BofAML Warns "Treasury Bears Beware"

The reaction to the non-farm payrolls report in the US Treasury complex has the bond bears out en masse this morning. A 10-12bps jerk higher in yield is nothing to sneeze at and certainly flushed more than a few uncomfortable longs out – but BofAML’s MacNeil Curry warns “treasury bears beware.” The completing 5 wave advance and confluence of support between 2.738%/2.759% says further yield upside is limited. Don’t be max short into these levels. There should be better levels to sell in the days ahead.

 

 

Source: BofAML


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ymAL7PeWGKU/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Survey Shows European Jews Report Rise in Anti-Semitism On Eve of Kristallnacht Anniversary

Tomorrow will mark the 75th
anniversary of the pogrom against Jews that took place across Nazi
Germany as well as parts of Austria known as
Kristallnacht. 

Ahead of the anniversary, the European Union’s
Fundamental Rights Agency
 (FRA) has released
a survey
 on anti-semitism, which shows that Jews in Europe
feel that there has been an increase in anti-semitism in the past
five years.

From the FRA Survey:            
                 

Two thirds of the survey respondents (66 %) consider
antisemitism to be a problem across the eight EU Member States
surveyed, while on average three quarters of the respondents (76 %)
also believe that the situation has become more acute and that
antisemitism has increased in the country where they live over the
past five years. In the 12 months following the survey, close to
half of the respondents (46 %) worry about being verbally insulted
or harassed in a public place because they are Jewish, and one
third (33 %) worry about being physically attacked in the country
where they live because they are Jewish. Furthermore, 66 % of
parents or grandparents of school-aged children worry that their
children could be subjected to antisemitic verbal insults or
harassment at school or en route, and 52 % worry that they would be
physically attacked with an antisemitic motive while at school or
en route. In the past 12 months, over half of all survey
respondents (57 %) heard or saw someone claim that the Holocaust
was a myth or that it has been exaggerated.

According to the survey, almost a third of Jews in the eight
countries examined in the survey (where more than 90 percent of
European Jews live) have considered emigrating in the last five
years. The figure is especially high in Hungary, where almost half
of the Jews surveyed said that they have considered leaving.
Jobbik, Hungary’s anti-semitic and anti-Roma party, is the third most
popular party
in the country.

While much of Europe’s anti-semitism continues to be based in
sort of nationalism and prejudices seen before the beginning of the
Second World War,
The New York Times
reporting on the survey
points out that some of Europe’s more recent anti-semitism is
rooted in the political left and the comparatively recent
Muslim communities in Europe:

In other countries, however, hostility to Jews is now rooted
more on the left and in Muslim immigrant communities, the survey’s
findings indicate. More than three-quarters of respondents in
France and Belgium, both of which have large populations of Muslim
immigrants, identified anti-Semitism as a problem. Eighty percent
of respondents in these same two countries described immigration as
a problem, too, suggesting tense relations between Jewish
communities and recently arrived immigrants.

About 90 percent of respondents in Belgium and France reported
that the Arab-Israeli conflict had had a “notable impact” on the
safety of Jews. Only 40 percent reported the same in Hungary, which
has few Muslim immigrants, while a majority of respondents in most
other countries surveyed said tensions in the Middle East had
affected their feelings of safety either a “great deal” or a “fair
amount.”

Read the full report below:

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/08/survey-shows-european-jews-report-rise-i
via IFTTT

Not a creature was stirring

Let me be the first, at the start of this holiday season, to apologize to all the moms out there. I really didn’t have a clue. Then again, I do have somewhat of an excuse – I’m a Neanderthal.
By now, at tender age of 55, you think I’d know, but alas, I didn’t. Now I’m beginning to understand. The role of mom is just about impossible. And that’s on a good day.

“Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.” It would be safe to say that over the next six weeks the preceding sentence will be read to children more than any other.

read more

via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/rick-ryckeley/11-08-2013/not-creature-was-stirring

Guest Post: Obama’s ‘Socialism’ Experiment Brought Home

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

Here are possibly the 5 key points about such an experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

 

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

Or in graphical format…

capitalism-vs-socialism


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/iVGbjCBccrw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: Obama's 'Socialism' Experiment Brought Home

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

Here are possibly the 5 key points about such an experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

 

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

Or in graphical format…

capitalism-vs-socialism


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/iVGbjCBccrw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Deutsche Bank: “Yellen May Actually Have To Increase QE” – Here’s Why

With what few vacuum tube-based trading algos are left and reacting with rabid kneejerkiness to every flashing red headline, one would get the impression that what matters to the Fed’s decision on how to adjust its balance sheet flow depends on the US economy. But if Deutsche Bank is correct, the next source of global economic contraction, which it will be up to the Fed to offset (just like China was the marginal growth dynamo in the months after Lehman filed), and result in an increase in QE nevermind taper, is not in the US at all, but in China where things are about to go bump in the night. Which means that just like that we have moved into the “New Normal paradigm” where the worse the news out of China, the better for stocks.

From Deutsche’s Jim Reid:

Over the weekend, China’s inflation, industrial production and retail sales numbers for the month of October will be released. China’s much awaited Third Plenum meeting gets underway tomorrow where DB’s Jun Ma expects a wide ranging package of reforms will follow, in terms of industry deregulation, financial liberalisation, reforms to land titles, state-owned enterprises and social security. Our take on this is that there will be lots for the market to get excited about in the reforms but that it will not necessarily be easy to implement them successfully. Our GEM equity strategist JP Smith yesterday reiterated his bearish view on China and most of the EM complex. If he’s correct Yellen and Draghi are going to have interesting 2014s with the provocative thought being that Yellen may actually have to increase QE. Food for thought.

And just for thought, because very soon the bulk of the world’s population won’t be able to afford any other kind. Especially once the Fed is forced to start monetizing Big Macs.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Hgx-zLdk0Uw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Deutsche Bank: "Yellen May Actually Have To Increase QE" – Here's Why

With what few vacuum tube-based trading algos are left and reacting with rabid kneejerkiness to every flashing red headline, one would get the impression that what matters to the Fed’s decision on how to adjust its balance sheet flow depends on the US economy. But if Deutsche Bank is correct, the next source of global economic contraction, which it will be up to the Fed to offset (just like China was the marginal growth dynamo in the months after Lehman filed), and result in an increase in QE nevermind taper, is not in the US at all, but in China where things are about to go bump in the night. Which means that just like that we have moved into the “New Normal paradigm” where the worse the news out of China, the better for stocks.

From Deutsche’s Jim Reid:

Over the weekend, China’s inflation, industrial production and retail sales numbers for the month of October will be released. China’s much awaited Third Plenum meeting gets underway tomorrow where DB’s Jun Ma expects a wide ranging package of reforms will follow, in terms of industry deregulation, financial liberalisation, reforms to land titles, state-owned enterprises and social security. Our take on this is that there will be lots for the market to get excited about in the reforms but that it will not necessarily be easy to implement them successfully. Our GEM equity strategist JP Smith yesterday reiterated his bearish view on China and most of the EM complex. If he’s correct Yellen and Draghi are going to have interesting 2014s with the provocative thought being that Yellen may actually have to increase QE. Food for thought.

And just for thought, because very soon the bulk of the world’s population won’t be able to afford any other kind. Especially once the Fed is forced to start monetizing Big Macs.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Hgx-zLdk0Uw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

TIME Defends Christie Cover

TIME Executive Editor Michael Duffy
has defended the magazine’s recent cover, which includes a
silhouetted photo of Christie (who was re-elected as New Jersey’s
governor on Tuesday) and the caption “Elephant in the Room.”

From NJ.com:

Time Magazine Executive Editor Michael Duffy took to the
airwaves last night to defend his magazine’s most recent cover,
which has sparked outrage this week for its thinly veiled shot at
Gov. Chris Christie’s weight.

The cover features a silhouetted photo of the governor
beside the caption “Elephant in the Room.” After the cover was
revealed yesterday, the Twittersphere erupted with condemnation for
the magazine.

“Whether or not one likes Christie, these cheap shots–like
Time’s new cover–about his weight are decidedly uncool,” tweeted
New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
 widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/08/time-defends-christie-cove
via IFTTT

The Advantages of ‘Substandard’ Health Plans

Stanford economist Edward Lazear, who chaired
George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2009,

explains
why one man’s “substandard” health plan is another’s
optimal coverage:

Plans that exclude the president’s “core” benefits may be
exactly what is desired for those in good health with the means to
cover their limited every-day and predictable medical
expenses….

Just as it would be a bad idea to require that all cars come
with power windows, power locks, and automatic transmissions, it is
also unwise to order citizens to buy health care that includes
maternity benefits or other care. 

Some may have no intention of having children.  

Others may not want to devote the time required to take
advantage of the preventive care that is covered.

Still others may be skeptical of the effectiveness of mental
health care….

The fact that a health care plan does not include all the
benefits of other plans does not imply that it is “substandard.”
Instead, the [Affordable Care Act] replaces plans that cater to
needs of a particular consumer with those cluttered with bells and
whistles that may be of little value.  

Lazear also notes that generous coverage contributes to health
care inflation by encouraging overconsumption: When someone else is
picking up the tab, consumers do not worry much about the price. In
fact, because the health care market is dominated by third-party
payments, patients typically do not even know the price before they
decide whether to “purchase” a particular medical service. The
other day The New York Times published an op-ed piece
in which Peter Ubel, a professor of medicine at Duke University,

proposed
a radical idea: What if doctors deigned to tell
patients, before asking them to approve a procedure or course of
treatment, how much it will cost them? Ubel argues that doctors
should “discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients just as they
discuss any side effects.”

That is eminently sensible, except that doctors may have no idea
how much the services they offer will cost the patient or his
insurer, because the answer depends on carrier-specific
negotiations, the details of the patient’s policy, and his prior
covered expenses. Patients may not find out how much a treatment
costs until months after they buy it, when they get an “explanation
of benefits” in the mail. Even then the answser may not be final,
because there is room for dispute about exactly what is covered.
Furthermore, out-of-pocket costs may be negotiable, since hospitals
are accustomed to receiving only partial payment of the bills they
issue (and presumably inflate them with that in mind). The upshot
is price signals that are late and faint, if not utterly obscured.

The major exceptions are medical services, such as dental care,
vision correction, and plastic surgery, that consumers typically
buy with their own money. You can easily get a price quote for a
tooth implant, Lasik surgery, or a nose job. It is almost
impossible to get a clear idea of how much an MRI or a
tonsillectomy will cost. In my experience, such questions usually
elicit blank stares, as if they’ve never been asked before. Imagine
how well the car repair market would function if customers had no
way of knowing how much a new transmission would cost until months
after agreeing to buy one.

Obamacare, Lazear notes, compounds this problem by requiring
people to buy more coverage than they would otherwise choose:

Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have
demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health
care on the margin induces high and in many cases over
usage.  

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure
routine predictable health care events induce high and excessive
use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not
insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events
induce consumers to behave more efficiently. 

Banning such “substandard” plans makes no sense from a
cost-control perspective. Last month I
compared
Obamacare’s minimum coverage requirements to the
federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, which likewise overrides
consumers’ assessments of their own interests. But while the light
bulb requirement was defended in the name of efficiency, Obamacare
mandates inefficiency. 

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/08/the-advantages-of-substandard-health-pla
via IFTTT

The Advantages of 'Substandard' Health Plans

Stanford economist Edward Lazear, who chaired
George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2009,

explains
why one man’s “substandard” health plan is another’s
optimal coverage:

Plans that exclude the president’s “core” benefits may be
exactly what is desired for those in good health with the means to
cover their limited every-day and predictable medical
expenses….

Just as it would be a bad idea to require that all cars come
with power windows, power locks, and automatic transmissions, it is
also unwise to order citizens to buy health care that includes
maternity benefits or other care. 

Some may have no intention of having children.  

Others may not want to devote the time required to take
advantage of the preventive care that is covered.

Still others may be skeptical of the effectiveness of mental
health care….

The fact that a health care plan does not include all the
benefits of other plans does not imply that it is “substandard.”
Instead, the [Affordable Care Act] replaces plans that cater to
needs of a particular consumer with those cluttered with bells and
whistles that may be of little value.  

Lazear also notes that generous coverage contributes to health
care inflation by encouraging overconsumption: When someone else is
picking up the tab, consumers do not worry much about the price. In
fact, because the health care market is dominated by third-party
payments, patients typically do not even know the price before they
decide whether to “purchase” a particular medical service. The
other day The New York Times published an op-ed piece
in which Peter Ubel, a professor of medicine at Duke University,

proposed
a radical idea: What if doctors deigned to tell
patients, before asking them to approve a procedure or course of
treatment, how much it will cost them? Ubel argues that doctors
should “discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients just as they
discuss any side effects.”

That is eminently sensible, except that doctors may have no idea
how much the services they offer will cost the patient or his
insurer, because the answer depends on carrier-specific
negotiations, the details of the patient’s policy, and his prior
covered expenses. Patients may not find out how much a treatment
costs until months after they buy it, when they get an “explanation
of benefits” in the mail. Even then the answser may not be final,
because there is room for dispute about exactly what is covered.
Furthermore, out-of-pocket costs may be negotiable, since hospitals
are accustomed to receiving only partial payment of the bills they
issue (and presumably inflate them with that in mind). The upshot
is price signals that are late and faint, if not utterly obscured.

The major exceptions are medical services, such as dental care,
vision correction, and plastic surgery, that consumers typically
buy with their own money. You can easily get a price quote for a
tooth implant, Lasik surgery, or a nose job. It is almost
impossible to get a clear idea of how much an MRI or a
tonsillectomy will cost. In my experience, such questions usually
elicit blank stares, as if they’ve never been asked before. Imagine
how well the car repair market would function if customers had no
way of knowing how much a new transmission would cost until months
after agreeing to buy one.

Obamacare, Lazear notes, compounds this problem by requiring
people to buy more coverage than they would otherwise choose:

Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have
demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health
care on the margin induces high and in many cases over
usage.  

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure
routine predictable health care events induce high and excessive
use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not
insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events
induce consumers to behave more efficiently. 

Banning such “substandard” plans makes no sense from a
cost-control perspective. Last month I
compared
Obamacare’s minimum coverage requirements to the
federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, which likewise overrides
consumers’ assessments of their own interests. But while the light
bulb requirement was defended in the name of efficiency, Obamacare
mandates inefficiency. 

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/08/the-advantages-of-substandard-health-pla
via IFTTT