If
you think the latest bid to reboot the public image of Obamacare is
absolutely godawful, disturbing, pathetic, you name it (I know I
do!), I’ve got news for you: You’re probably not the audience for
it. And you’re playing into the aims of the image’s creators.
For many – arguably most – Americans, this guy is hipster
douchitude on a cracker. Jeebus H. Christ, at least be swilling
brandy. The whole packaging, including the Christmas postcard
styling of the image, the infantilized image of man-child, the
vaguely imperial “GetTalking” hashtag, etc., runs through me like
months-old egg salad.
Yet, as with the widely ridiculed Life of Julia agitprop rolled
out during the 2012 campaign (read
Reason’s response here), the image above works perfectly as
propaganda (and it turns out that Julia spoke pretty loudly to its
audience, with women –
especially unmarried women – overwhelmingly going for
Obama).
First, it creates not just a
clearly defined in-group (those who see this and identify either
with the guy in the picture or his larger situation) but a clearly
defined out-group (those of us who see this and wonder what
injuries to karma we committed in previous lives that we are
looking at this sort of shit in our current incarnations). Like
Life of Julia, it
is widely talkedabout and has effectively won the
internet for at least a few days. And it creates a whole host of
carriers for its essential message via parody, satire, screeds, and
more.
Some of the
parodies and rewrites are genuinely funny and some are not (
the ones that reek of conservative insecurity about sexual identity
strike me as their own form of unfortunate expression). But they
all ultimately do what the spot’s creators wanted: They get people
talking about health insurance.
And with that, I’m zipping up, albeit not in meta-ironical
checkerboard pjs.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if-you-think-the-godawful-pajama-boy-oba
via IFTTT
If
you think the latest bid to reboot the public image of Obamacare is
absolutely godawful, disturbing, pathetic, you name it (I know I
do!), I’ve got news for you: You’re probably not the audience for
it. And you’re playing into the aims of the image’s creators.
For many – arguably most – Americans, this guy is hipster
douchitude on a cracker. Jeebus H. Christ, at least be swilling
brandy. The whole packaging, including the Christmas postcard
styling of the image, the infantilized image of man-child, the
vaguely imperial “GetTalking” hashtag, etc., runs through me like
months-old egg salad.
Yet, as with the widely ridiculed Life of Julia agitprop rolled
out during the 2012 campaign (read
Reason’s response here), the image above works perfectly as
propaganda (and it turns out that Julia spoke pretty loudly to its
audience, with women –
especially unmarried women – overwhelmingly going for
Obama).
First, it creates not just a
clearly defined in-group (those who see this and identify either
with the guy in the picture or his larger situation) but a clearly
defined out-group (those of us who see this and wonder what
injuries to karma we committed in previous lives that we are
looking at this sort of shit in our current incarnations). Like
Life of Julia, it
is widely talkedabout and has effectively won the
internet for at least a few days. And it creates a whole host of
carriers for its essential message via parody, satire, screeds, and
more.
Some of the
parodies and rewrites are genuinely funny and some are not (
the ones that reek of conservative insecurity about sexual identity
strike me as their own form of unfortunate expression). But they
all ultimately do what the spot’s creators wanted: They get people
talking about health insurance.
And with that, I’m zipping up, albeit not in meta-ironical
checkerboard pjs.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if-you-think-the-godawful-pajama-boy-oba
via IFTTT
Why do people have rights in the first
place? Suppose future space exploration discovers a planet
populated by highly intelligent beings, with an exquisitely rich
culture dating back several millennia, who look not at all human.
Wouldn’t it make sense to recognize them as rights-bearing
creatures anyway? And wouldn’t that make more sense than
attributing human rights to mannequins—which look very much like
humans, but have no human capacities? A question like that might
seem too fanciful, writes A. Barton Hinkle. But from chimpanzees to
artificial intelligence, science is raising important questions
about just who, and what, has rights.
Ben Bernanke speaks today, and the markets are aquiver. Will the Fed taper? Will it not taper? If it does taper how much will it taper?
Stocks have entered a blow off top from the wedge triangle we’ve been following for the last few years. If the Fed does not taper today, we’ll likely see a blow off top begin. Traders are hungry for a reason to push the market higher into year-end (thereby ending the year with the highest possible returns).
Alternatively, we could see a small taper today. We now know that Janet Yellen will be the next Fed Chairman. The question remains who will be the Vice Chair. The frontrunner is Stanley Fisher, the former Central Banker for Israel.
Fisher is urging a small taper begin immediately. He then suggests gradually increasing it.
But then again, Janet Yellen, who will be the next Fed President is a raging dove and believes that QE should be done forever. So it’s a toss up.
All I can say with certainty is that stocks are in a dangerous position. They’ve been in one for a while now and the higher they go the more dangerous it becomes.
For a FREE Special Report on how to beat the market both during bull market and bear market runs, visit us at:
Last Friday we reported of a freak near-incident in the South China Sea, when a US warship nearly collided with a Chinese navy vessel, operating in close proximity to China’s only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, although details were scarce. Today, with the usual several day delay, China reported what was already widely know, admitting that “an incident between a Chinese naval vessel and a U.S. warship in the South China Sea, after Washington said a U.S. guided missile cruiser had avoided a collision with a Chinese warship maneuvering nearby.” According to experts this was the most significant U.S.-China maritime incident in the disputed South China Sea since 2009. Which naturally warranted the question: whose actions nearly provoked a potential military escalation between the world’s two superpowers. Not surprisingly, China’s version is that it was all the US’ fault.
China’s Defense Ministry said the Chinese naval vessel was conducting “normal patrols” when the two vessels “met”.
“During the encounter, the Chinese naval vessel properly handled it in accordance with strict protocol,” the ministry said on its website (www.mod.gov.cn).
“The two Defense departments were kept informed of the relevant situation through normal working channels and carried out effective communication.”
But China’s official news agency Xinhua, in an English language commentary, accused the U.S. ship of deliberately provocative behavior.
“On December 5, U.S. missile cruiser Cowpens, despite warnings from China’s aircraft carrier task group, broke into the Chinese navy’s drilling waters in the South China Sea, and almost collided with a Chinese warship nearby,” it said.
“Even before the navy training, Chinese maritime authorities have posted a navigation notice on their website, and the U.S. warship, which should have had knowledge of what the Chinese were doing there, intentionally carried on with its surveillance of China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier and triggered the confrontation.”
On the other hand, and just as logically, the US said it was China’s fault as the US ship had to take evasive action:
Washington said last week its ship was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Then again, one wonders just what a lone US warship was doing in such close proximity to China’s aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage: “The Liaoning aircraft carrier, which has yet to be fully armed and is being used as a training vessel, was flanked by escort ships, including two destroyers and two frigates, during its first deployment into the South China Sea.”
The United States had raised the incident at a “high level” with China, according to a State Department official quoted by the U.S. military’s Stars and Stripes newspaper.
China deployed the Liaoning to the South China Sea just days after announcing its air Defense zone, which covers air space over a group of tiny uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that are administered by Japan but claimed by Beijing as well.
Leaving aside the question of what the US’ response would be if a Chinese warship was circling just outside of the San Diego Naval Base, even if in “international waters”, assuming China’s account of the story is correct, and if indeed the US chain of command did tongue-in-cheekly suggest the creation of a modest incident (with or without escalation), then one should pay very careful attention to the development in the South China Sea, which the US apparently has picked as the next hotzone of geopolitical risk flaring.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/RAiAyTwT6Fc/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Last Friday we reported of a freak near-incident in the South China Sea, when a US warship nearly collided with a Chinese navy vessel, operating in close proximity to China’s only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, although details were scarce. Today, with the usual several day delay, China reported what was already widely know, admitting that “an incident between a Chinese naval vessel and a U.S. warship in the South China Sea, after Washington said a U.S. guided missile cruiser had avoided a collision with a Chinese warship maneuvering nearby.” According to experts this was the most significant U.S.-China maritime incident in the disputed South China Sea since 2009. Which naturally warranted the question: whose actions nearly provoked a potential military escalation between the world’s two superpowers. Not surprisingly, China’s version is that it was all the US’ fault.
China’s Defense Ministry said the Chinese naval vessel was conducting “normal patrols” when the two vessels “met”.
“During the encounter, the Chinese naval vessel properly handled it in accordance with strict protocol,” the ministry said on its website (www.mod.gov.cn).
“The two Defense departments were kept informed of the relevant situation through normal working channels and carried out effective communication.”
But China’s official news agency Xinhua, in an English language commentary, accused the U.S. ship of deliberately provocative behavior.
“On December 5, U.S. missile cruiser Cowpens, despite warnings from China’s aircraft carrier task group, broke into the Chinese navy’s drilling waters in the South China Sea, and almost collided with a Chinese warship nearby,” it said.
“Even before the navy training, Chinese maritime authorities have posted a navigation notice on their website, and the U.S. warship, which should have had knowledge of what the Chinese were doing there, intentionally carried on with its surveillance of China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier and triggered the confrontation.”
On the other hand, and just as logically, the US said it was China’s fault as the US ship had to take evasive action:
Washington said last week its ship was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Then again, one wonders just what a lone US warship was doing in such close proximity to China’s aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage: “The Liaoning aircraft carrier, which has yet to be fully armed and is being used as a training vessel, was flanked by escort ships, including two destroyers and two frigates, during its first deployment into the South China Sea.”
The United States had raised the incident at a “high level” with China, according to a State Department official quoted by the U.S. military’s Stars and Stripes newspaper.
China deployed the Liaoning to the South China Sea just days after announcing its air Defense zone, which covers air space over a group of tiny uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that are administered by Japan but claimed by Beijing as well.
Leaving aside the question of what the US’ response would be if a Chinese warship was circling just outside of the San Diego Naval Base, even if in “international waters”, assuming China’s account of the story is correct, and if indeed the US chain of command did tongue-in-cheekly suggest the creation of a modest incident (with or without escalation), then one should pay very careful attention to the development in the South China Sea, which the US apparently has picked as the next hotzone of geopolitical risk flaring.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/RAiAyTwT6Fc/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Today is the big day. Investors are on the edges of their seats, waiting to find out what the Fed will do. Taper? No taper? Or maybe it will taper on the tapering off?
Our guess is the Fed will not commit to a serious program of reducing its support to the bond, equity and housing markets. It's too dangerous. Ben Bernanke – the man who didn't see the housing crash coming – won't want to see the stock market collapse just before he leaves office. He'll want to go out on a high note…
…and that means guaranteeing more liquidity.
Investors don't seem worried. On Monday, the Dow rose 130 points. Gold was up $10 an ounce. Most of the reports we read tell us the economy is improving. Unemployment is going down. Meanwhile, manufacturing levels are rising. Compared to Europe, the US is a powerhouse of growth and innovation, they say. Compared to emerging markets, it is a paragon of stability and confidence.
How much do investors love the US? Let us count the ways:
1. GDP per capita is running 7% – ahead of where it was in 2007. Among the world's major developed economies only Germany can boast of anything close. All the rest are falling behind.
2. The budget deficit – which was running at about 10% of GDP – is now down to just 4% of GDP.
3. Unemployment is going down, too. Heck, just 7 out of 100 Americans are officially jobless. Didn't Bernanke say he would tighten up when it hit that level?
4. And look at prices. Consumer price inflation is running at just 1% over the last 12 months. No threat from inflation, either.
Statistical Folderol
But wait …
What if all these things were delusions… statistical folderol… or outright lies? What if the true measures of the economy were feeble and disappointing? What if the US economy was only barely stumbling and staggering along?
Well, dear reader, you surely expect us to tell that the US economy is a hidden disaster… and we won't disappoint you. GDP? Carmen Reinhart studied the performance of rich economies following a financial crisis. Her paper, "After the Fall," showed that, six years after a crisis, per capita GDP was typically 1.5 percentage points lower than in the years before the crisis. But in the US, per capita GDP growth is running 2.1% lower than its pre-crisis level – significantly worse than average.
Deficits? Super-low interest rates have helped debtors everywhere. "Never have American companies brought a greater share of their sales to the bottom line," writes Bill Gross. How did they do that? Largely by taking advantage of the Fed's interest rate suppression program. But hey, the US government is the world's biggest debtor. It is the primary beneficiary of the Fed's miniscule rates.
That's part of the reason why deficits are low. Let the yield on the 10-year T-bond return to a "normal" 5%, and we'll see deficits soar again. (Interest payments, under this scenario, would add an additional $360 billion a year to the deficit.) Besides, it's not only the deficit that counts. It's also the total level of debt… and particularly the debt financed with funny money from the Fed.
Only twice in US history has the ratio of US Treasurys held at the Fed gone over 10% – once in 1944 and again today. The first time, it was a national emergency: World War II. Now, the Fed is merely fighting to protect a credit bubble.
Inflation? Yes, consumer price inflation is low. But what that shows is that real demand is still in a deleveraging trough. The money multiplier – the ratio of money supply to the monetary base – collapsed in 2008. It has not come back. Neither has the economy.
Unemployment? The rate has been doctored by removing people from the labor pool. The workforce is now smaller – as a percentage of the eligible pool – than at any time since 1978.
Besides, what is important is not the rate, but what people get from employment. On that score, it is a catastrophe. According to a Brookings Institution study, the average man of working age earns 19% less in real (inflation adjusted) terms today than he did during the Carter administration!
A Strange Kind of Recovery
What kind of economy is it that reduces a man's wages over a 43-year period? We don't know. But it's not likely to win any prizes. But why, with so many strikes against it, does the US economy still have the bat in its hands?
It's partly because the Fed has pumped up stock, bond and house prices – not to mention net corporate profit margins (by reducing the interest expenses on corporate debt) and consumer spending (through entitlement programs funded through the Treasury with ultra-low interest rates). So, the averages look pretty good… and they mask the ugliness beneath them.
The rich got richer on the Fed's EZ money. But the average "capita" is actually poorer. The bottom 90% of the population – people in 9 houses out of 10 – have 10% less income than they had 10 years ago.
This is not a success story. It's a disaster. And not one that tempts us into an overvalued US stock market.
On CNBC and all the channels that cover business, we have person after person after person, buy side, sell side, upside, downside:
How is the economy? Economy is great.
What about stocks? You got to buy them.
What if they break? You have to buy the dips.
What's wrong with the economy? I don't hear these people saying anything is wrong with the economy.
So what's wrong, Ben? Why can't we get out of crisis management mode?
There's always going to be something.
…
Why don't these people kick the tires?
They take a press release from the Federal Reserve and they think it was written by God.
Santelli demands we ask Bernanke – "what are you scared of," that keeps you pumping this much money into the system for this long?
Simply put, Santelli's epic rant is the filter that every investor (or member of the public) should be viewing financial media and the Fed today (or in fact every day).
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/eZAWT_dnhko/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Today is the big day. Investors are on the edges of their seats, waiting to find out what the Fed will do. Taper? No taper? Or maybe it will taper on the tapering off?
Our guess is the Fed will not commit to a serious program of reducing its support to the bond, equity and housing markets. It's too dangerous. Ben Bernanke – the man who didn't see the housing crash coming – won't want to see the stock market collapse just before he leaves office. He'll want to go out on a high note…
…and that means guaranteeing more liquidity.
Investors don't seem worried. On Monday, the Dow rose 130 points. Gold was up $10 an ounce. Most of the reports we read tell us the economy is improving. Unemployment is going down. Meanwhile, manufacturing levels are rising. Compared to Europe, the US is a powerhouse of growth and innovation, they say. Compared to emerging markets, it is a paragon of stability and confidence.
How much do investors love the US? Let us count the ways:
1. GDP per capita is running 7% – ahead of where it was in 2007. Among the world's major developed economies only Germany can boast of anything close. All the rest are falling behind.
2. The budget deficit – which was running at about 10% of GDP – is now down to just 4% of GDP.
3. Unemployment is going down, too. Heck, just 7 out of 100 Americans are officially jobless. Didn't Bernanke say he would tighten up when it hit that level?
4. And look at prices. Consumer price inflation is running at just 1% over the last 12 months. No threat from inflation, either.
Statistical Folderol
But wait …
What if all these things were delusions… statistical folderol… or outright lies? What if the true measures of the economy were feeble and disappointing? What if the US economy was only barely stumbling and staggering along?
Well, dear reader, you surely expect us to tell that the US economy is a hidden disaster… and we won't disappoint you. GDP? Carmen Reinhart studied the performance of rich economies following a financial crisis. Her paper, "After the Fall," showed that, six years after a crisis, per capita GDP was typically 1.5 percentage points lower than in the years before the crisis. But in the US, per capita GDP growth is running 2.1% lower than its pre-crisis level – significantly worse than average.
Deficits? Super-low interest rates have helped debtors everywhere. "Never have American companies brought a greater share of their sales to the bottom line," writes Bill Gross. How did they do that? Largely by taking advantage of the Fed's interest rate suppression program. But hey, the US government is the world's biggest debtor. It is the primary beneficiary of the Fed's miniscule rates.
That's part of the reason why deficits are low. Let the yield on the 10-year T-bond return to a "normal" 5%, and we'll see deficits soar again. (Interest payments, under this scenario, would add an additional $360 billion a year to the deficit.) Besides, it's not only the deficit that counts. It's also the total level of debt… and particularly the debt financed with funny money from the Fed.
Only twice in US history has the ratio of US Treasurys held at the Fed gone over 10% – once in 1944 and again today. The first time, it was a national emergency: World War II. Now, the Fed is merely fighting to protect a credit bubble.
Inflation? Yes, consumer price inflation is low. But what that shows is that real demand is still in a deleveraging trough. The money multiplier – the ratio of money supply to the monetary base – collapsed in 2008. It has not come back. Neither has the economy.
Unemployment? The rate has been doctored by removing people from the labor pool. The workforce is now smaller – as a percentage of the eligible pool – than at any time since 1978.
Besides, what is important is not the rate, but what people get from employment. On that score, it is a catastrophe. According to a Brookings Institution study, the average man of working age earns 19% less in real (inflation adjusted) terms today than he did during the Carter administration!
A Strange Kind of Recovery
What kind of economy is it that reduces a man's wages over a 43-year period? We don't know. But it's not likely to win any prizes. But why, with so many strikes against it, does the US economy still have the bat in its hands?
It's partly because the Fed has pumped up stock, bond and house prices – not to mention net corporate profit margins (by reducing the interest expenses on corporate debt) and consumer spending (through entitlement programs funded through the Treasury with ultra-low interest rates). So, the averages look pretty good… and they mask the ugliness beneath them.
The rich got richer on the Fed's EZ money. But the average "capita" is actually poorer. The bottom 90% of the population – people in 9 houses out of 10 – have 10% less income than they had 10 years ago.
This is not a success story. It's a disaster. And not one that tempts us into an overvalued US stock market.
On CNBC and all the channels that cover business, we have person after person after person, buy side, sell side, upside, downside:
How is the economy? Economy is great.
What about stocks? You got to buy them.
What if they break? You have to buy the dips.
What's wrong with the economy? I don't hear these people saying anything is wrong with the economy.
So what's wrong, Ben? Why can't we get out of crisis management mode?
There's always going to be something.
…
Why don't these people kick the tires?
They take a press release from the Federal Reserve and they think it was written by God.
Santelli demands we ask Bernanke – "what are you scared of," that keeps you pumping this much money into the system for this long?
Simply put, Santelli's epic rant is the filter that every investor (or member of the public) should be viewing financial media and the Fed today (or in fact every day).
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/eZAWT_dnhko/story01.htm Tyler Durden
If
First, it creates not just a
Why do people have rights in the first
