Author: admin

Was the Press a Lapdog for Obama in 2013? Nick Gillespie on Stossel

On Thursday, I’ll be a guest (along with David Boaz of the
Cato Institute and Sabrina Schaeffer
of the Independent Women’s Forum)
on John Stossel’s eponymous Fox Business show, which airs
at 9PM ET.

We’ll be talking about the gains and losses for freedom over the
course of the year, so please tune in. Here’s a web exclusive clip
from the show, in which Stossel asks whether the media was in the
tank for Obama during 2013, which saw not just a variety of
scandals but the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website. My
basic take? Sure, the press has mostly got Obama’s back, but it’s
also true that there’s never been a time as thick with alternative
outlets and news sources as right now.

Click to watch; about 2.30 minutes. Catch the whole show on
Thursday.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/17/was-the-press-a-lapdog-for-obama-in-2013
via IFTTT

"Twas The Night Before Taper" – Deutsche's Joe LaVorgna Sees A $10 Billion Taper Shadow Tomorrow

There seem to be two camps at Deutsche Bank these days: one, lead by the observant and somewhat contrarian Jim Reid, who recently asked the all important question about 2014 (“what if there is a recession?”), who accurately observed that something “structurally changed” since the great financial crisis (pretty clear what), and who even dared to suggest that the Fed will never taper, especially with the economy so late in the cycle already. And then there is Joe LaVorgna, best known for having a losing track record to Groundhog Phil. It appears that this morning Joey emerged from his lair deep inside 60 Wall, sniffed the cold air, and saw the shadow of a $10 billion taper, which is what he predicts the Fed will do tomorrow.

LaVorgna’s full winter weather forecast:

The FOMC statement will be released at 2PM EST along with updated real GDP, unemployment, inflation and fed funds forecasts. The Chairman’s press conference will commence shortly thereafter. We are looking for a $10 billion Treasuries only taper—we have been projecting this since the much stronger-than-expected October employment data (reported on November 8), which was subsequently matched by a similarly strong November employment report. Current quarter growth prospects continue to brighten with second half output poised to average over 3%. Moreover, the budget sequester was loosened, as we also had anticipated, so there is little reason for the Fed to delay tapering, in our view. The fact that the 10-year Treasury yield is at nearly the same level as it was right before the September FOMC, while the timing of the initial rate hike was pushed out at least six months from early 2015 to late 2015, tells us that the financial markets are indeed expecting a taper. There is now much less concern on behalf of monetary policymakers that a taper will engender a further tightening in financial market conditions. Indeed, since the September non-taper, equity prices are higher and credit spreads are tighter.

 

Nonetheless, the Fed will look to blunt any negative reaction to a taper, which will help appease the doves on the FOMC by strengthening the Committee’s forward guidance; tapering is not the same thing as a tightening. The Fed wants to hammer home the message that even after asset purchases are completed, monetary policy will remain extraordinarily accommodative. Fed Nominee Yellen believes this will lower term premium and help anchor longerterm rates. How will the Fed strengthen forward guidance? Words are cheap (at least relative to other measures, such as tinkering with IOER), so we believe the best way to extend guidance is to change the threshold on the unemployment rate—especially since the rate is already at the level Chairman Bernanke had previously targeted for the completion of asset purchases. Note to Fed: If unemployment insurance benefits are not renewed next month, the unemployment rate could promptly fall another three-tenths. Conceivably, the unemployment rate could be 6.5% by the March meeting. Does the Fed really want to continue to have to explain why a 6.5% threshold is not a trigger for tightening and why investors should ignore it? It seems to us that the easiest and most efficient way to strengthen forward guidance is to lower the unemployment rate threshold to 6.0% (or possibly even 5.5%). What about the fact that just “a couple of participants” supported a change in the threshold? The minutes were compiled before William English—the Secretary of the FOMC and the most senior economist at the Board of Governors—presented a paper at the annual IMF meeting in November which said that the optimal unemployment rate for the Fed was 6% or lower.

 

We do not believe the Fed is going to cut the interest paid on excess reserves for two reasons: One, this will not stimulate lending; and, two, it could cripple the short end, potentially causing major negative consequences. For example, some large money center banks warned they would begin charging depositors. What about the forecasts? The Fed will likely slightly raise its long-term GDP forecasts, trim its near-term unemployment rate forecasts and essentially maintain its inflation forecasts. We doubt the fed funds forecasts will change appreciably, since the economic forecasts should be little changed.

We have reached out to Phil for his take and will update the post when we get a full comment from the groundhog’s spokesman.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Ntcn_hQ5iu4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

“Twas The Night Before Taper” – Deutsche’s Joe LaVorgna Sees A $10 Billion Taper Shadow Tomorrow

There seem to be two camps at Deutsche Bank these days: one, lead by the observant and somewhat contrarian Jim Reid, who recently asked the all important question about 2014 (“what if there is a recession?”), who accurately observed that something “structurally changed” since the great financial crisis (pretty clear what), and who even dared to suggest that the Fed will never taper, especially with the economy so late in the cycle already. And then there is Joe LaVorgna, best known for having a losing track record to Groundhog Phil. It appears that this morning Joey emerged from his lair deep inside 60 Wall, sniffed the cold air, and saw the shadow of a $10 billion taper, which is what he predicts the Fed will do tomorrow.

LaVorgna’s full winter weather forecast:

The FOMC statement will be released at 2PM EST along with updated real GDP, unemployment, inflation and fed funds forecasts. The Chairman’s press conference will commence shortly thereafter. We are looking for a $10 billion Treasuries only taper—we have been projecting this since the much stronger-than-expected October employment data (reported on November 8), which was subsequently matched by a similarly strong November employment report. Current quarter growth prospects continue to brighten with second half output poised to average over 3%. Moreover, the budget sequester was loosened, as we also had anticipated, so there is little reason for the Fed to delay tapering, in our view. The fact that the 10-year Treasury yield is at nearly the same level as it was right before the September FOMC, while the timing of the initial rate hike was pushed out at least six months from early 2015 to late 2015, tells us that the financial markets are indeed expecting a taper. There is now much less concern on behalf of monetary policymakers that a taper will engender a further tightening in financial market conditions. Indeed, since the September non-taper, equity prices are higher and credit spreads are tighter.

 

Nonetheless, the Fed will look to blunt any negative reaction to a taper, which will help appease the doves on the FOMC by strengthening the Committee’s forward guidance; tapering is not the same thing as a tightening. The Fed wants to hammer home the message that even after asset purchases are completed, monetary policy will remain extraordinarily accommodative. Fed Nominee Yellen believes this will lower term premium and help anchor longerterm rates. How will the Fed strengthen forward guidance? Words are cheap (at least relative to other measures, such as tinkering with IOER), so we believe the best way to extend guidance is to change the threshold on the unemployment rate—especially since the rate is already at the level Chairman Bernanke had previously targeted for the completion of asset purchases. Note to Fed: If unemployment insurance benefits are not renewed next month, the unemployment rate could promptly fall another three-tenths. Conceivably, the unemployment rate could be 6.5% by the March meeting. Does the Fed really want to continue to have to explain why a 6.5% threshold is not a trigger for tightening and why investors should ignore it? It seems to us that the easiest and most efficient way to strengthen forward guidance is to lower the unemployment rate threshold to 6.0% (or possibly even 5.5%). What about the fact that just “a couple of participants” supported a change in the threshold? The minutes were compiled before William English—the Secretary of the FOMC and the most senior economist at the Board of Governors—presented a paper at the annual IMF meeting in November which said that the optimal unemployment rate for the Fed was 6% or lower.

 

We do not believe the Fed is going to cut the interest paid on excess reserves for two reasons: One, this will not stimulate lending; and, two, it could cripple the short end, potentially causing major negative consequences. For example, some large money center banks warned they would begin charging depositors. What about the forecasts? The Fed will likely slightly raise its long-term GDP forecasts, trim its near-term unemployment rate forecasts and essentially maintain its inflation forecasts. We doubt the fed funds forecasts will change appreciably, since the economic forecasts should be little changed.

We have reached out to Phil for his take and will update the post when we get a full comment from the groundhog’s spokesman.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Ntcn_hQ5iu4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Would You Believe Zero Terrorist Attacks Foiled by the NSA’s Phone Record Dragnet?

When U.S. District Judge
Richard Leon
issued his preliminary injunction against the NSA’s phone
record database yesterday, part of his
analysis (which I will discuss in my column tomorrow) concerned
whether the collection of telephone metadata counts as a “search”
under the Fourth Amendment. But Leon also considered whether such a
search might be “reasonable,” even without an individualized
warrant, because of its usefulness in preventing terrorist attacks.
That part of the analysis was pretty straightforward, since the
government had presented no evidence that the database has been
useful in preventing terrorist attacks:

The Government does not cite a single instance in which
analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an
imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any
objective that was time-sensitive in nature. In fact, none of the
three “recent episodes” cited by the Government that supposedly
“illustrate the role that telephony metadata analysis can play in
preventing and protecting against terrorist attack” involved any
apparent urgency….

Given the limited record before me at this point in the
litigation—most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a
terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA
database was faster than other investigative tactics—I have serious
doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a
means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases
involving imminent threats of terrorism.

Leon’s conclusion on this question is striking, since you’d
think the Obama administration would be highly motivated to show
that the database has been crucial in saving lives. If the
government cannot muster a single plausible example, how can such a
massive invasion of privacy possibly be justified?

The administration has been
struggling with this problem since news reports based on leaks
from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first revealed the
existence of the phone record database last June. At first
intelligence officials and their allies in Congress suggested that
the program had been instrumental in foiling more than 50 terrorist
plots. But those claims—which were immediately questioned
by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who as
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee ought to
know—dissolved upon close examination. Last October a ProPublica
analysis
concluded “there’s no evidence that the oft-cited figure
is accurate.”

The crucial question, usually dodged by the NSA and its
defenders, is whether routinely collecting everyone’s phone
records, as opposed to seeking specific, evidence-based court
orders aimed at particular targets, has been decisive in stopping
terrorist attacks. If the government has been unable to offer any
examples in the last six months, it seems unlikely it ever
will.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/17/would-you-believe-zero-terrorist-attacks
via IFTTT

Would You Believe Zero Terrorist Attacks Foiled by the NSA's Phone Record Dragnet?

When U.S. District Judge
Richard Leon
issued his preliminary injunction against the NSA’s phone
record database yesterday, part of his
analysis (which I will discuss in my column tomorrow) concerned
whether the collection of telephone metadata counts as a “search”
under the Fourth Amendment. But Leon also considered whether such a
search might be “reasonable,” even without an individualized
warrant, because of its usefulness in preventing terrorist attacks.
That part of the analysis was pretty straightforward, since the
government had presented no evidence that the database has been
useful in preventing terrorist attacks:

The Government does not cite a single instance in which
analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an
imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any
objective that was time-sensitive in nature. In fact, none of the
three “recent episodes” cited by the Government that supposedly
“illustrate the role that telephony metadata analysis can play in
preventing and protecting against terrorist attack” involved any
apparent urgency….

Given the limited record before me at this point in the
litigation—most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a
terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA
database was faster than other investigative tactics—I have serious
doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a
means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases
involving imminent threats of terrorism.

Leon’s conclusion on this question is striking, since you’d
think the Obama administration would be highly motivated to show
that the database has been crucial in saving lives. If the
government cannot muster a single plausible example, how can such a
massive invasion of privacy possibly be justified?

The administration has been
struggling with this problem since news reports based on leaks
from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first revealed the
existence of the phone record database last June. At first
intelligence officials and their allies in Congress suggested that
the program had been instrumental in foiling more than 50 terrorist
plots. But those claims—which were immediately questioned
by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who as
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee ought to
know—dissolved upon close examination. Last October a ProPublica
analysis
concluded “there’s no evidence that the oft-cited figure
is accurate.”

The crucial question, usually dodged by the NSA and its
defenders, is whether routinely collecting everyone’s phone
records, as opposed to seeking specific, evidence-based court
orders aimed at particular targets, has been decisive in stopping
terrorist attacks. If the government has been unable to offer any
examples in the last six months, it seems unlikely it ever
will.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/17/would-you-believe-zero-terrorist-attacks
via IFTTT

56 Percent Say Police Departments Using Drones, Military Weapons Goes Too Far, 60 Percent of Tea Partiers Agree

In an era of “shoot first, ask questions later, ” 56 percent of
Americans say local police departments using drones, military
weapons, and armored vehicles goes too far and is not necessary for
law enforcement purposes, according to the
latest Reason-Rupe poll. Thirty-nine percent believe these
weapons are necessary for law enforcement purposes.

Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents say such
tactics go too far, though Republicans (53 percent) are slightly
less likely than Democrats and independents (both 60 percent) to
share this belief.

Republicans and Tea Partiers Are Split on Police
Militarization

A significant difference emerges between tea party supporters
and Republicans who do not support the movement. Just like
Democrats, 60 percent of tea party supporters say militarization of
the police is going too far, compared to 48 percent of regular
Republicans. In fact, Republicans who are not tea party supporters
are evenly split with another 48 percent who think the police do
need drones, military weapons and armored vehicles to protect the
public.

Sixty-seven percent of African-Americans think these police
tactics go too far, and 60 percent of Hispanics and 57 percent of
Caucasians agree. Men and women are equally likely to say such
tactics go too far (59 percent and 58 percent, respectively).

“FBI,
Medical Experts Pin Kelly Thomas’ Brutal Death on Police
Beating,” “The
Madness of Law Enforcement’s Escalating Brutality” and
“Cop
Fires Shots at Minivan Full of Kids After Mom Flees Traffic
Stop” are just a few of Reason.com’s recent headlines
reflecting abuses within law enforcement.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed
1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a
margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates
International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns
may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results,
detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign
up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe
poll here.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/17/56-percent-say-police-departments-using
via IFTTT

If you have children, you need to see these numbers

shutterstock 106460288 150x150 If you have children, you need to see these numbers

December 17, 2013
Santiago, Chile

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, just 33% of Americans think their children will have a better life than they did. On the other hand, 62% believe their children will be worse off.

They’re likely to be right.  The typical American family has seen its real income (adjusted for inflation) fall for 5 consecutive years now, and it earns less in real terms that it did in 1989.

According to the Census Bureau, median household income fell in 2012, and it languishes 8.3% below the pre-crisis peak in 2007.

The Brookings Institution, meanwhile, calculates that real incomes for working-age men in the US have fallen by 19 per cent since 1970.

(Of course, if you’re fortunate enough to be a member of the super-rich who, thanks in large part to central bankers driving up asset prices, saw their real incomes rocket by 20% in 2012.)

In Europe things look even more dire.  Just 28% of Germans think their children will be better off than they were.  In the UK it’s 17%, in Italy 14%, and in France just 9%.

In Britain, research by the Financial Times shows that those born in 1985 are the first cohort to suffer a living standard worse than those born 10 years before them.

Contrast this gloomy picture with China, where 82% think their kids will have it better than they did. In Nigeria, the number is 65%. In India, 59%.

It’s blatantly obvious that the West is in decline. And most people seem to understand this.

But this isn’t a bad news story. Wealth and power has constantly shifted throughout history. Five hundred years ago, it was the West that was rising and Asia in decline. Today it’s the exact opposite.

As Jim Rogers has said so many times before, if you were smart in the 1700s, you went to France. If you were smart in the 1800s, you went to England. And in the 1900s, you went to the US.

Today, it’s the developing world. That’s where the long-term opportunity is– Asia, Africa, and South America.

What’s happening in the developing world is nothing short of remarkable. One billion people are being pulled from the depths of poverty into the middle class… bringing with them untold possibilities for business, employment, and investment.

That’s one of the reasons why I travel so much, and why I spend so much time in Chile. I’m constantly amazed at the tremendous opportunities I come across in this country (which is still largely off the radar of most people).

It’s also what I encourage my students to do each summer at our entrepreneurship camps—seek out opportunities in countries that are rising suns, not setting suns.

If you have children, this is a great direction to influence them. Encourage them to learn another language, travel, and apply what they want to do to how the world is going to be in the future.

As Wayne Gretzky said, skate to where the puck is going to be.

from SOVErEIGN MAN http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/if-you-have-children-you-need-to-see-these-numbers-13312/
via IFTTT

Questions about Obamacare? Chat with someone who can help!

 

 

[12:28:00 pm]: Thanks for contacting Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat. Please wait while we connect you to someone who can help.
[12:28:05 pm]: Please be patient while we’re helping other people.
[12:28:39 pm]: Please be patient while we’re helping other people.
[12:28:46 pm]: Welcome! You’re now connected to Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat.

Thanks for contacting us. My name is Diana. To protect your privacy, please don’t provide any personal information, like Social Security Number, or any other sensitive medical or personal information.
[12:28:58 pm]: Diana
How may I help you?
[12:29:59 pm]: CALLER
It says to not provide any personal information to protect my privacy. Why? Can I not trust you?
[12:30:36 pm]: Diana
thats just how it is. How may I help you?

[12:31:32 pm]: CALLER
I am trying to get a quote for my family. Will the quote be an estimate, or an actual quote?
[12:32:07 pm]: Diana
estimate
[12:33:07 pm]: CALLER
Do I have to buy the insurance to know what it actually costs?
[12:33:51 pm]: Diana
no you will have to do an application then it will let you know the prices.
[12:34:26 pm]: CALLER
How long does that take?
[12:35:26 pm]: Diana
if you do an application today over the phone they will be able to let you know the results the same time.
[12:35:54 pm]: CALLER
Can I do an application today online?
[12:36:10 pm]: Diana
yes
[12:36:15 pm]: Diana
Is there anything else that I may help you with?
[12:36:37 pm]: CALLER
How long if I do it online?
[12:36:51 pm]: Diana
the same

[12:37:05 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[12:38:22 pm]: CALLER
If I wait until someone in my family gets sick, will I still be able to apply?
[12:38:46 pm]: Diana
You can enroll in a Health Insurance Marketplace plan from October 1, 2013, until the end of open enrollment. Open enrollment closes on March 31, 2014. During open enrollment, you can begin your Marketplace application and start shopping for health insurance plans. Your coverage will not begin until you make your first payment. If you enroll in a Marketplace plan and pay your first premium by December 23, 2013, your coverage will begin January 1, 2014.
[12:39:51 pm]: CALLER
Thanks, but that does not answer my question.
[12:40:23 pm]: Diana

Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[12:42:03 pm]: CALLER
Yes. The Blue Advantage Bronze HMO 006 Plan shows a $6,000 per person per year deductible. What is the co-insurance rate?
[12:42:33 pm]: Diana
i cant pull up that information im sorry

[12:43:59 pm]: CALLER
There is no pre-existing condition exclusions anymore, correct?
[12:44:28 pm]: Diana
yes correct
[12:44:36 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[12:45:13 pm]: CALLER
So, I should just wait until someone gets sick, then apply, correct? And I cannot be turned down, correct?
[12:45:34 pm]: Diana
no
[12:45:43 pm]: Diana
thats not what i said
[12:46:16 pm]: Diana
there is a deadline to apply if you dont apply by that time there will be a fee. The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay is $285. Amounts go up after 2014.
In 2015, the fee per person rises to $325 per person or $975 per family, or 2% of income, whichever is higher. For 2016, the fee per person will increase to $695 per person or $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of your household’s income, whichever is higher. The fee for children will be half that amount, and there will be an overall cap for family payments. From 2017 on, the fee will rise each year with inflation. You will also have to pay the entire cost of all your medical care if you do not get health insurance.
[12:46:24 pm]: Diana
Is there anything else that I may help you with?
[12:47:34 pm]: CALLER
So, if I pay the fee, then I can wait until someone gets sick to apply, and I cannot be turned down?
[12:52:24 pm]: CALLER
Are you still there?
[12:53:16 pm]: Diana
yes you can do that if you would like but when you decide to enroll there will be a waiting period to apply
[12:53:35 pm]: CALLER
How long is the waiting period?
[12:54:18 pm]: Diana
I don’t know yet you will have to wait until they say that open enrollment then you will be able to apply.

 

Have an accident?  No Insurance?  No identification?  No problem!

 

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency
Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to
emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the
Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on
Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to
provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for
examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC),
including active labor, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay.
Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for
patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient
within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate
transfer should be implemented.

 

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.htm…

 

[12:54:51 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[12:56:29 pm]: CALLER
We are a very healthy family. We don’t get sick, and are in good condition, medically and physically. Are we entitled to a discount?
[12:57:48 pm]: Diana
you will have to do an application to find out
[12:57:55 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[12:59:01 pm]: CALLER
So, the premiums are based on our health? That is good news!

[12:59:21 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:00:18 pm]: CALLER
How much can the premium go up next year? IS it limited?
[1:01:12 pm]: Diana
I don’t know you will have to wait and see.
[1:02:09 pm]: CALLER
If I like this insurance, will I be able to keep this insurance?
[1:03:05 pm]: Diana
it depends what offered next year.
[1:03:48 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:04:50 pm]: CALLER
I don’t understand. What if I like my current insurance plan. Can I keep it?
[1:05:41 pm]: Diana
it all depends if its still offered next year.
[1:05:45 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:06:42 pm]: CALLER
No, my current plan I have had for several years. Can I keep it, or do I need to change to an ACA plan?
[1:07:20 pm]: Diana
you will need to see if they still offered it for next year.
[1:07:26 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:08:20 pm]: CALLER
Just a moment. You are very helpful, and this is confusing stuff.

[1:10:19 pm]: CALLER
Is there a medical savings account option, so if we don’t use the coverag
e, then some of the money we pay rolls into next year?
[1:11:00 pm]: Diana
you will need to contact the insurance directly to see if they offer that.
[1:11:49 pm]: Diana

Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:12:14 pm]: CALLER
Is it true that I will have to pay a fine to the IRS if I don’t sign up for 2014, but the big businesses will not?
[1:13:38 pm]: Diana
i sent you the fees sir if you dont sign up.
[1:13:46 pm]: Diana
Do you have any other questions that I can help you with?
[1:15:02 pm]: CALLER
That does not answer my question, but I think that is the case. That is all for now. Merry Christmas!
[1:15:22 pm]: Diana
Thank you for contacting Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat. We are here to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
[1:15:23 pm]: ‘Diana’ has left the chat session.
[1:15:25 pm]: Your chat session is over. Thanks for contacting us, and we hope we’ve answered your questions. Have a great day.
[1:15:25 pm]: 12/17/2013


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/6VJnTPEmvp4/story01.htm hedgeless_horseman

Change In US Net Worth – By Age Group

By now it is a well-known fact that the Fed’s monetary policies over the past 5 years (and really ever since Greenspan unleashed the Great Moderation) have been very successful at one thing: transferring wealth from the US (and global) middle class and handing it over to the already wealthiest strata of society, either through financial repression, zero savings rates, or generally boosting financial asset values, which as we showed hit a record $63.9 trillion in Q3, or over 70% of total. However, just like the general public’s attention is focused on the quantitative components of the monthly payroll number and completely ignores the qualitative gains or losses in the US labor force, so the broad definition of “middle class” leaves quite a bit to be desired. So what happens if one quantizes society instead of by class with wealth of income cutoff ranges but instead by age? In that case, one gets the following chart prepared by the Urban Institute showing the change in net worth in the period 1983-2010 by age group.

The discrepancy summarized:

Young adults’ ability to grow their personal assets over the past 30 years has decreased considerably. Average wealth for individuals in their 20s and 30s dropped 7 percent from 1983 to 2010, while those 74 and over have seen wealth increase by 149 percent in the same time period. Figure 7 highlights the substantial changes in net worth by age, showing that Millennials today are financially worse off than their parents were at the same age

It is meaningless to make ethical judgments based on the above chart, however the data does confirm one of the most troubling hurdles before any dreams of a virtuous economic recovery can be realized: because it is the younger age groups that drive household formation, and are responsible for the bulk of organic demand for homes – that so critical, missing variable in what would be a true housing recovery (instead of merely using houses as flippable hot potato assets whereby one investor sells homes to another investor with no intention of occupying, in the process making that entry-level home ever more unaffordable for the average young American).

And a question: in a society increasingly torn by conflicts (some of which as if created on purpose): by social status, by race, by ethnicity, by gender, and so many more, how long until one can add age as an ever growing source of social discontent?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/vwP7cO6mocw/story01.htm Tyler Durden