Monday, January 5, 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Ten Easy Obamacare Fixes

Posted: 05 Jan 2015 04:00 PM PST

"Medicare for All" Problems

In the past few days I posted reader responses to Single-Payer "Medicare for All" Proposal; Live and Let Die; Why Does Single-Payer "Work" in Europe?

We heard from "Ken", a medical doctor in US Doctor Comments on Single-Payer "Medicare for All" Proposal.

We also heard comments from "David" a US Expatriate living in Europe, and "Peter" a Canadian Expatriate living in the US in my post US and Canadian Expatriates Comment on US Healthcare.

No Easy Solution? 

Peter from Canada says there are no easy solutions.

I disagree.  I believe there are plenty of solutions, some short-term, some long-term, all of them free-market based. Here are my eight proposals.

1. Freedom to Choose

In the fearmongering preceding the Obamacare vote, Republicans trumped up the notion of "death panels" and healthcare rationing, the "R" word.

The real issue is the "freedom to choose".

For example: I do not want to be kept alive if I am brain-dead or nearly so. Moreover, if my odds of survival are low and I am going to live the rest of my life in misery following some accident or cancer, then let me go. In return, I should pay far less for a policy that allows just that, given that an inordinate number of expenses occur in the last few months of someone's life.

The time to think about such issues is before problems happen, not after.

Others may disagree with my choices. And that is fine. But, those who want to be kept alive with extraordinary procedures, and those who have less than two years to live yet expect major treatment, should pay for that privilege.

Under Obamacare, healthy 20-year-olds pay excessively high rates, effectively subsidizing everyone else, whether that would be their actual choice or not.

One size does not fit all. Nor do arbitrary distinctions Gold, Silver, and Platinum.

The more services you demand, and the more circumstances in which you demand them, (Obamacare fails to address the latter), the more you should pay.

2. Non-Emergency Surgery

Most major operations can be performed 50-80% cheaper in India, Europe, or the Caribbean.

For example, heart surgery in the US that may cost $30,000 (or far more), can be had in India for as little as $8,000 (see my post on Medical Tourism).

Except in the case of emergencies, such surgeries ought to be performed in the most cost-effective place.

Want to demand healthcare treatment in the US? OK but you should pay for it with higher healthcare premiums.

3. Drug Costs

It's time to eliminate drug import restrictions. There is no reason the US should be subsidizing prescription costs for the rest of the world.

4. Published Rates for Services

When you go into a store to buy a coat, it has a price. When you go to a car dealer there is a list price that everyone bargains from.

In contrast, most US consumers do not see the price for healthcare services. Worse yet, those who are above their yearly payout cap as well as those on Medicare with extended coverage, do not even care.

While I do not propose the government pass laws that force doctors to publish rates, it would be easy enough for the insurance industry to demand doctors do just that so that people can shop around.

5. Network Doctors

People like their own personal doctor. So do I. Want a non-network doctor? Under the current setup, you pay more for a non-network doctor even if that doctor is better qualified and willing to provide a service at a lower published rate!

Surely there is room for improvement here, starting with published rates for services and the definition of "network" doctor.

6. Cost of Education

The cost of education in the US is prohibitive. Then, following graduation, many doctors who do not go into private practice suffer through prolonged internship with low pay.

By the time doctors start benefiting from their education, most are so overloaded with debt that they have to charge high prices to cover the cost of accumulated debts and interest.

I believe we are undersupplied with doctors (wait times seem to indicate just that). I also propose the AMA wants to keep it that way. In fact, the entire healthcare industry wants to keep it that way because it eliminates competition and keeps costs up.

More visas for foreign doctors, accreditation for US citizens educated in other countries, and elimination of student aid that does little but make debt slaves out of students would all help.

7. Non-Emergency Procedures

Why does it take an MD to stitch a small wound or put a band-aid on a cut? There are many procedures that nurses could do at far lower cost.

Yes, I realize we pay a doctor for diagnosis. Yet, I suspect many nurses would be at least as good as doctors on the diagnosis score, even if nurses cannot perform major surgery.

I am not sure where the line moves, but I am sure there is adequate scope for moving the line as to what nurses and other healthcare professionals can handle.

8. Medical Fraud

Medicare fraud is rampant. So is disability insurance. I have written about Disability Fraud at least a dozen times.

60 Minutes: Mainstream Media Finally Catches on to Disability Fraud: 60 Minutes Reports on "Disability USA"
Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes reports on the alarming state of the federal disability program, which has exploded in size in the last six years and could become the first federal benefits program to run out of money.

NPR: Unwilling to Work; 25% in Hale County AL Collect Disability, 14 Million Nationwide
How Easy is it to Get Disability?

Hale county's Dr. Timberlake asks a simple question to all his patients. "What grade did you finish?" If you claim "back pain" and do not have a degree, Timberlake believes you are disabled.

The Disability Deal

Getting disability seems easy enough in some states, and especially easy in Hale County Alabama. But is disability better than minimum wage? The answer is yes. NPR author Chana Joffe-Walt explains: ....
States Promote Fraud: States Have an Incentive to Promote (Not Stop) Disability Fraud; So How Much Fraud Is There?
This all goes back to 1996 when president Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it". He did indeed do just that, and fraud is the result.

Why?

The federal government pays disability, but states pay part of welfare costs. This creates a huge incentive for states to actively promote disability fraud (simply to get people off state-sponsored welfare programs).
Results of Clinton Ending Welfare "As We Know It"

  • Every month 14 million Americans receive a disability check.
  • In 1961 the leading cause of disability was heart disease and strokes, totaling 25.7% of cases. Back pain was 8.3% of cases.
  • In 2011 the leading cause of disability was a hard to disprove back pain, totaling 33.8% of cases. The second leading cause was an equally difficult to disprove "mental illness" at 19.2%. Strokes and heart disease fell to 10.6%.
  • In West Virginia, a whopping 9% of the population collects disability checks. In Arkansas, 8.2% are on disability, and in Alabama and Kentucky, 8.1% collect disability. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah, the figure is 2.9%.
  • In Hale County Alabama 1 in 4 receive disability checks.
  • Nearly every case in Hale County Alabama has Dr. Perry Timberlake in common.
  • Those on Supplemental Security Income, a program for children and adults who are both poor and disabled is nearly seven times larger than 30 years ago.
  • Once people go onto disability, they almost never go back to work. Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce.

Dr. Timberlake asks a simple question to all his patients. "What grade did you finish?" If you claim "back pain" and do not have a degree, Timberlake believes you are disabled.

Timberlake gets paid for his "analysis".

States are willing to go along thanks to Bill Clinton who "ended welfare as we know it", creating an even worse disability fraud scheme in the wake.

There has been no president since then willing to stop fraud at the Federal level.

9. FDA Federal Death Agency

I was at a Casey conference last September and Doug Casey commented the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) ought to be reclassified as the Federal Death Agency.

I do not recall his objections but here are a few things I have noted.

Someone 80% likely to die of Ebola cannot get treatments that have worked in practice because the tests did not go to trial. Shouldn't this decision really be up to the individual?

Instead of a common sense, free-market approach, senator John McCain, Czar Hater, Calls For Ebola Czar.

In the opposite extreme, very expensive drugs get approved that offer no benefit over existing drugs. Doctors are pressured, even bribed by the pharmaceutical companies to prescribe these drugs.

Third, many proven drugs are available in Europe that are not available in the US.

Finally, many extremely expensive drugs (my deceased wife Joanne was on one of them for a year), at best extend life for a few months. In my case, Medicare picked up the tab, but I strongly question the benefits. I am talking about Riluzole (Rilutek).

There seems to be lots of room for improvement in this problem actegory.

10. Be Your Own Healthcare Advocate

My tenth item cannot be legislated, but it is important. Everyone needs to be their own healthcare advocate.

I had my own experience that nearly lead to a $20,000 needless prostate cancer surgery that may have left me incontinent and impotent.

Here are a couple posts on needless surgeries. The second one concerns me specifically.

  1. Unnecessary Surgeries? You Bet! Doctors Treat Patients as ATMs; US Healthcare System Explained in Six Succinct Points

  2. I Beat Prostate Cancer; Mish the Guinea Pig

The best ways to prevent needless surgeries are to become your own healthcare advocate, start questioning things, and get second or third opinions.

11. Tort Reform

I mention tort reform not as one of my easy fixes, but rather because so many people raise the issue that I felt a need to comment on it.

Tort law is what allows someone to sue for damages. The biggest proponents of tort reform are industry groups that wants to bear little to no responsibility for unsafe products.
Remember Ford Motor Company's exploding Pinto gas tanks and Firestone Tire Company's exploding radial tires?  Have we forgotten the devastation wrought by unsafe drugs like Thalidomide and Vioxx and products like the Dalkon Shield?

Inquiring minds may also wish to consider Why Conservatives Should be Against Tort Reform.

In general, pharmaceutical and insurance companies are the biggest proponents of tort reform. Both stand to gain even more than doctors from shielding. 

While I sympathize with doctors regarding the high cost of malpractice insurance, government mandated caps are not the ideal solution. 

Easy to Fix

Those who claim health insurance is "hard" to fix are mistaken. The ten ideas mentioned above are easy enough to implement. Every one of them is a free-market solution that is also compatible with Obamacare!

The 10 items I mentioned are just the beginning. And all of them are compatible with socialized healthcare even though I am sure that is not optimal. Every one of them involves increased competition or more patient awareness.

Making healthcare both better and more affordable is easy. Finding the political will to cooperate in fixing the problems is what's hard.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Red Pill, Blue Pill, Cognitive Dissonance, Pavlov's Dogs

Posted: 05 Jan 2015 11:17 AM PST

I received an email a few weeks ago stating "Hussman has been so wrong I should stop quoting him."

Nonetheless here I go again, because I think Hussman has something important to say. Please consider a few admittedly lengthy snips from his post today Pills for Cognitive Dissonance in a Speculative Bubble.
Several years of persistent yield-seeking speculation provoked by zero-interest rate monetary policies have created a fertile ground for cognitive dissonance. On one hand, any observer with historical perspective knows not only that the overvaluation from this kind of speculation inevitably ends in tears, but also that the heavy issuance of new speculative and low-quality securities during the bubble finances and enables unproductive malinvestment that leaves the economy far worse off in the end. On the other hand, prices have been advancing.

It's difficult to entertain both of those facts at once. One must simultaneously hold in mind reckless yield-seeking speculation, hypervaluation that rivals the 1929 and 2000 equity market peaks (see Yes, This is an Equity Bubble), zero interest rates, low prospective long-term returns all around, and persistent malinvestment that poses increasing systemic risks for the entire global economy, plus one fact that encourages us to forget it all: prices have been going up. Cognitive dissonance tempts us to reconcile this tension by ignoring one part of the story or another.

[From Yes, This is an Equity Bubble]

One would think the Federal Reserve would have learned from that catastrophe. Instead, the Fed has spent the past several years intentionally trying to revive the precise dynamic that produced it. As a consequence, speculative yield-seeking has now driven the most historically reliable measures of equity valuation to more than double their pre-bubble norms. Meanwhile, as investors reach for yield in lower-quality but higher-yielding debt securities, leveraged loan volume (loans to already highly indebted borrowers) has reached record highs, with the majority of that debt as "covenant lite" issuance that lacks traditional protections in the event of default. Junk bond issuance is also at a record high. Moreover, all of this issuance is interconnected, as one of the primary uses of new debt issuance is to finance the purchase of equities.

At present, the most historically reliable valuation measures are more than 100% above pre-bubble historical norms. Investors who dismiss present market valuations by reflexively parroting the phrase "lower interest rates justify higher valuations" haven't thought carefully about the problem or done the math, and that math is just basic arithmetic.

Make no mistake – this is an equity bubble, and a highly advanced one. On the most historically reliable measures, it is easily beyond 1972 and 1987, beyond 1929 and 2007, and is now within about 15% of the 2000 extreme. The main difference between the current episode and that of 2000 is that the 2000 bubble was strikingly obvious in technology, whereas the present one is diffused across all sectors in a way that makes valuations for most stocks actually worse than in 2000.

[End Yes, This is an Equity Bubble - Back to Cognitive Dissonance]

Red Pill, Blue Pill

Probably the most interesting response to the cognitive dissonance provoked by the present yield-seeking mania comes from Hugh Hendry at Eclectica (h/t ZeroHedge) who quite clearly recognizes the repulsive long-term situation, but has embraced central-bank induced speculation out of the necessity of self-preservation as a money manager. I would actually agree with him here were it not for the fact that the behavior of market internals and credit spreads doesn't really recommend an outlook tied to the world of illusion. That may change, and if it does, it would admit a greater range of investment outlooks in the category of "constructive with a safety net." Hendry's own struggle with the cognitive dissonance of this period is evident:
"There are times when an investor has no choice but to behave as though he believes in things that don't necessarily exist. For us, that means being willing to be long risk assets in the full knowledge of two things: that those assets may have no qualitative support; and second, that this is all going to end painfully. The good news is that mankind clearly has the ability to suspend rational judgment long and often."

"Remember the film The Matrix? Morpheus offered Neo the choice of two pills – blue, to forget about the Matrix and continue to live in the world of illusion, or red, to live in the painful world of reality… I have long thought of myself as one of the enlightened. My much thumbed copy of Kindelberger's Manias, Panics and Crashes aided and abetted my thinking as I correctly anticipated and monetised profits from the crisis of 2008 for example. But it isn't always good. Kindelberger has been absolutely detrimental to my investment performance for the last six years and as a result I have changed. I still believe that the attempt by central bankers to prevent the private sector from deleveraging via a non-stop parade of asset price bubbles will end in tears. But I no longer think that anyone can say when."

"The economic truth of today no longer offers me much solace; I am taking the blue pills now. In the long run we will come to rue the central bank actions of today. But today there is no serious stimulus programme that our Disney markets will not consider to be successful. Markets can be no more long term than politics and we have no recourse but to put up with the environment that gives us; the modern market is effectively Keynesian with an Austrian tail."
Pater Tenebrarum offers a thoughtful (and respectful) counterpoint in Hugh Hendry and the "Blue Pill":
"It seems possible that there is a catch. If no-one can say when, then the 'blue pill' strategy has a major weakness. It means that things could just as easily go haywire next week as next year. It should be noted that the focus of Austrian business cycle theory is really on the boom, its chief causes and effects, and the fact that instead of increasing prosperity, it will lead to impoverishment in the long run. The major difference between someone simply taking the blue pill and an 'Austrian' investor in the current situation is probably that the latter attempts to incorporate all possible outcomes in his strategy, instead of trusting that central bank interventionism will continue to 'work' for investors.

"We believe that there is a grave danger associated with simply 'taking the blue pill.' First of all, in the context of 'risk assets,' having faith in central bank magic is most definitely not a contrarian position anymore – less so than at any other time in the past six years. Contrarian views have actually worked very well in treasury bonds and crude oil in 2014, so it would also be quite wrong to state that 'contrarianism no longer works' as a general proposition. The majority is of course always right during a strong trend. However, there inevitably comes a time when a trend has lasted long enough and gone far enough that the ranks of doubters have been thoroughly thinned out and the majority ceases to be correct.

"We perceive a 'greater tolerance for short term drawdowns' as quite dangerous in connection with risk assets at this juncture. In asset bubbles there are usually a number of short term breakdowns that are immediately followed by prices moving to new highs, a fact that greatly cements the confidence of market participants – usually to the point where it becomes fateful overconfidence. The main problem with this 'tolerant' approach is that one simply cannot differentiate a run-of-the-mill short term correction from a short term downturn that ends up heralding something far worse. Initially, all corrections look similar… The initial downturn is never seen as a cause for alarm. Sometimes this can however be followed by a decline so swift that having a tolerance for drawdowns can end up leaving one with very big losses in a very short time period.

"Such sudden reassessments of market valuation can rarely be tied to specific fundamental developments. Rather, anything that is reported is all of a sudden interpreted negatively and becomes a trigger for more selling, even though similar news would have been shrugged off a few days or weeks earlier. After all, nearly every economic news item can be interpreted in a number of different ways, so that even superficially good news can become a problem (in the current situation they could e.g. create fears of a faster tightening of monetary policy).

"We will readily admit that one cannot know with certainty whether the bubble in risk assets will become bigger. However, it seems to us that avoiding a big drawdown may actually be more important than gunning for whatever gains remain. One can of course endeavor to do both, but that inevitably limits short term returns due to the cost of insuring against a potential calamity."
My own view is that Hendry and Tenebrarum are both right – only that the appropriate pill is conditional on the state of investor preferences toward risk-seeking and risk-aversion – preferences that can be largely inferred from observable market action.
Pavlov's Dogs

My take on the switch by Hugh Hendry is along the lines of Pavlov's Dogs Classical Conditioning.

In his initial experiments, Pavlov rang a bell and then gave the dog food; after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate in response to the bell. Pavlov called the bell the conditioned stimulus because its effects depend on its association with food.

As related to the stock market, every time stocks dipped, bears thought "this was the one". Yet, every dip was nothing more than a bell-ringing buy opportunity, often times coupled with lovie-dovie statements by someone on the Fed.

Even minor dips were bell-ringers. Finally, at long last Hendry has been trained.

Right on Cue

And sure enough, right on cue today, San Francisco president Fed's Williams says Rate Hikes Should be Gradual Because Economy Still Needs Help.

Whether Williams is purposely attempting to smooth the stock market is subject to debate. What's not subject to debate is past reactions. Many stock market reversals over the past few years have come from similar Fed statements.

Today we don't see one, at least yet. Curiously the dollar and gold are both up. The Dow was down over 300 point but has recovered a bit.

As always, one day proves nothing. But that's the problem for those on the blue "buy the dip" pill isn't it?

One never knows when this is the dip that isn't bought. When the final dog has been trained, the pool of dip buyers is exhausted. Yet, investors (aka fully trained dip buyers), keep expecting reversals that don't come, deploying more and more cash all the way down.

Was Hugh Hendry the final dog?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Greek Polls Show Syriza on Cusp of Victory; Greek Political Party Analysis; Intentions Matter Not

Posted: 05 Jan 2015 12:34 AM PST

In spite of recent fearmongering by Germany and New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, polls still show Syriza (radical left) leader Alexis Tsipras in the lead for Greek Prime Minister.

Syriza's lead has generally been shrinking, but all of the polls have Syriza in the lead. Polls are pretty volatile. Leads swing from 3 to 10 points depending on polling organization.

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the Greek Election on January 25.

Party Results



click on chart for sharper image

I highlighted three polls by Rass and three by Palmos Analysis. The former all seem on the low sided in respective time groups and the latter on the high side. There is certainly a difference between a 3 point lead and a 10 point lead.

But the important factor is all the polls are in agreement. Unless and until that changes, the odds for Syriza are likely better than the polls indicate.

Seats



Note the huge disproportionate seat total for Syriza over New Democracy. Greek election law gives 50 seats to the party that receives the most votes in the general election. Small parties need to reach an electoral threshold of 3% in order to be represented in parliament.

Coalition Forming

It takes 151 votes to reach a majority.

If the smaller parties are bumped off it may be impossible for Syriza to form a coalition government should it fall short of a 151 seat majority.

In an effort to prevent Syriza from gaining enough seats (or perhaps out of political arrogance), former Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, revealed plans on January 2 for a new political party, the Movement of Democratic Socialists.

This purportedly will take leftist votes from Syriza. But it may also ring the death bell Papandreou's former party Pasok, currently only polling 2.2-4.3% in the four most recent polls.

Greek Political Parties

Syriza: Coalition of the Radical Left: a left-wing political party in Greece, originally founded as a coalition of left-wing and radical left parties. The coalition originally comprised a broad array of groups (thirteen in total) and independent politicians, including democratic socialists, left-wing populist and green left groups, as well as Maoist, Trotskyist, eurocommunist but also eurosceptic components.

Anel: Independent Greeks: Greek rightist anti-austerity political party

ND: New Democracy: The party's ideology was defined as "radical liberalism," a term defined by New Democracy as "the prevalence of free market rules with the decisive intervention of the state in favour of social justice."

Pasok: Panhellenic Socialist Movement: A democratic socialist party founded by Andreas Papandreou in September 1974. In 1981, Pasok became Greece's first left-of-centre party to win a majority in the Hellenic Parliament.

XA: Golden Dawn: Scholars and media have described Golden Dawn as neo-Nazi and fascist though the group rejects these labels. Members have expressed admiration of the former Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas of the 4th of August Regime (1936–1941). They have also made use of Nazi symbolism, and have praised figures of Nazi Germany in the past. According to academic sources, the group is racist and xenophobic. The party's leader has openly identified it as nationalist and racist.

Dimar: Democratic Left: a social-democratic political party in Greece that splintered when various leaders left or were kicked out of the party for failing to vote for austerity measures.

KKE: Communist Party of Greece: A Marxist-Leninist political party in Greece. It was Founded on 17 November 1918 as the Socialist Labour Party of Greece. It is the oldest party in the Greek political scene.

Potami: The River: The party was launched on 11 March 2014, by TV presenter Stavros Theodorakis. The party has been described by the media as pro-European, inspired by social democracy and liberalism and relying heavily on Theodorakis' personal popularity to attract voters.

Kinima: Movement of Democratic Socialists: A new centre-left political party announced on 2 January 2015 by George Papandreou, current President of the Socialist International, outgoing Member of the Hellenic Parliament and former Prime Minister of Greece. Pasok officials immediately denounced Papandreou's move as an "unethical and irrational political act" which they said to be aimed at fracturing Pasok and motivated by personal ambition rather than any "real" political disagreement.

Coalition Possibilities

One might think Syriza could easily find coalition partners among all those socialist possibilities, but that's not the case.

Syriza wants to restructure the bailout and end the austerity. Interestingly, that was the position of various opposition parties until they formed a government. Once in power, they all started dancing to the tune of the Troika polka.

Golden Dawn is a genuine anti-euro possibility but a radical left and radical right group will not work out so well as partners.

Could such a weird coalition form if only for a brief while for Greece to make demands on Germany? I don't know the answer to that, but politics does make strange bedfellows as we have seen with the US handling of ISIS.

More Elections?

Suppose New Democracy wins by a very tiny margin with 85 seats outright and say another 50 simply for getting the most votes.

Could Samaras pull together 15 more votes to form a coalition? If so, how fragile will it be? The same question applies to Syriza. What kind of deals will it take to form a coalition if Syriza is a few votes short?

If no one can form a coalition, or a coalition quickly breaks apart, more elections will be needed to decide. That's a distinct possibility with this motley group.

If you were looking for a reason over 70% of Greeks want to stay with the euro, take a look at the political parties who have been looting the country.

Still, what cannot be paid back, won't.

Intentions Matter Not

I seldom find myself in agreement with anything socialists say, but Alexis Tsipras has it nailed when he says "on a realistic basis Greece requires a remission of debt because the debt objectively cannot be paid." (Translated from Libre Mercado: Tsipras Syriza insists on "a remission of most of the debt")

I also seldom agree with Eurointelligence and Financial Times writer Wolfgang Münchau.

Today I do. Here are a few paragraphs from his recent column Political extremists may be the eurozone's saviours that I endorse 100%.
The official EU policy towards Greece is best described as debt forbearance — of recognising a debt problem, and delaying the inevitable. It is also the policy of Antonis Samaras, the Greek prime minister, and his coalition government. It is a version of extend-and-pretend: extend the loans, and pretend that you are solvent. The history of international debt crises tells us that these strategies are always tried, and always fail.

Unfortunately, the only party that makes a convincing case for a debt restructuring is Syriza, a party of the radical left. While Syriza is right about debt restructuring, it is also disingenuous by ruling out a eurozone exit. If you advocate debt restructuring, you would need to answer the question of what you would do if the negotiations fail. The choices then would be either to revert to the status quo — in which case there would be no point in voting for Syriza — or leave the eurozone, and unilaterally default against foreign creditors. But this is precisely what Syriza has ruled out. Syriza has the right instincts, but may not have the right policies.

Such lack of consistency matters because Angela Merkel in particular appears willing to call Syriza's bluff. Der Spiegel reported over the weekend that the German chancellor is willing to risk a Greek exit if its next prime minister were to abandon the current policies. In other words: the only way for Greece to restructure its debt would be to leave the eurozone.

My preferred indicator for the continuing eurozone depression is not the rate of unemployment, but the rate of employment. The former does not capture the large number of disheartened people who have simply dropped out of the labour market altogether. The Spanish employment rate fell from 66 per cent of the employment-age population to 56 per cent between 2007 and 2014. In Greece that number is below 50 per cent. With existing policies, Spain and Greece have no chance of reverting to normal levels of economic activity within a generation.

Debt is what holds back Greek and Spanish growth. The Spanish private sector needs a debt restructuring as badly as the Greek public sector. As in Greece, only a political party of the hard left — Podemos — offers a policy of debt restructuring. In both countries, there is now a sufficiently strong body of public opinion to realise that without a debt restructuring there can be no recovery in output and employment. This is why radical parties are succeeding.

If something is unsustainable, it will end — or so the saying goes. Based on present policies, the eurozone is unsustainable, at least with its current borders. I see no way out for Greece without a debt restructuring. And I don't see a debt restructuring inside the eurozone.
I fail to understand how this setup of political extremists "saves the eurozone" as the headline implies, nor did Münchau explain.

However, I am in tune with his general message as well as his prediction "The probability of at least one political upset in 2015 is very high indeed"

For further discussion and analysis, please see Competing Views: Grexit Would Be "Lehman Squared" vs. No Problem; Where to Point the Finger When it Blows.

Where to Point the Finger When it Blows

The pot is simmering and is likely to boil over at any time. When it does boil over, Greece will not really be to blame, even if Alexis Tsipras wins the election and carries out his threats.

Rather, be prepared to point the finger at the EU, ECB, and IMF for their collective insistence that Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. repay debt that cannot and will not be paid back.

By the way, there is a small chance Tsipras wins the election and Greece exits the eurozone with limited initial fallout. If so, the major problem will come when Spain or Italy does the same thing.

With that, it appears Münchau and I are singing the same tune.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More ..

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


US and Canadian Expatriates Comment on US Healthcare

Posted: 04 Jan 2015 06:46 PM PST

I have a couple more emails from readers in response to Single-Payer "Medicare for All" Proposal; Live and Let Die; Why Does Single-Payer "Work" in Europe?

Comments From a US Expatriate

Reader David a US citizen living in Europe writes ...
Hi Mish,

I am a native born US citizen who has worked mainly outside of the USA since 2003. In 2012 I liquidated everything in the USA and moved to Europe for the foreseeable future.

In Europe the rules are different for every nation depending on whether you are working for a company, self employed, or a "person of means". France and Luxembourg have single-payer universal coverage. In Hungary and Spain, you don't need health insurance if you can prove you can pay your medical expenses (person of means). Switzerland mandates that all people must have some form of health insurance (private). Ireland has a couple of levels:  public, private, etc. Germany allows you to take the state system or take a private system. 

In most "Single Payer" systems that I have seen, the patient pays the bill and the bill is reimbursed at 80% (or whatever) via a SEPA transfer to their account. For those "of means" with no insurance, the person simply pays the bill.

Using Luxembourg as an example, if you go to a doctor and the bill is 50 euros for the visit, You pay the doctor the 50 euros and he hands you a receipt that you submit for reimbursement. The government wires you 80% of the bill within 2 weeks.

Note that the patient sees the bill, and pays the bill at the time of treatment and is typically reimbursed later.

David
Views From a Canadian Expatriate

Reader Peter, a  now living in the US writes ...
Hello Mish

I have a few observations about single-payer healthcare. First, here are a few tidbits about me so you know where I get my perspective:

  • I grew up in Canada and lived in Canada for 29 years before moving to the US in 1994, so I have personal experience with both systems.
  • My family still resides in Canada and I was involved with my Father's experiences with the Canadian system before he passed in 2013.
  • I worked for a Blue Cross payer from 2008 to 2012.

First, Obamacare is 10,500+ pages of legislation, whereas the Canada Health Act is 18 pages.

Second, in spite of the massive number of pages of legislation, Obamacare failed to tackle many underlying problems in the US system:

  • Tort Reform. An Ob/Gyn is probably paying $50K or even $100K per year for liability insurance. That cost of doing business is transferred down to the consumer. Assuming $100K, 200 working days, and 25 patients per day (likely high!), the consumer is effectively paying $20 of the fee just for the physician's liability insurance.
  • Pharmaceutical Pricing. Many "wonder drugs" are being created and then slammed onto US consumers, along with high prices. These drugs typically go through a efficacy and pricing review before being introduced into single-payer systems. The US consumer tends to pay for the brunt of the R&D costs of these "wonder drugs".
  • Rationing - The "R" Word. In Canada and other single-payer systems, you queue up for an elective procedure. Period. You can go elsewhere and pay for it yourself if you have the money. Otherwise, expect to get in line for that elective MRI, surgery, or other procedure. The British Columbia Ministry of Health even has a website showing Surgical Wait Times.
  • Revenue Ask any US citizen if they're willing to pay 10-20% more in Federal taxes for a single-payer system. The response is always "the rich will pay". The math doesn't work because there simply aren't enough rich people out there.

People in single-payer systems have grown accustomed to the concept of waiting. In the US, who is willing to wait months? No US politician is willing to tackle the problem of the dirty "R" word.

Third, the single-payer systems in Canada and various European countries are showing their cracks too.

  • Revenue. Revenue streams are limited due to existing, high taxes.
  • Aging Populations Living Longer. In the US system and single-payer systems, a disproportionate amount of money is spent on keeping the aging living longer.
  • Limited Access to Care. My Mother experiences this now in Canada. Several types of physicians have been capped on the number of patients they can see per day. One needs to go early if they hope to see a physician at a walk-in clinic.
  • Death Panels. The UK's National Health System has started to implement some controls (some call them "Death Panels"), in that if you're terminally ill and only have a few months to live, the system is not going to pay for significant interventions and instead will try to just keep you comfortable until you pass.

I thought about this with my Father during his last two years of life after a significant fall, and I periodically wondered about the total cost and his marginal quality of life. There is no easy solution.

The US system will break down once the politicians are no longer able to print money to support it. Guys like Gruber are just there to make money off the system - they are not providing a long-term vision.

There is no easy solution.

Peter
No Easy Solution?

Actually there are plenty of solutions, some short-term, some long-term, all of them free market based.

Making healthcare both better and more affordable is easy. Finding the political will to cooperate in fixing the problems is what's hard.

I will propose eight healthcare reform ideas in a third post shortly. Even though they are free-market solutions, they are not at all incompatible with Obamacare.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

US Doctor Comments on Single-Payer "Medicare for All" Proposal

Posted: 04 Jan 2015 02:01 AM PST

I received many interesting comments from readers on Single-Payer "Medicare for All" Proposal; Live and Let Die; Why Does Single-Payer "Work" in Europe?

This email is from a US M.D. named Ken. Ken writes ...
I agree with everything you wrote, but you omitted a discussion of the variation of demand in relation to the cost. It is approximately correct to state that when the perceived cost to the user approaches zero, the demand for services approaches infinity. This is the crucial flaw in all "government-funded" single-provider programs. The demand for "free" services is impossibly huge.

I have read extensively in the research literature on the details of the health care systems in most developed countries. To make a long story short, what goes on in most government-run single payer programs is that you are promised you may receive all conceivable medical care without limit, and then care is denied to you by a variety of rationing systems.

In England the General Practitioners are charged with broad authority to deny and ration care. Canada has a system in which care is rationed via a hard limit on the annual budget, which is funded by the provincial government. The fiscal year starts in July, and what happens is that clinics which provide elective services (e.g. hip replacement) exhaust their budget by the early spring, and so the clinics close for several months in the late spring and reopen in July after their next annual funding allotment is received. During the intervening months the bereft Canadians have to go to the U.S. for treatment paid out of their own pocket if they cannot wait. This is an amusing variant of "Rationing by Queue" which is a prevalent device in all such government programs in the developed nations.

The entire approach in all socialized medicine countries can be summarized as "Promise everyone everything, and then deny them when when they request delivery." This of course is the time-honored modus operandi of the welfare state.

Thank you for your courageous leadership in tackling a number of crucial issues in your blog. Your clear thinking and number-crunching acumen are in short supply. Please stay safe.

Regards,
Ken
Ken is correct about unlimited demand for free services. I have talked about that issue before, just not in my recent post.

There is not one thing in Obamacare that increases competition or reduces overall costs. Obamacare did not even lift the ban on drug imports so US taxpayers effectively subsidize the entire rest of the world.

The government sets some prices but price setting and competition are certainly not the same thing. When prices are too low, shortages occur (or doctors drop out of the system), and the latter has happened. And nothing has been done about needless or repetitive tests.

A number of previously uninsured persons are now insured, but this comes at the expense of making many others pay far more. Those who pay less are happy, those who pay more aren't.

Obamacare is over 10,000 pages of legislation but did not fix a single problem with the "system". It  did create a new set of winners and losers. "Medicare for All" with unlimited free services would be veritable disaster.

I have a couple more emails to share, one from Europe and one from Canada.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More ..

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Competing Views: Grexit Would Be "Lehman Squared" vs. No Problem; Where to Point the Finger When it Blows

Posted: 03 Jan 2015 02:35 PM PST

There's an amusing pair of headlines back-to-back today on what a Greek exit from the Eurozone might mean.

 One view is catastrophic, the others is along the lines of no problem. Let's start with the catastrophe.

Economic historian Barry Eichengreen says Greek Euro Exit Would be 'Lehman Brothers Squared.
A decision by a new Greek government to leave the eurozone would set off devastating turmoil in financial markets even worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, a leading international economist warned Saturday.

A Greek exit would likely spark runs on Greek banks and the country's stock market and end with the imposition of severe capital controls, said , an economic historian at the University of California at Berkeley. He spoke as part of a panel discussion on the euro crisis at the American Economic Association's annual meeting.

The exit would also spill into other countries as investors speculate about which might be next to leave the currency union, he said.

"In the short run, it would be Lehman Brothers squared," Eichengreen warned.

Martin Feldstein [professor of economics at Harvard University], a longtime critic of the euro project, said all the attempts to return Europe to healthy growth have failed.

"I think there may be no way to end to euro crisis," Feldstein said.

The options being discussed to stem the crisis, including launch of full scale quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, "are in my judgment not likely to be any more successful," Feldstein said.

The best way to ensure the euro's survival would be for each individual eurozone member state to enact its own tax policies to spur demand, including cutting the value-added tax for the next five years to increase consumer spending, Feldstein said.

He predicted that European politicians would "swallow hard once again" and make the compromises necessary to keep Greece in the currency union.

"While holding the eurozone together will be costly and difficult and painful for the politicians, breaking it up will be even more costly and more difficult," he said.
Limited Contagion Thesis

Yahoo!Finance reports Germany Believes Eurozone Could Cope with Greece Exit.
The German government believes that the euro zone would now be able to cope with a Greece exit if that proved to be necessary, Der Spiegel news magazine reported on Saturday, citing unnamed government sources.

Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble believe the euro zone has implemented enough reforms since the height of the regional crisis in 2012 to make a potential Greece exit manageable, Der Spiegel reported.

"The danger of contagion is limited because Portugal and Ireland are considered rehabilitated," the weekly news magazine quoted one government source saying.

In addition, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the euro zone's bailout fund, is an "effective" rescue mechanism and was now available, another source added. Major banks would be protected by the banking union.

According to the report, the German government considers a Greece exit almost unavoidable if the leftwing Syriza opposition party led by Alexis Tsipras wins an election set for Jan. 25.
Competing Views on Funding Needs

Before taking a side in the above debate, let's take a look at competing views on Greek funding needs. Please consider a snip from SYRIZA Makes Fresh Pledge to Defend Greek Capitalism.
Analysts at Bank of America Merill Lynch, "think Tsipras will face a budget black hole of at least 28 billion euros in the first two years of his government, with nowhere to borrow from and 17 billion euros of repayments to make in the first year."
In contrast, the Wall Street Journal reports Greece Expects Primary Budget Surplus for 2015.
Greece's 2015 budget, submitted by the government to parliament on Friday, aims to meet the fiscal demands of the country's creditors but comes without the prior approval of its troika of international inspectors.

According to the budget, Greece will achieve a primary budget surplus—before taking into account debt payments—of €3.3 billion ($4.1 billion), equal to 3% of gross domestic product, next year, which is in line with the country's bailout program.

Overall, the government will record only a minor budget deficit of €338 million—equivalent to just 0.2% of gross domestic product—next year, in effect marking the first balanced budget Greece has produced in four decades.

Despite surpassing its budget targets for three years running, Greece is at loggerheads with the troika—made up of representatives from the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank—over further fiscal measures the country must take, as well as a number of promised overhauls.
Primary Account Surplus or Not?

Does Greece have a €28 billion black hole or a surplus?

Both can technically be true. The €28 black hole counts interest on debt including the €245 bailout package. The primary surplus theory ignores interest on the debt.

If the Troika suspends the bailout, then Greece will have no choice but to default. Of course, that points to the absurdity of the alleged bailout setup in the first place.

Even if the interest rate on the bailout was 0%, at €3 surplus every year, it would take Greece 81 years to pay back that debt!

Economic Reality

There is no realistic way Greece can ever pay back €245 billion, so it won't.

With that thought, let's return to the first question. Would a Greece exit be "Lehman Squared" or would it have little effect?

Actually, no matter what happens with Greece, the entire eurozone setup is unstable. Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal all are in impossible payback setups. Even if Syriza loses the next election, sooner or later Greece, Spain, Italy, or possibly even France will exit the eurozone.

The "limited contagion" view is complete nonsense. The eurozone debt problem is going to explode, and whether or not it becomes "Lehman Squared" depends on the response.

My view is the longer the ECB and EU attempt to hold this mess together with no debt writedowns, the bigger the catastrophe.

Greece will not cause a catastrophe, but the EU/ECB handling of a Greece exit is highly likely to do just that.

Eventually, Will Come a Time

As I said in my November 23, 2011 post Eventually, Will Come a Time When ....
Eventually, there will come a time when a populist office-seeker will stand before the voters, hold up a copy of the EU treaty and (correctly) declare all the "bail out" debt foisted on their country to be null and void. That person will be elected.

Le Pen may be too early, and France may not be that country, but the time will come.

Greece, Finland, Germany, Belgium, and even France are possibilities. All it will take, is for one charismatic person, timing social mood correctly, to say precisely one right thing at exactly the right time. It will happen.
Possibilities

  • Greece: Alexis Tsipras - Syriza (Radical Left)
  • France: Marine Le Pen - Front National (Radical Right)
  • Italy: Beppe Grillo - M5S Five Star Movement (Radical Left)
  • Spain: Pablo Iglesias Turrión - Podemos (Radical Left) 

Where to Point the Finger When it Blows

The pot is simmering and is likely to boil over at any time. When it does boil over, Greece will not really be to blame, even if Alexis Tsipras wins the election and carries out his threats.

Rather, be prepared to point the finger at the EU, ECB, and IMF for their collective insistence that Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. repay debt that cannot and will not be paid back.

By the way, there is a small chance Tsipras wins the election and Greece exits the eurozone with limited initial fallout. If so, the major problem will come when Spain or Italy does the same thing.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More ..

Friday, January 2, 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Income Inequality Author Turns Down Prestigious Award; Can you Solve a Problem When You Don't Know the Cause?

Posted: 02 Jan 2015 11:52 AM PST

French economist Thomas Piketty, author of the surprise best-selling Capital in the 21st Century turned down France's top award, the Legion D'Honneur.

"I do not think it is the government's role to decide who is honourable", said Piketty.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman called it "the most important economics book of the year - and maybe of the decade".

Krugman likely says that because he believes in Piketty's socialist solutions to income inequality.

Thomas Piketty's Capital Review

Piketty's book is a massive 696-page slog. Fortunately, Harvard Business Review offers this synopsis: Piketty's "Capital," in a Lot Less than 696 Pages.
The argument. Capital (which by Piketty's definition is pretty much the same thing as wealth) has tended over time to grow faster than the overall economy. Income from capital is invariably much less evenly distributed than labor income. Together these amount to a powerful force for increasing inequality.

The method. Piketty does not offer his own theory of what drives economic growth, or what the optimal ratio of capital to labor income might be. In fact, a recurring theme of his book is that the theory-first approach of modern economics is a dead-end.

The evidence. The richest source of data for the book is France, thanks to the country's long tradition of excellent record-keeping and an estate tax that was enacted a couple of years after the 1789 Revolution. What the French numbers show is that the ratio of capital to income remained steady at about seven-to-one for centuries, plummeted around the start of World War I, and began recovering after World War II.

Piketty argues that the U.S. should consider a return to a "confiscatory" (his word) 80% top marginal tax rate even though it wouldn't bring in much money (he basically agrees with Arthur Laffer on that), well, that provokes some thoughts, doesn't it?
Everything You Need to Know

The Guardian offers an Everything You Need to Know synopsis of the surprise bestseller. I piece together some paragraphs out of order below to make rebuttals easier.
That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth. So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, "dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin", says Piketty. Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable. The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

If he is right, the implications for capitalism are utterly negative: we face a low-growth capitalism, combined with high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. If you are not born into wealth to start with, life, for even for the best educated, will be like Jane Eyre without Mr Rochester.
Mish Comment: Already his thesis is suspect. One need only look at the developers of Google, Microsoft, and countless other extremely successful individuals who became the world's wealthiest by their actions, not their inheritance. Piketty attempts to explain this away later, but for now let's continue with the Guardian.
To understand why the mainstream finds this proposition so annoying, you have to understand that "distribution" – the polite name for inequality – was thought to be a closed subject. Simon Kuznets, the Belarussian émigré who became a major figure in American economics, used the available data to show that, while societies become more unequal in the first stages of industrialisation, inequality subsides as they achieve maturity. This "Kuznets Curve" had been accepted by most parts of the economics profession until Piketty and his collaborators produced the evidence that it is false.

In fact, the curve goes in exactly the opposite direction: capitalism started out unequal, flattened inequality for much of the 20th century, but is now headed back towards Dickensian levels of inequality worldwide.

One of the most compelling chapters is Piketty's discussion of the near-universal rise of what he calls the "social state". The relentless growth in the proportion of national income consumed by the state, spent on universal services, pensions and benefits, he argues, is an irreversible feature of modern capitalism. He notes that redistribution has become a question of "rights to" things – healthcare and pensions – rather than simply a problem of taxation rates. His solution is a specific, progressive tax on private wealth: an exceptional tax on capital, possibly combined with the overt use of inflation.
Piketty's Solution

  • Global Wealth Tax
  • 15% tax on capital
  • 80% tax on incomes above $500,000

Piketty in Three Minutes

Here is a very interesting video that offers still more perspectives.



link if video does not play: Piketty in Three Minutes

Can you Solve a Problem When You Don't Know the Cause?

France is in a horrific state because of excessive taxation and government interference in the free markets, yet Piketty asks for more of the above.

Ironically, Piketty wants an 80% confiscatory tax rate even though he agrees with Laffer it would not bring in much money. How stupid is that?

Confusing Symptoms of Problems with Problems

Piketty proposes solutions to economic problems even though he does not know what drives economic growth. He also confuses symptoms of problems with the problem.

Rising income inequality is a symptom of government interference in the free markets, of increasing government percentage of GDP growth, and of inane central bank inflation policies.

It's no wonder that Krugman, also a socialist, calls Piketty's work the best of the decade.

I have a simple question: If confiscatory taxes, big government, and "save the local bookstore mentality" solved problems, why isn't France the economic shining light of the world?

Law of Bad Ideas

My question is simple isn't it?

Yet economists would rather deal with mathematical nonsense than answer simple questions. And in another irony, Pikkety says "theory-first approach of modern economics is a dead-end" while proposing his own inane theories about how to fix problems!

For further discussion, please see ...

August 26, 2013: Income Inequality Explained: Why Wages Don't, Won't, and Can't Keep Up With Productivity

March 13, 2014: Democrat Sponsored "Income Inequality"; Law of Bad Ideas, Yet Again

October 17, 2014: Irony of the Day: Yellen Moans About Income Inequality; Seven Things That Cause Inequality

Will Piketty or Krugman address my rebuttal? Of course not. It does not meet their socialist agenda.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More ..

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


How Much Did Your Rent Go Up in 2014? What's Your Expectation for 2015?

Posted: 01 Jan 2015 09:41 PM PST

If you are a renter, how much did your rent go up this past year? What's your expectation for 2015?

Let's explore those questions starting with a chart on rent from the MarketWatch article Here's What Americans Spent on Rent this Year.

Cumulative Rent Growth



In isolation, the chart is misleading because it included growth in rent collected which varies by population increases. It does not reflect percentage increases in base rent.

Both MarketWatch and Zillow explain it that way, but one has to read carefully to pick that up.

Zillow says U.S. Renters Paid $441 Billion in Rent in 2014, Up Nearly $21 Billion Since 2013
Americans shelled out $20.6 billion more in rent in 2014 compared to 2013. Cumulatively, U.S. renters paid $441 billion in rent in 2014 compared to $420 billion last year, an increase of nearly five percent (4.9 percent), as both the number of renting households and the average rent rose nationally, according to a Zillow rentals analysisi.

Locally, the Bay Area, consisting of the San Jose and San Francisco metros, saw the largest jump in cumulative rent paid in 2014, up 14.4 and 13.5 percent respectively. Rent per household in the San Jose, Calif. metro rose by $197 per month, while rent in the San Francisco metro rose by $163 per month.
What Percentage Did Rents Really Go Up?

That looks like a shocking stat for San Jose and San Francisco. If one inaccurately places all of the increase on rising rent, the hike would be a whopping $2,364 per year!

However, Zillo explains "Nationally, the total number of renters is estimated to have grown 1.9 percent in 2014ii. Over the same time period, the median rent paid increased 2.9 percent."

Fair enough, but also consider this Zillow statement: "Over the past fourteen years, rents have grown at twice the pace of income due to weak income growth, burgeoning rental demand, and insufficient growth in the supply of rental housing."

Does income growth also factor in the rise in population? If not, it's a very invalid comparison.

Regardless, inquiring minds are probably interested in this question: In percentage terms, how much did rental prices really increase in San Jose, San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago?

Zillow did not even say.

Instead Zillow Chief Economist Stan Humphries explains "Next year, we expect rents to rise even faster than home values, meaning that another increase in total rent paid similar to that seen this year isn't out of the question. In fact, it's probable."

Fred to the Rescue

The St. Louis Fed also keeps tracks of rent, albeit in the form of "Owners' Equivalent Rent".

There are four pages to scroll through. Instead of posting the raw index for each chart, I displayed percent change from a year ago in each of the following charts.

CPI Rent of Primary Residence All Urban Consumers



OER New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island



OER Miami, FT. Lauderdale



OER Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange County



OER San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose



An increase of 5.1% for San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose is pretty steep, but nothing like the misleading Zillow-reported 13.5%.

To be fair, Fred added Oakland to the mix, but it's safe to assume rents did not rise anywhere close to 13.5%.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Disgusting Idea of the Day: Another Bush vs. Another Clinton

Posted: 01 Jan 2015 03:12 PM PST

A CNN/ORC Poll shows Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner.

Bush took first place with 23% in a new nationwide poll, putting him 10 points ahead of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who tallied 13%. Physician Ben Carson comes in third, with 7% support, and Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are both tied for fourth with 6%.

Bush Dumps Corporate Commitments

Jeb Bush has not yet formally announced he is running, but actions suggest a 100% likelihood.

Fearing a  backlash like Romney had with his ties to Bain Capital, Jeb Bush Resigned from All Boards, an action that will cost him as much as a million dollars a year.

I propose, if those board positions mattered ever, then they still matter now. Would it really have mattered if Romney shed all his ties with Bain Capital? Why would it?

If anything, dumping those corporate ties makes it look like there's some garbage that needs to be hidden. And if there is smelly garbage, it's 100% likely to surface.

But that's not how these guys see it.

Please consider Jeb Bush Sheds Corporate Commitments to Help 2016 Presidential Run.
Technically, Jeb Bush – son of President George Bush Sr and younger brother of President George W Bush – is still only "exploring" whether to seek the Republican nomination. But severing his many business ties means forgoing millions of dollars in consultancy earnings and is likely to prove almost as indicative of his determination to follow in family footsteps as did his announcement of a fundraising committee last month.

Disentangling the extensive business interests that Bush has built up since standing down as governor in 2007 has not been a simple exercise. His first major resignation – as an adviser to Barclays following its purchase of Lehman Brothers – was confirmed by the British bank three weeks ago, after questions were raised about whether it and other controversial relationships could prove his achilles heel.

He is also still reviewing what to do about some directly owned business interests such as the consulting firm Jeb Bush & Associates, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the latest news.

Various private equity investments in energy and aviation, made through a company called Britton Hill that is named after the highest point in Florida, were only disclosed last June. At the time, such investments were widely interpreted as a sign that Jeb might have decided to heed his mother Barbara's advice that there had already been enough Bushes in the White House.

But the Republican establishment is anxious for a well-known candidate to challenge more radical rivals such as senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and the Bush name is seen as the most reliable rallying point for wealthy donors and the business community after the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, was tarnished by a political scandal in 2014.
Who Isn't Running?
"The more the merrier," said the Kentucky senator Rand Paul when Bush first announced he was "exploring" a run in December, one of many indications that Paul's participation in the contest is in as little doubt as that of his equally ambitious conservative colleague Ted Cruz.

The Florida senator Marco Rubio also announced in a New Year's Day radio interview that he was "spending the holidays thinking about his future".

The unusually early launch of team Bush was thought to be aimed partly at deterring other establishment competitors such as Rubio and the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, but their public prominence since and Mitt Romney's strong performance in polling suggests it may have only spurred them on.

And with governors from Indiana's Mike Pence to Rick Perry of Texas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin dropping similar hints in recent days, the easier question among top Republicans is who isn't running?
Republican Establishment Losers

And so the Republican establishment is already rallying around another loser just as they rallied around Mitt Romney.

When does the stupidity end? The next election, like the last, is highly likely to depend on independents, libertarians, and those who want change.

Neither Jeb Bush nor Hillary Clinton offers any change. That pairing would be one of the most disgusting ever.

I support Rand Paul as the only candidate possible to make a difference.

Admittedly it's too early to make any predictions, but Real Clear Politics shows Clinton beating Bush, Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, Christie, and Ryan, all by substantial margins.

One think Clinton has going for here is name recognition. There are a lot of people who do not know who some of the Republican candidates are. And there are many feminists who will vote for Hillary just to have a woman in the Whitehouse.

Name recognition will change with the passage of time and with the primaries. What may not change is the willingness of independents to rally behind Bush. I sure won't, but I won't vote for Hillary either.

Regardless, if Republicans nominate another Neanderthal instead of someone who represents change, expect to see "no change" another way, with Hillary Clinton as president.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Happy New Year!

Posted: 01 Jan 2015 01:37 PM PST

Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones. May 2015 be your best year ever. For those of you seeking a job or a better job, better health, or simply peace of mind, may you find it in 2015. Mish

Read More ..