Group items tagged

Takers vs. Makers.  It all comes down to that ratio.  Incredibly, California is not at the top of high risk States!  New Mexico holds that honor. excerpt: Don't buy a house in a state where private sector workers are outnumbered by folks dependent on government. Thinking about buying a house? Or a municipal bond? Be careful where you put your capital. Don't put it in a state at high risk of a fiscal tailspin. Eleven states make our list of danger spots for investors. They can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers. The list includes California, New York, Illinois and Ohio, along with some smaller states like New Mexico and Hawaii. "Ranked on the taker/maker ratio, our 11 death spiral states range from New Mexico, with 1.53 takers for every maker, down to Ohio, with a 1-to-1 ratio. The taker count is the number of state and local government workers plus the number of people on Medicaid plus 1 for each $100,000 of unfunded pension liabilities. Sources: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and a study of state worker pensions done in 2009 by two academics, Joshua Rauh and Rovert Novy-Marx. Professor Rauh estimates that the shortage in pension funding is on average a third higher today. The second element in the death spiral list is a scorecard of state credit-worthiness done by Conning & Co., a money manager known for its measures of risk in insurance company portfolios. Conning's analysis focuses more on dollars than body counts. Its formula downgrades states for large debts, an uncompetitive business climate, weak home prices and bad trends in employment."

Exceellent repub of Mike Shedlock's wonderful article describing the 3 Schools of Economic Wizardry.  Includes a simplified but exacting view of the "why and how"  the Keynesian and Monetarist Wizardry Schools wreck havoc on the world.   ... Keynesian Voodoo Wizards ... Monetarist Voodoo Wizards ... Austrian Realists Remember the voodoo motto: "If it doesn't work, keep doing more of it, even if that is what got you in trouble in the first place!" ..... Excerpt: Once upon a time (today), in a land not so far away (USA), there lived a trio of economic wizards (economists), whose names shall remain anonymous (Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Ben Bernanke). A fourth wizard, Murry Rothbard, is no longer among the living but resides in the netherworld. The above wizards seldom agree with each other because they come from competing schools of wizardry. Three Schools of Economic Wizardry 1. Keynesian School of Fiscal Voodoo and Witchcraft 2. Monetarist School of Monetary Voodoo and Witchcraft 3. Austrian School of Sound Money, Sound Economic Principles and Common Sense. "Dark Arts" Wizardry The first two wizardry schools belong to a class of wizardry promoted to aspiring wizards as the "Dark Arts." Philosophical Beliefs Keynesian wizards believe governments can spend their way to economic health and although fiscal deficits may matter at some point in time, they never matter now, in practice. Monetarist wizards believe money will cure any and every problem if enough is dropped from helicopters and interest rates held low. Austrian wizards believe that economic problems are created by unsound money, haphazard loans, excessive debts, and government manipulations. Keynesian and Monetarist wizards believe in the voodoo principle "the problem is the solution if only you do more of it." The former relies primarily on fiscal voodoo; the latter relies primarily on monetary voodoo. Austrian wizards do not believe "the problem is the solution," no matter ho

Another one of those must read articles.  This time from -libertarian Wayne Allen Root.  Examining the facts and connecting the dots - big time. "Everywhere from FoxNews.0com to CNBC.com, I suddenly see commentators warning of pe0nding doom, economic collapse, and a new Great Depression. Weslcome to my club. Perhaps America's politicians and economists should have paid attention to an entrepreneur and small businessman that has been warning of economic collapse and a new Great Depression publicly for over two years.  More importantly, none of the current commentaries mention the "why's" of this slow motion economic collapse...beyond the obvious -- mountains of deficit and debt. None of them mention the dysfunctional structure of the current U.S. economy and the massive changes in the work ethic and mindset of the average American.  I am a successful small businessman and a patriot who loves America and always sees its greatness. I am also an optimistic, positive thinker who always sees the glass half full.  But not this time.  This time we are in such deep trouble, the only solution is a radical restructuring of the politicians, the economy, and the way we view personal responsibility versus government handouts. If those changes don't come then we are facing a long decline and the eventual end of America.  The economy is crumbling. The situation is turning more hopeless by the hour. The more government gets involved, the worse it gets. Coincidence? - This time the results are going to be dramatically worse than 1929. This time we are facing The Greatest Depression ever."

Incredibly elegant writing! excerpt: A broken link with the public, and a war in Afghanistan he neither embraces and sells to his party nor abandons-this is a time of puzzlement for President Obama. His fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008. But now he will campaign for his party's 2010 candidates from afar, holding fund raisers but not hitting the campaign trail in most of the contested races. Those mass rallies of Obama frenzy are surely of the past. The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The "progressives" want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We're not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed. Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government.

Henry Blodgett picks up Paul Volkers comments on inflation ".....The government would quietly but desperately love to inflate our way out of this mess--destroying the dollar so the real burden of our mountain of debt shrivels to a molehill.  This remedy, of course, would punish everyone who has saved up a nest egg or lives on a fixed-income, but they're likely to be considered an expendable minority...." There is also a link on this page to the Aron Task interview with Peter Schiff, "The stimulous bill will lead to unmitigated disaster." http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/peter-schiff-stimulus-bill-will-lead-to-unmitigated-disaster Peter compares Bush to Hoover and Obama to Roosevelt, predicting an unmitigated disaster; a depression with hyperinflation. He argues that the great depression was tempered by the fact that government spending and intervention was limited by the godl standard. Today, the Federal Reserve has no such limitation!

Much has been made of several states suing the federal government over the passage of ObamaCare. The argument is, essentially, that the new law violates the 10th Amendment and infringes on the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. In this article, I will argue that this approach by the states will probably fail (in and of itself) -- but that the suits brought by the states could play a role in a more comprehensive strategy to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Let's make one thing clear up front. The states are motivated to take legal action to stop the recently passed health care bill because of one primary factor: political pressure. Around 60% of the people in America are mad as hell about the passage of ObamaCare -- and any local or state elected official with a lick of sense knows it. There are some governors and state legislators who have figured out that ObamaCare may amount to the final nail in the coffins of their financially deceased states' treasuries. But few politicians worry about their states' debts; most agonize over being reelected. States have ceded power, with few complaints, to the federal government for highway funding, control of education, Medicare and Medicaid mandates, management of waterways, etc., etc., ad nauseam, for over fifty years. The states, acting alone in a constitutional challenge of the new health care legislation, will have some difficult hurdles to overcome: A) Article VI of the Constitution states in part: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. States can pass all the laws that they want "nullifying" ObamaCare. But they can't nullify the Constitution. Article VI is a huge obstruction for the states because, like it or not, ObamaCare is now the "law of the land." B) The "comme

Goldman Sachs reputation with its clients-who must have at least $10 million to open an account-has never been better. Among the general public, however, the perception is that Goldman is the toxic epicenter of everything wrong with Wall Street. The firm's 32,000 employees are seen as an army of Gordon Gekkos, greedy manipulators who pumped up the housing bubble, then bet opportunistically on its implosion as American International Group (AIG), its trading partner, buckled under massive debts. It is widely alleged-though unproven-that Goldman called on its close friends in government to arrange for an AIG bailout, effectively pocketing billions of taxpayer dollars. "Every game has a sucker," says William K. Black, a professor of law and economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City who was deputy director of the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp., "and in this case, the sucker was not so much AIG as it was the U.S. government and taxpayer." Heads Goldman wins, tails you lose, America.

Wow.  The hedge fund guys are now turning away from big government socialism and the forceful seizure and redistribution of wealth as the solution to all problems.  So why do these guys keep pouring millions of dollars into Obama's re-election?  Is it protection money?  Or influence peddling? excerpt: It's increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion that while Washington burns, President Obama is fiddling away by insisting that the only solution to the nation's problems -- whether unemployment, the debt ceiling or deficit reductions -- lies in redistribution of wealth. Perhaps the difference between President Obama and many Americans is that the president sees prosperity as a sign of "unfairness" that needs to be corrected by government via higher taxes and increased regulation. Perhaps a plan that led the way forward by expanding oppportunities rather than redistrbuting incomes and emphasizing growth and prosperity for all would be met with less political resistance.

Why are Markets still Falling? The Tsunami caused by Derivatives and Deleveraging The invisible elephant in the room causing continuous falls in global financial markets is the link to the privately traded Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and the financial uncertainty they have created whilst synchronised deleveraging takes place across the world. ... Credit default swaps are unregulated financial derivatives which act as debt insurance on risky assets like mortgages, corporate and government bonds. But unlike a normal insurance policy, financial institutions that sell credit default swaps are not required to have enough funds in reserve should those risky loans turn bad. Since the US Congress in 2000 declined to regulate these contracts as it does insurance, the companies that guarantee the assets are not required by law to keep enough capital on hand to pay them off in the event of a default.

Oh, man. Angela Merkel just hitched Germany's wagon to China's, which implictly means Russia's and the rest of BRICS too. Plus the European Commission, UK, France, Italy, and Luxembourg   Keep in mind that China will open its RMB trading centers in the major financial hubs in September and that the folks in Brussels are making noises about a European combined defense organization, independent of NATO anjd the U.S.   I want more information to be certain that there is more here than moves to create bargaining leverage with Washington, D.C.. but it might soon be time to buy a wheelbarrow to carry my walkabout spending money. Wow!

Why pay a liveable wage to American workers if you can get prison labor for less than market prices in Bangla Desh? The prison telephone racket has bothered me for many years. The FCC authorized no-limit telephone charges for prisoners and their families on the simplistic grounds of, "well, they prisoners who have reduced civil rights anyway. But it ignored that most prison phone calls are collect calls to families on the outside, who are not prisoners and still have their full civil rights. The for-profit prison industry is a prime example of not thinking things through before privatizing a formerly government function. Privatization creates a lobby for the industry, as Americans have learned all to well with the privatization of most Dept. of Defense work other than actual combat.   Already, for profit prison industries are showing up in state legislatures to demand longer prison sentences. They were the prime movers behind the "mandatory minimum sentence" movement, which has stuffed prisons to overflowing. 

Have the banksters finally accepted that trickle-down economics does not work, that only a money-drop on the lower classes can get the economy growing again?