking numbers of insured.
In an attempt to prevent this, the draft legislation provides penalties for individuals who choose not to buy insurance and for employers that do not offer health insurance. But the levels of these fines are generally too low to cause a rational individual to insure.
read the article
Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.
Here's why: A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
The higher premium level would cause others who are currently insured to drop coverage, pushing premiums even higher. The result would be a spiral of rising premiums and shrinking numbers of insured.
In an attempt to prevent this, the draft legislation provides penalties for individuals who choose not to buy insurance and for employers that do not offer health insurance. But the levels of these fines are generally too low to cause a rational individual to insure.
read the article
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Bill Bonner on the "New Economy"
First, we got word that the crisis was officially over. GDP grew last quarter. Thanks to all the Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Bankers, Cash for Houses, Cash for Trash, and cash for every other blessed thing under heaven, the number crunchers were able to report positive economic growth for the third quarter.
Let’s not get too excited. Stocks bounce. Bonds bounce. An economy bounces. Even dead economists bounce. And if we’re following the Japanese experience, with a long, slow on-again/off-again period of depression, we can expect some quarters of growth, followed by quarters of non-growth. It’s going to be a painful adjustment to the ‘new normal,’ whatever that is...
Unemployment is headed up. The U6 figure – a more accurate picture of how many people are out of work – is up to 17%. There are 1.5 million homeless children in the US now, including 300,000 in the state of California alone. One out of 10 Americans will not bite the hand of government – for it is the hand that gives him his food stamps.
Foreign direct investment has dropped 30%. International trade is down 10%.
Do you call this a recovery? We don’t.
As David Rosenberg puts it, the man on the street is perhaps “less enthused by the fact that a lower rate of inventory de-stocking is arithmetically underpinning GDP growth at this time.”
In other words, it’s ‘growth’ that only an economist could love…and then, only an economist who was an idiot.
source
Let’s not get too excited. Stocks bounce. Bonds bounce. An economy bounces. Even dead economists bounce. And if we’re following the Japanese experience, with a long, slow on-again/off-again period of depression, we can expect some quarters of growth, followed by quarters of non-growth. It’s going to be a painful adjustment to the ‘new normal,’ whatever that is...
Unemployment is headed up. The U6 figure – a more accurate picture of how many people are out of work – is up to 17%. There are 1.5 million homeless children in the US now, including 300,000 in the state of California alone. One out of 10 Americans will not bite the hand of government – for it is the hand that gives him his food stamps.
Foreign direct investment has dropped 30%. International trade is down 10%.
Do you call this a recovery? We don’t.
As David Rosenberg puts it, the man on the street is perhaps “less enthused by the fact that a lower rate of inventory de-stocking is arithmetically underpinning GDP growth at this time.”
In other words, it’s ‘growth’ that only an economist could love…and then, only an economist who was an idiot.
source
Peter Schiff on the Jobless Recovery
Today's release of the October jobs report showed the loss of another 190,000 jobs had pushed the official unemployment rate to 10.2%, only the second time since the Great Depression that unemployment was quoted in double digits (factoring in workers who had given up job hunting altogether or have settled for part-time work would push that rate to 17.5%). That didn't stop Wall Street pundits from trying to fashion a silk purse of this sow's ear. The 'green shoots' crowd focused on the slowing pace of job losses, the nascent economic 'recovery' (even if it is jobless), and the projected improvement in 2010. No mention was even made of the quality of what few jobs were being created...
By spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money, President Obama hopes to engineer a recovery and create jobs. However, he has only succeeded in digging America into an even deeper hole than the one he inherited from his predecessor. He believes that if we can simply push up spending to levels seen during the “good times,” then those favorable economic conditions will return. The reality, of course, was that those good years came with a heavy price-tag that we have barely begun to pay...
During the boom, we spent money we did not have to buy things we did not produce and could not afford. As a result, we are now deeply in debt and must sharply reduce our spending to replenish our savings. By focusing solely on consumer spending, the Administration is neglecting the capital investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and productive capacity.
To generate legitimate economic growth and meaningful jobs, we must reverse the trends that brought us down. Consumers may have led us into this recession, but they can't lead us out. The road to recovery is a one-way street, and it's paved with savings, capital investment, and production. It's not an easy road, but we must follow it to ensure our future prosperity.
As a first step, our politicians must stop pushing us backward. Rather than imposing more market-distorting regulations, we should repeal those most responsible for inefficient resource allocation. Rather than creating new moral hazards, we should withdraw guarantees for large financial institutions and irresponsible consumers. Rather than continuing the Greenspan policy of keeping interest rates too low, we should let them rise. Rather than trying to prop up asset prices, we should let them fall to market levels. Rather than increasing the burden of bureaucracy on the economy, we should look for ways to lighten the load. Rather than encouraging people to borrow and spend, we should reward those who save and produce.
source
By spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money, President Obama hopes to engineer a recovery and create jobs. However, he has only succeeded in digging America into an even deeper hole than the one he inherited from his predecessor. He believes that if we can simply push up spending to levels seen during the “good times,” then those favorable economic conditions will return. The reality, of course, was that those good years came with a heavy price-tag that we have barely begun to pay...
During the boom, we spent money we did not have to buy things we did not produce and could not afford. As a result, we are now deeply in debt and must sharply reduce our spending to replenish our savings. By focusing solely on consumer spending, the Administration is neglecting the capital investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and productive capacity.
To generate legitimate economic growth and meaningful jobs, we must reverse the trends that brought us down. Consumers may have led us into this recession, but they can't lead us out. The road to recovery is a one-way street, and it's paved with savings, capital investment, and production. It's not an easy road, but we must follow it to ensure our future prosperity.
As a first step, our politicians must stop pushing us backward. Rather than imposing more market-distorting regulations, we should repeal those most responsible for inefficient resource allocation. Rather than creating new moral hazards, we should withdraw guarantees for large financial institutions and irresponsible consumers. Rather than continuing the Greenspan policy of keeping interest rates too low, we should let them rise. Rather than trying to prop up asset prices, we should let them fall to market levels. Rather than increasing the burden of bureaucracy on the economy, we should look for ways to lighten the load. Rather than encouraging people to borrow and spend, we should reward those who save and produce.
source
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Fed Rate Cutting Cycles
The Fed's decision came just one week after the government reported that the economy grew in the third quarter, the first gain after a severe decline over the previous four quarters.
While it was widely assumed that the central bank would leave its federal funds rate in a range of 0% to 0.25%, economists and investors were eager to see how the Fed described the economy in its statement.
The Fed repeated language from earlier statements that economic conditions are "likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period."
The federal funds rate is a benchmark used to set the rates paid on a wide range of business and consumer loans, such as home equity lines and credit cards. It has been near zero since December 2008.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Paul's Audit the Fed Bill Gutted
Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.
The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.
“There’s nothing left, it’s been gutted,” he said in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”
source
The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.
“There’s nothing left, it’s been gutted,” he said in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”
source
A False Recovery
I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.
Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.
This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?
What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.
Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.
read the entire essay
Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.
This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?
What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.
Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.
read the entire essay
Sunday, November 1, 2009
source
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A Sham GDP for a Sham Economy
Americans rejoice! GDP grew by 3.5% in the third quarter and the recession is over.
It’s time to drink champagne, dance in the streets, and have a group hug with Nancy Pelosi and Ben Bernanke. But whatever you do, don’t ask yourself why the recession has ended. The answer might ruin the party.
The recession is over only because Washington decided it should be. With billions in fresh government spending, it was only a matter of time before GDP posted some growth.
It’s too bad all that government spending is borrowed money. Someday, we’ll actually have to pay off this year’s $1.4 trillion deficit.
Of course, all of the president’s Keynesian men will argue that everything is working to plan — the stimulus is stimulating. But it’s hard not to see today’s GDP bounce as a bit of a sham.
Just check out where the economy grew. Almost half — or 1.7% of the pickup in GDP growth came from “motor vehicle output.” That’s the summer’s $3 billion cash-for-clunkers program doing its thing. But at what cost?
Edmunds.com just released some compelling analysis on cash-for-clunkers. Apparently, it cost the U.S. taxpayer about $24,000 per vehicle sold. Edmunds gets that number by dividing the $3 billion by the 125,000 additional car sales generated by the program. The methodology makes sense to me, but click here and decide for yourself...
Consider another one of Washington’s smashing successes: the $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers. For the third quarter, “real residential fixed investment” — also known as “homebuilding” — jumped 23.4%. That boosted GDP by another 0.5%. Do you feel like hugging Harry Reid now?
But we’re not seeing the real cost of the homebuyer tax credit. This is very expensive stuff. The Calculated Risk blog figures the home-buyer credit costs the taxpayer $43,000 per incremental home sale. Goldman Sachs ran its own numbers, reckoning that each incremental home sale cost the taxpayer an astounding $80,000. Again, the methodology seems right to me, but decide for yourself.
read the entire essay
It’s time to drink champagne, dance in the streets, and have a group hug with Nancy Pelosi and Ben Bernanke. But whatever you do, don’t ask yourself why the recession has ended. The answer might ruin the party.
The recession is over only because Washington decided it should be. With billions in fresh government spending, it was only a matter of time before GDP posted some growth.
It’s too bad all that government spending is borrowed money. Someday, we’ll actually have to pay off this year’s $1.4 trillion deficit.
Of course, all of the president’s Keynesian men will argue that everything is working to plan — the stimulus is stimulating. But it’s hard not to see today’s GDP bounce as a bit of a sham.
Just check out where the economy grew. Almost half — or 1.7% of the pickup in GDP growth came from “motor vehicle output.” That’s the summer’s $3 billion cash-for-clunkers program doing its thing. But at what cost?
Edmunds.com just released some compelling analysis on cash-for-clunkers. Apparently, it cost the U.S. taxpayer about $24,000 per vehicle sold. Edmunds gets that number by dividing the $3 billion by the 125,000 additional car sales generated by the program. The methodology makes sense to me, but click here and decide for yourself...
Consider another one of Washington’s smashing successes: the $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers. For the third quarter, “real residential fixed investment” — also known as “homebuilding” — jumped 23.4%. That boosted GDP by another 0.5%. Do you feel like hugging Harry Reid now?
But we’re not seeing the real cost of the homebuyer tax credit. This is very expensive stuff. The Calculated Risk blog figures the home-buyer credit costs the taxpayer $43,000 per incremental home sale. Goldman Sachs ran its own numbers, reckoning that each incremental home sale cost the taxpayer an astounding $80,000. Again, the methodology seems right to me, but decide for yourself.
read the entire essay
sourceCash for Clunkers: $24,000 per Car
A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.
Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth...
The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales...
Emunds.com's projection indicates that, without Cash for Clunkers, October's sales increase would be even higher.
read the CNN article
Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth...
The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales...
Emunds.com's projection indicates that, without Cash for Clunkers, October's sales increase would be even higher.
read the CNN article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)