College Enrollment Is Surging But Is It Really Worth It? (Aside From The Frat Parties, Of Course)

College enrollment has been surging over the past 4 years with 67.4% of high school men enrolling directly in college after high school in 2016 versus only 61.3% in 2012. 

Ask any economics professor at an Ivy League school what is driving the trend of higher college enrollments and you’ll get a quick response that implies that our young 18-year-old snowflakes are simply hedging their future employment opportunities against the devastating consequences of globalization and a deteriorating manufacturing base in the United States.

And while their complex econometric models prove their point well beyond a shadow of a doubt (even though you’ll never understand them so don’t even try), we suspect the real answer may have something to do with the federal government throwing student loan dollars at anyone with a pulse while simultaneously offering to erase all that debt when you graduate.  Call us cynics. 

Meanwhile, we find it absolutely shocking that a bunch of 18-year-old boys would happily take $40,000 from the federal government every year to do this:

College

 

But, whatever the reasoning, there is no doubt that college enrollment is soaring.  Per Bloomberg:

College

 

And while over-educated elitists of our liberal bastions of higher education are all too eager to explain why more kids are choosing college these days, you’ll rarely hear them comment on whether or not it’s actually worth it…it just wouldn’t progress any of their liberal narratives or serve their self interests, so why bother?

So we decided to take a quick look at the math of a college education.

First, according to Quora.com, attending college these days can cost anywhere from $22,500 per year for a public, in-state university to $75,000 for a private education.  So, lets just assume that, on average, our snowflakes are spending $30,000 per year on a 4-year bachelor, or $120,000.

  • Attend a public in-state university for four years, living on campus ($22,500 per year for four years) for $90,000
  • Attend a public out-of-state college for four years:  $35,000 per year for four years for a total of $140,000
  • Attend a private four year college in an expensive area like Manhattan at $75,000 per year for a total of $300,000

So what do they get for that?  Well, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that $120,000 degree in Anthropology will earn you roughly $464 extra dollars per week or ~$24,000 per year.

Wages

 

So, doing some quick math, we find that $24,000 tax-effected at a 25% tax rate equals about $18,000 of extra annual earnings for a college grad and implies a 15% return on invested capital. 

Not bad…but, unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there.  You see, by choosing the college route our snowflakes not only incur the cost of college, in the form of massive student loans, but also forgo 4 years of earnings, which equates to roughly $110,000 ($692*52*.75) on a tax-effected basis. 

So lumping in that opportunity cost brings the true average cost of that Anthro degree up closer to $250,000, implying a roughly 7.2% ROIC. 

Of course, that’s assuming that young Tripp Hollingsworth III actually graduates in 4 years and then promptly finds a job shortly thereafter rather than returning to mom’s basement.

So you decide, is a 7.2% return on invested capital sufficient to take on a life time of debt?  In fairness, it is awfully difficult to calculate the present value of a frat party, which for an 18-year-old boy may be infinite.

via http://ift.tt/2q8SQ1Y Tyler Durden

Mike Krieger Asks: Can Bernie Sanders Be Convinced To Launch A New Political Party?

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitizkrieg blog,

I am 100% in the camp that supports Bernie Sanders severing himself completely from the hopelessly captured and corrupt Democratic Party and launching an entirely new movement. I’ve spent a lot of time since the 2016 election writing about how worthless the Democratic Party is and why it will never fundamentally change. The sad truth when it comes to American politics at the moment is “we the people” have no political representation whatsoever. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are corporate and oligarch donor owned, and will never push forward the sort of sweeping change average Americans need in order to enjoy a higher quality of life.

This post isn’t meant as an endorsement of Sanders or all of his policies, but it’s an endorsement of creating something new so that the public can enter a new era in which the needs of the people are addressed. Truth be told, we’ve been fooled into thinking that we have two distinct political parties proposing vastly different policy solutions to help the public. The reality is we have two political parties proposing various solutions to help the donors. Nobody represents the people. We need to discard these parties and form new ones, and the sooner we do so, the better.

As I wrote in the post, In Defense of Populism:

Despite my refusal to self-identify, I am comfortable stating that I’m a firm supporter of populist movements and appreciate the instrumental role they’ve played historically in free societies. The reason I like this term is because it carries very little baggage. It doesn’t mean you adhere to a specific set of policies or solutions, but that you believe above all else that the concerns of average citizens matter and must be reflected in government policy.

 

Populism reaches its political potential once such concerns become so acute they translate into popular movements, which in turn influence the levers of power. Populism is not a bug, but is a key feature in any democratic society. It functions as a sort of pressure relief valve for free societies. Indeed, it allows for an adjustment and recalibration of the existing order at the exact point in the cycle when it is needed most. In our current corrupt, unethical and depraved oligarchy, populism is exactly what is needed to restore some balance to society.

 

Whether people identify as on the “right” or the “left” there’s general consensus (at least in U.S. populist movements) of the following: oligarchs must be reined in, rule of law must be restored, unnecessary military adventures overseas must be stopped, and lobbyist written phony “free trade” deals must be scrapped and reversed.

Trump was the first President in my lifetime to win the office on a populist wave. Unfortunately, his actual style of governing in practice looks a lot like authoritarian-corporatism, an ideology and mindset which I find nauseating and dangerous. As such, the best chance of an alternative populism in the near-term would come from a Bernie Sanders led party.

I seriously hope he takes the plunge, because as recent reports from a Florida lawsuit against the DNC demonstrate, the Democratic Party is beyond repair.

As the Observer reports:

On April 28 the transcript was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.

 

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.

 

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

That’s your “Democratic” Party.

As a result of the obvious sham, there’s a new movement afoot to “Draft Bernie” into a new political party. Its founder is Nick Brana, and here’s a great interview of him  by Jordan Chariton.

 

Here’s my bottomline. If Sanders doesn’t do something like this and do it fast, the Democrats are going to nominate another corrupt loser in 2020, and Trump will win a second term no matter how unpopular he might be.

via http://ift.tt/2qKqmbX Tyler Durden

California Wants To Give More Money To Eric Holder To Fight Trump

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra apparently doesn’t think that $858 million is nearly enough taxpayer money to fight the Trump administration.  That is precisely the amount that California’s state budget proposal, laid out by Governor Jerry Brown in January, allocated to Becerra’s Justice Department but in testimony before the Senate Budget committee yesterday Becerra said he needs even more to attract and keep qualified lawyers to defend the state.  Per The Hill:

“No one anticipated the extent to which federal executive actions would impact the people of California and the Department of Justice. Who knew that the federal government would play so fast and loose with the law and taxpayers’ pocketbooks?”

 

“I am operating with a budget that was assembled without addressing the needs of current mandates and before our new reality of dealing with federal executive orders,” Becerra said. “If it feels like the attacks are constantly coming, it’s because they are.”

Becerra

 

After taking over the state Justice Department in January, Becerra has joined or initiated several lawsuits challenging the Trump administration over everything from an immigration to changes to federal fuel efficiency standards.

Meanwhile, after the passage of the Obamacare repeal bill yesterday, Becerra issued a statement defining healthcare as a “right” of all Americans and suggesting that the next front in his legal war against the Trump administration could come over the Republicans’ efforts to undo Obama’s legacy.

“I believe health care is a right. Today’s House vote takes a dangerous step towards jeopardizing the health security of millions of people in our state and throughout the country.”

 

“As a Member of Congress, I was proud to help expand health coverage and lower costs for hardworking Americans. Every Member of Congress who voted for today’s bill must answer why it is good to take away an American’s access to his or her doctor. Would they do this to themselves or their family?”

 

“As California’s Attorney General, I will use every legal tool at my disposal to safeguard the healthcare the people of our state depend on.”

And while we would never question Becerra’s brilliant legal mind, we would love it if he could point us to the specific language in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees every U.S. citizen the “right” to healthcare. 

Of course, the additional funding request from Becerra is even more questionable in light of the fact that California recently retained the law firm of Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, to also fight the Trump administration.  You just have to wonder how much of that incremental funding over and above $858 million will make its way into Holder’s pocket?  Per our post from January:

“With the upcoming change in administrations, we expect that there will be extraordinary challenges for California in the uncertain times ahead.  This is a critical moment in the history of our nation. We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes our nation great.”

 

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California,” Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the Senate, said in an interview. “This means we are very, very serious.”

Meanwhile, the sole Republican on California’s budget committee asked what would seem like the most logical question following Becerra’s request, namely why should taxpayers provide more money to Becerra to fight laws that could ultimately result in the state losing access to millions of dollars of federal funding.

State Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, the budget subcommittee’s sole Republican, pressed Becerra to quantify how much money his office receives from the federal government and how much could be put at risk by state policies, such as those embodied in Senate Bill 54, the “sanctuary state” bill.

 

“It makes no sense to give you an increase if your sole focus is to pursue policies that cut off” potentially hundreds of millions of federal dollars. “I don’t see why I would want to backfill someone hellbent on having their budget cut.”

Here’s a radical idea Mr. Becerrra, how about you just do your job and simply enforce the laws of the land rather than trying to bend them to fit your own personal political beliefs.  It would save California taxpayers a whole lot of money.

via http://ift.tt/2pKxp5O Tyler Durden

Macron Says He Is Victim Of “Massive, Coordinated” Hack After 9 Gigabytes Of Private Documents Released

As reported overnight, the anonymous source of documents alleging Emmanuel Macron’s involvement with an operating agreement for a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the Caribbean island of Nevis returned to release several high quality images of the purported documents along with promises to release even more documents and identify account locations and the extent of the assets Macron is supposedly hiding from regulatory authorities.

Screenshot of image showing the alleged Macron signature on the operating agreement

The leaker noted that Macron’s assets were not located in the Bahamas as was been reported by some media outlets, but in the Cayman Islands, another known hotspot for tax evasion. They further stated that they were taking measures to conceal their identity because they are located in the European Union and did not wish to be arrested. The leaker also explained that they were one of a small group of individuals working online with a source in the Cayman Islands to expose the leaked information. They claimed that they were in possession of SWIFTNet logs dating back for several months, and would soon not only know where Mr. Macron’s alleged accounts are located but also the “extent of the money he is hiding from [France’s] government.”

Then, earlier today, this is precisely what happened when 4chan released several gigabytes of email archives and files related to Macron. It was enough to attract Wikileaks’ attention.

The hacker released the thousands of alleged Macron emails and documents on an anonymous pastebin location:

Torrent Files

 

1)http://ift.tt/2pKvEWf…
2)http://ift.tt/2q8gAmR
3)http://ift.tt/2pijXDv
4)http://ift.tt/2qKrtsi…
5)http://ift.tt/2pKzgYD…
6)http://ift.tt/2qKjNpP…
7)http://ift.tt/2piy77C
8)http://ift.tt/2q8nclj

 

Zip/RAR Files

 

1)http://ift.tt/2pKrWfk…
2)http://ift.tt/2q8iIuH
3)http://ift.tt/2pi9urY
4)http://ift.tt/2qK6Xba….
5)http://ift.tt/2pKulXv…
6)http://ift.tt/2qKwzVi…
7)http://ift.tt/2phS5je
8)http://ift.tt/2pKr1vk…

 

Two smaller files with no ZIP/RAR

 

1)http://ift.tt/2qKlZOf…
2)http://ift.tt/2pKsIJe…

Then on Friday evening, Macron’s political party said its computer systems were hacked, after “thousands of emails and electronic documents purporting to come from the campaign were posted anonymously on the internet Friday evening.”  According to the WSJ , the files had been obtained several weeks ago from the personal and work email accounts of party officials, according to a statement from Mr. Macron’s party, En Marche!, or On the Move. The file dump comes less than two days before the final round of France’s presidential race, which pits Mr. Macron against far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen.

“The En Marche! Movement has been the victim of a massive and co-ordinated hack this evening which has given rise to the diffusion on social media of various internal information,” the statement said.

The party said that the cache “includes both authentic and falsified documents with the goal of sowing doubt and disinformation,” which is another way of stating that anything that is potentialy damaging will be claimed to the fake, while the innocuous documents are “authentic.”

As Reuters adds, an interior ministry official declined to comment, citing French rules which forbid any commentary liable to influence an election, and which took effect at midnight French time on Friday. Comments about the email dump began to appear on Friday evening just hours before the official ban on campaigning began. The ban is due to stay in place until the last polling stations close on Sunday at 8 p.m.

Already accusations have emerged that this is a hacking similar to what occurred with Hillary Clinton, when over 30,000 emails by John Podesta were leaked, exposing the “dirty laundry” of Clinton’s campaign, a hack she has subsequently claimed cost her the presidency. Naturally, the Kremlin has already been implicated as being behind the hack.

Could tonight’s hack have a similar impact on Macron? In a tweet, Wikileaks asks “who benefits?” and notes that the “Timing of alleged dump is too late to hit vote but will surely be used to boost hostility to Russia & intelligence spending.

 

Perhaps Wikileaks is right, although it likely depends on what documents are disclosed inside the hack. Should it be confirmed that Macron indeed lied, as hackers have previously alleged, about an offshore account and engaging in tax evasion, his chances of winning could be deeply impacted. We will present any of the more notable documents we uncover.

via http://ift.tt/2pKlgOo Tyler Durden

The Coming Debt Reckoning

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

American workers, as a whole, are facing a disagreeable disorder.  Their debt burdens are increasing.  Their incomes are stagnating.

There are many reasons why.  In truth, it would take several large volumes to chronicle all of them.  But when you get down to the ‘lick log’ of it all, the disorder stems from decades of technocratic intervention that have stripped away any semblance of a free functioning, self-correcting economy.

The financial system circa 2017, and the economy that supports it, has been stretched to the breaking point.  Shortsighted fiscal and monetary policies have propagated it.  The result is a failing financial order that has become near intolerable for all but the gravy supping political class and their cronies.

Take consumer spending.  This is the primary driver of the U.S. economy.  Yet it requires vast amounts of credit.  In fact, American consumers presently hold $1 trillion in revolving credit.  At the same time, they have nowhere near the income needed to finance these debts, let alone pay them off.

Remember, the flipside of credit is debt.  Obviously, the divergence of increasing debt and stagnating incomes is a condition that cannot go on forever.  But it can go on much longer than any sensible person would consider possible.

Debt Slaves

If you haven’t noticed, the financial services industry is extremely accomplished at compelling people to go whole hog into debt.  Moreover, the entire fiat based financial system, which depends on ever increasing issuances of debt, hinges on it.  Just a slight contraction of credit, like late 2008, and the whole debt repayment structure breaks down.

On an individual basis, there are only so many credit cards that can be maxed out before the shell game ends.  Wolf Richter, of Wolf Street, recently clarified the relationship between the economy and deep consumer debt:

“The US economy is fueled by credit.  Americans turning themselves into debt slaves makes it tick.  Take it away, and what little growth there is – nearly zero in the first quarter – will dissipate into ambient air altogether.  So it’s time to take the pulse of our American debt slaves.

 

“In a new study, life insurer and financial services provider Northwestern Mutual found that 45 percent of Americans that have debt spend ‘up to half of their monthly income on debt repayment.’  Those are the true debt slaves.

 

“Excluding mortgage debt, Americans carry an average debt of $37,000.  Of them, 47 percent carry $25,000 or more, and more than 10 percent carry $100,000 or more in debt, excluding mortgage debt.

 

“Most of them expect to get out of debt before they die, but 14 percent expect to be in debt ‘for the rest of their lives.”’

The Coming Debt Reckoning

Consumers with elevated debt levels are playing a high risk game.  They are one job loss or illness away from losing it all.  Even without such difficult life events, the compounding interest of massive amounts of debt relentlessly pile up like straw upon a camel’s back.  Eventually the breaking point is crossed.

The process may be subtle at first.  Later it’s abrupt.  Here we turn to a brief dialogue from Ernest Hemingway’s 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises, for a succinct explanation of the process of going broke:

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

 

“Two ways,” Mike said.  “Gradually and then suddenly.”

By our estimation, the gradual trickle toward bankruptcy for many Americans is giving way to the sudden deluge.  On an individual basis, greater amounts of debt may be a temporary solution to a debt problem.  But greater amounts of debt gradually compound to a sudden bankruptcy.

First-quarter GDP, reported last Friday, came in at an annualized rate of just 0.7 percent.  Of this, personal consumption increased just 0.3 percent.

Up and down, in and out, of the economy, consumers are struggling.  Some are attempting to tighten their belts.  Others are at the end of their rope.  Is it any surprise that retailers are shuttering stores at a record clip?

Obviously, the effects of consumer retrenchments will spread out beyond just retail.  Commercial real estate, manufacturing, shipping and transportation, automotive, oil and gas – you name it.  A coordinated supply glut, fueled by excess debt, is upon us.

Make of it what you will.  By our estimation a debt reckoning is coming, and that doesn’t even account for government debt.  What better time than now to get your financial house in order?

via http://ift.tt/2pKpgyA Tyler Durden

Criminal Justice Reform and Public Safety Rhetoric in the Philly DA Race

The policy similarities and differences of the seven Democratic district attorney candidates running to replace Seth Williams, who is facing federal corruption charges, reveal the dissonance between some of Democrats’ self-professed commitments to issues like civil rights or poverty and the way they campaign and govern at the local level, where government is often at its most powerful vis a vis the individual.

Last night, I attended a DA candidate forum in my neighborhood in Philadelphia last night. The meeting began with a local police officer community liaison talking about crime rates going down in the neighborhood (and warning residents not to leave car doors unlocked, particularly when also leaving valuables in view) and ended with questions from residents about what the district attorney candidates could do about “drug houses” in the neighborhood.

“Criminal justice reform” came up repeatedly, a number of times without any kind of detail as to what it meant, so did the kind of appeals to “more safety” that produce the kinds of policies and priorities that have made criminal justice reform necessary.

“We here have found a way to keep ourselves as safe as we can,” candidate Jack O’Neill, referring to the general safety of the Roxborough neighborhood where the forum was held, despite the later questions about alleged drug houses and concern about alleged drug addicts slowly ruining the neighborhood’s main throughway, “but I also know that we can keep ourselves a lot safer.”

It was from that promise that O’Neill segued to criminal justice reform. “The criminal justice system needs to be fair for all those people who don’t need to be in jail,” the former prosecutor continued, pointing to drug diversions and mental health treatments as alternatives.

Rich Negrin, the city’s former managing director, who received the endorsement of the local Fraternal Order of Police, insisted that the Democratic candidate sagreed on most things.

“We all agree on going after corrupt politicians, mass incarceration, cash bail, being smarter on non-violent offenders, not criminalizing poverty, not criminalizing addiction,” Negrin said. “We’re all there, we’re all there by and large, much agreement.”

A little later, Negrin did his version of the “more safety” pitch: “I know this neighborhood. I know you have a crack house over there on Fountain Street… you guys have crime right here, no one talks about it, you know how many armed robberies there have been over at the 7-11? Right?”

“It’s going on right here in your community,” Negrin told the group of about 100 voters who showed up. “Here, wreaking havoc in Roxborough, and we’re not talking about that.” Several of the residents had asked questions about crime before and after Negrin’s introduction.

“Our young people are facing significant challenges,” Negrin went on. “I want to be the DA… who can look at our kids in the face and say you can live past 25, that it doesn’t matter where you come from or what you see, that you can be the first from your family to go to college, to go to law school, to help run the fifth largest city in the country, one of the greatest cities in the world, and maybe even play in the NFL for a very brief period of time before they cut me.”

“But our kids need to hear that message,” Negrin continued, referring to his life story. “That’s incredibly important, and they need a DA that the first time they meet him he’s not just trying to lock them up, he’s in the neighborhoods making the community-based model.”

Joe Khan, too, appealed to safety. “I want the city to be safe for your children, for my children,” he told the audience.

“A good, dynamic, progressive DA can use the incredible power of the office and the talent and incredible people who work there to address these major problems in the city,” Khan said, referring to issues like the need to criminal justice reform, political corruption, and gun violence.

Teresa Carr Deni, a former municipal court judge and defense attorney, was the only who showed up who had any critical words for local police (at least two police officers stood in attendance in the back.)

“I have over the course of the last 31 years got to know all the new public defenders, all the new district attorneys, all the new private counsel, I’ve got a birds eye view of the criminal justice community,” she said in her introduction.

“I’ve also encountered and interacted with many many police officers; they know me and I know them, up to a point of course,” she continued. “Some people have a passion for the job, and some people shouldn’t be doing the job.”

Deni spoke in depth about her opposition to stop and frisk.

“Every neighborhood is different, but in our city the hoods in certain minority communities are being harassed by the stop and frisk policies,” she said, “and it has created a problem in communication among the communities of the police and the people who are committing these crimes and people who are being victimized by these violent crimes.”

“Stopping people without reasonable suspicion makes people very angry, and they don’t want to cooperate with the police and then when there’s a crime you cannot get their help,” she continued. “There are at least 50 unsolved homicides over the past year because of this breakdown in communication… that’s something that’s got to be dealt with and be dealt with immediately.”

She credited the DA’s office with sending representatives to community meetings, saying that was “the kind of interaction we need.”

“People get very angry when they’re stopped for no reason and you can’t blame them, you can’t blame them,” she went on. “To have somebody put their hands on you, stick their fingers in your pockets and things like that, it’s very intrusive.”

Deni acknowledged the cops in attendance. “That being said, I see some police officers in the room, and I definitely want to acknowledge that there are a lot of good police officers who are doing their jobs and trying to protect us,” she said, “and we have no problem there.

She continued: “There are a few who should not be on the force.”

“Anybody who’s shooting 14 bullets into a moving car for no reason, and somebody gets killed and they get a 25 day suspension, I say that’s not fair,” Deni said, referring to the light discipline many Philly cops get for incidents of police brutality and even homicides. “I mean, even if it was a mistake, you at least should be fired, if you’re not going to prosecute them. They’re not up to the job.”

“Accidental deaths are not acceptable as far as I’m concerned,” Deni stressed to the audience. “But I think that’s a problem of negotiation of the labor contracts that have to be looked at more closely so that we can be able to disperse with officers who are unable to do their job competently.”

Deni was the only candidate in attendance to talk so directly about police brutality, and the only in the race who I’ve seen specifically address how police contracts thwart accountability.

Deni also went in depth about civil asset forfeiture, criticizing the practice of seizing property from criminal suspects before securing convictions and saying it deprived residents of due process. She sai she was cautiously optimistic about asset forfeiture reform at the state level.

“The district attorney’s office should not be relying on civil forfeiture for 20 percent of its budget,” Deni said. “That incentivizes the taking of homes and we actually need to pay more attention to that.”

Beth Grossman, a former Democrat running as the sole Republican, who was also in charge of the asset forfeiture unit in the DA’s office, defended asset forfeiture as a practice that served as a “deterrent” to drug dealers—side stepping the fact that property is taken from people the district attorney has not convicted of a crime, and in many cases, knows it is unable to do so.

A number of the candidates promised to reform cash bail. Larry Krasner, a civil rights and criminal defense attorney running for DA, who did not attend the forum despite, according to organizers, committing to it, pointed out to Reason last month that while 80 percent of registered voters in Philadelphia are Democrats, and it has the highest level of poverty of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., “we have people remaining in county jail four times as long as other cities,” largely because of high cash bail.”

Krasner has been critical of other candidates paying lip service to criminal justice reform. “All these other candidates have been a part of the problem,” he said at a recent church meeting, the Philadelphia Daily News reported. “They have done nothing to change the problem, but now all of a sudden in this race, when the popular view on criminal justice has shifted … they’re the biggest reformers you’ve ever seen.”

It’s a conclusion that’s not hard to draw after listening to the other candidates who showed up.

The forum was attended by, in the order they arrived (only Grossman was on time), Grossman and Democrats Deni, the former municipal court judge and criminal defense attorney, Khan, the former local and federal prosecutor, O’Neill, the former local prosecutor, and Negrin, the city’s former managing director.

Krasner, Tariq Shabbaz, a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney who has called critical coverage of him “fake news” motivated by racism, and Michael Untermeyer, a former state and local prosecutor who ran for DA as a Republican in 2009, did not appear. Organizers said all the candidates had committed to attending.

Spending most of the first 27 years of my life in Newark, N.J., I attended a lot of community meetings. This was my first one in Philadelphia. While the neighborhood I live in now has far less crime than where I lived in Newark, it would be hard to tell that based on the level of fear still expressed by some of the residents. It illustrates why criminal justice reform is so difficult to advance—playing to people’s fears by privileging public safety over all else seems like the easier electoral path, especially given the low voter-turnout in elections like these. That’s unfortunate because such local elections have far more impact on people’s every day lives than the federal elections we all obssess over. And residents worried about public safety are far more likely to come out to vote than those who say criminal justice reform matters to them.

The primaries are on Tuesday, May 16.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2pKqk5a
via IFTTT

These Are The Most Expensive (And Best) Cities Around The World

Every year Deutsche Bank releases its fascinating index of real-time prices around the world which looks at the cost of goods and services from a purchase-price parity basis, to determine the most expensive – and in this year’s edition, best – cities. As have done on several occasions in the past, we traditionally focus on one specific subindex: the cost of “cheap dates” in the world’s top cities.

The index consists of i) cab rides, ii) dinner/lunch for two at a pub or diner, iii) soft drinks, iv) two movie tickets and a v) couple of beers. Deutsche Bank’s advice to those in Zurich is either to marry young or choose your blind dates carefully as its “cheap date” index continues to see Zurich as the most expensive place for courtship. Tokyo climbs to second and Oslo, Copenhagen and Stockholm make up the top 5. Indeed these 5 cities are also the most expensive for a haircut so the pre-date investment costs are also high!

If you’re in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Mexico a date is around a quarter of the cost of that in Zurich and a haircut about a tenth of the price. So if you’re young, free and single in Zurich, depending on how much you date it might be profitable to migrate to parts of Asia even after the salary sacrifice, the German bank suggests.

And while traditionally we end it here, focusing merely on the most (and least) expensive cities part of the study, this year it is worth expanding because what started off as a pet project for Jim Reid back in 2011 has turned into a purchase-price parity masterpiece, as well as a crowdsourced “quality of life” index, which ranks some 50 of the world’s top cities on par with any of the rankings seen in various other, more popular rankings such as that by Mercer. As the London-based banker writes, “We continue to add new cities, refine our methodology and while it’s impossible to exactly match products and services around the world we try to ensure as much uniformity as possible and then convert prices back to USD.”

Some further details:

This year Deutsche has added a few new series. In particular average after-tax salaries, average 2-bed apartment rental costs and finally a quality-of-life index that is the most subjective measure in the report and will probably cause most arguments, debates and disagreements. A lot of the data in the report is crowdsourced (including this new quality-of-life index). Wellington, NZ comes out on top out of the 47 cities we cover based on purchasing power, crime, healthcare, cost of living, house prices, commuting time, pollution and climate. Edinburgh, Vienna, Melbourne, Zurich and Copenhagen are next. Of our 47 cities, the ‘mega cities’ like Tokyo (rank 27), NYC (28), Paris (30), London (33), Shanghai (37) and Mumbai (45) rank very low mostly due to high living costs, crime, pollution and commuting time. Megacity dwellers may also forsake short-term quality of life for aspirational reasons with these cities providing more upside rewards from the average for those most successful.

Looking simply at most expensive cities, Reid finds that Zurich remains the most expensive place to do and buy a lot of things but does have the highest average salaries, followed by several US cities and then Sydney. London has slipped out of the top 10 post the Brexit-FX fall.  

Rents are highest in San Fran, HK, NYC, London and then Zurich. Of note: the difference for a 2 bedroom rental between the most expensive city, San Francisco, and India’s Bangalore, when indexed in USD is a whopping 12 times.

Zurich is home to the highest ‘disposable income after rents’ and at the top of the purchasing power index.

However it might depend on how many dates and haircuts you have in a month (see top chart) as to how wealthy you feel. At the other end of the scale if you’re in Jakarta, Manila, Rio, New Delhi and Istanbul and a job comes up in Zurich then you could potentially increase your salary by ten-fold. Mind the cost of living increases though.

 

Global brands continue to be relatively cheaper in the US than across its DM peers. The top 10 most expensive regions across goods and services remain dominated by European cities. Swiss and Nordic/Scandinavian cities in particular require a tolerant bank manager to enable consumption. If you find yourself on holiday in Turkey, Brazil, Russia or Greece try to avoid the Apple store as iPhones are  25-50% more expensive than in the US – still the cheapest place to buy. Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Canada only see a small premium over US prices.

 

The “weekend getaway” index reflects the general cost of living around the world but is perhaps biased by hotel costs.

Milan is the new number-one (very expensive hotels), followed by Copenhagen, Zurich, London, Stockholm, Vienna and NYC. Much lower hotel costs in Asia continue to keep these cities as attractive holiday destinations.

The ‘bad habits’ index of cigarettes and beers is most costly in Australia, NZ and Singapore. At the opposite end of the spectrum it’s very cheap to indulge in such habits in the Czech Republic and South Africa.

If you relocate to Singapore, Copenhagen or Oslo consider a bike rather than a new car as duties etc. make the cost very prohibitive.

Avoid car rentals in Amsterdam and try not to get thirsty in Oslo (beer or coke)…

… and refrain from buying jeans and trainers in Copenhagen.

Petrol costs most in HK and public transport most in London.

Zurich also tops the rankings for most expensive movie tickets, while those who want to stay in shape will spend the most in Tokyo (with Zurich 2nd).

Hungry? A basic dinner will set up back some $73.70 in Zurich, while a full course dinner for two is most expensive in Oslo and costs just about $130.

Finally, new to this year’s study is a quality-of-life index of the 47 major cities DB collected prices for across the rest of this document. Figure 1 shows the overall index level plus the ranks for the individual components. The data has been collected by www.numbeo.com – a large crowd-sourced information database on global prices, quality of living etc. The data is based on the following 8 variables; purchasing power, safety, healthcare, cost of living, house prices/income, commuting time, pollution and climate.

via http://ift.tt/2pKCQ4J Tyler Durden

A Game-Theoretical Analysis Of The US-China-North Korea ‘Standoff’

Via University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business,

Amid the ramped-up diplomatic and military pressure on North Korea, there is something else at play, says Charles E. Olson, professor of the practice at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. It's an exercise in game theory.

 

Last weekend, as North Korea launched a ballistic missile, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was at the United Nations, urging member nations to adopt new sanctions against North Korea for seeking to advance its nuclear ambitions despite repeated admonitions from the UN. And President Donald Trump was turning to Twitter to portray the latest launch – which exploded shortly after takeoff – as a provocation against North Korea's most important ally, China.

"This is a perfect game-theoretic situation," says Olson, who teaches in the logistics, business and public policy department and is director of the Business Honors Program. The central players are the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

Game theory is a wide-reaching study that can describe and model how human beings will behave, particularly in response to the actions of other human beings. It's a sort of chess-game thinking. And its basis is essentially this: Your interests depend not just on the decisions you make, but also on the decisions that other people make. In game theory, you choose your moves based on how you expect your competitors to respond to your moves.

This particular game has spanned decades. "I'm just about 75 years old," Olson says. "But I remember reading about the battling between the U.S. and China and Korea in the Wausau [Wis.] Daily Herald as a kid when I was walking around, delivering the newspaper on my paper route."

Today, the stakes are higher than ever. North Korea, in addition to stockpiling artillery weapons near the Korean demilitarized zone, has recently been conducting a spate of nuclear tests and missile launches, suggesting that it might be getting nearer to developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking enemies as near as Tokyo or as far as the United States.

"It's not a pleasant thing to try to force the hand of North Korea," Olson says. "But it's going to get more unpleasant as time passes, as the weapons inventory continues to build."

In typical cooperative game theory fashion, Donald Trump has aligned himself with another player – China, which is believed to have significant leverage as Pyongyang's top trading partner.

"He's trying to see what he can do with China to up the pressure, add more sanctions, so that North Korea won't be able to continue in its weapons development," Olson says.

If North Korea's relationship with China were to sour, or if Beijing were to stop buying coal and other exports from North Korea, Pyongyang might suddenly have trouble financing its weapons ambitions.

Game theory is as much about anticipating reactions as it is examining players from multiple angles. 

"We supposedly know that China is afraid that if North Korea starts to unravel, then millions of people with all kinds of diseases and so on will seep across the border," Olson says. So, to persuade China to work toward Washington's goals, and against Pyongyang's, the U.S., following game theory, might approach Beijing with an offer that assuages that fear. They might offer to take in any North Korean refugees who cross into China, perhaps as part of a coalition with other partners – Japan and South Korea, for example, and perhaps some others.

 

"If it were just the U.S. and North Korea, something would probably work out. But you've got China complicating things by saying, 'We wouldn't like the results of the U.S. winning out, because it would be more costly for us, in terms of these refugees.' And that's where Trump could say, 'Well, we'll take that problem away from you.' And Japan could say 'And we'll help take that problem away from you.'"

And if North Korea were to fall apart altogether, Olson says, the next question is: "What happens to North Koreans?" Perhaps it starts a new chapter under new leadership, or even a new system of governing. Or perhaps North Korea is absorbed into South Korea, the way that East Germany was absorbed into West Germany. 

The latter option would pose a significant burden on South Korea. "They'd need some help," Olson says, from the other players to take in the largely impoverished country and its 25 million denizens.

And that's part of the theory. It involves asking, "How can you arrive at a better solution than the one you've got?"

Olson calls Trump "America's first game theoretic president." Trump plays his cards close to the vest; doesn't signal his moves before he makes them. "Trump is always saying, 'I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do. I'm not going to advance my moves,'" Olson says. "He's saying, in effect, 'You'll know what's happening when it happens.'"

via http://ift.tt/2qK4kWB Tyler Durden

Jimmy Kimmel, Sick Babies, and the Forgotten Barrier to Medical Care

The Internet lit up this week with Jimmy Kimmel’s emotional and deeply personal opening monologue from Monday night, when ABC’s late night host related the story of what happened after his new son, Billy, was born on April 21.

Though the baby appeared health and normal at first, things changed a few hours after the delivery when a nurse noticed the baby’s skin was discolored. The baby was taken down the hallway to the hospital’s neo-natal intensive care unit, Kimmel said, and the doctors realized that the baby’s heart wasn’t functioning properly.

After a scary night, Kimmel’s son had a successful surgery to repair the hole in his heart and replace a valve. Although the baby will need a second surgery in a few months, the whole story seems to be heading towards a happy ending.

Kimmel ended the monologue with a bit of a political note, mentioning that President Donald Trump’s budget plan to cut $6 billion from the National Institutes of Health (which he said would threaten children’s hospitals like the one where his son had surgery, despite pointing out earlier in the monologue that Costco, Disney, and other major corporations support the hospital with private donations). He also made a plea, essentially, for greater government involvement in health care.

“If your baby is going to die, and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” Kimmel said. “No parent should ever have to decide if they can afford to save their child’s life—it just shouldn’t happen. Not here.”

Coming as it did during the same week that Congress was debating reforms to Obamacare, Kimmel’s monologue was credited with “transforming the health care debate” and as strong, personal evidence for why more government intervention into health care markets is necessary.

I’m not sure exactly what policy Kimmel is advocating here. Is he saying government should pay for all expenses relating to giving birth, at least for those who can’t afford to pay, or is he saying, by extension, that government should cover all medical expenses in their entirety? I don’t know, and likely neither does Kimmel. He’s a comedian, not a health policy expert, and people who have recently experienced a traumatic and nearly tragic family crisis are probably not in the best position to give advice on how to structure a health care system.

Here’s what he seems to be saying: Government should do what it can to make sure that babies don’t needlessly die. Even hardened libertarians can probably agree with that sentiment on some level.

But Kimmel, like many people, is only looking at the problem from one side. He’s making the assumption that the only barrier keeping people from accessing necessary, even life-saving medical care is their ability to pay. Granted, that’s a major barrier for some people, but it’s not the only one.

Supply-side restrictions on medical care—restrictions that are implemented and enforced by government, restricting what services can be offered and by whom—are another major part of that problem. Take, for example, what we reported in January about how a government regulation led to the death of an infant at Lewis Gale Medical Center in Salem, Virginia. The hospital did not have a neonatal intensive care unit like the one that saved Kimmel’s baby’s life because the Virginia Department of Health (at the request of a nearby, competing hospital) had denied Lewis Gale’s application to build one.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but in many states hospitals and other medical providers have to get permission from the government (and, in practice, from their competitors) before opening a new facility or offering a new service. These rules are called Certificate of Necessity laws, and they artificially restrict the supply of medical care—in other words, you might not be able to get the care you or your child needs, no matter how much money you have or how many government subsidies are helping you pay.

Other parents who had similar experiences—though, like Kimmel, with happy endings—told their stories at a public hearing when Lewis Gale re-applied for permission to build a NICU after the infant’s death. Again, they were denied by the state even though the competing hospital was the lone dissenting voice in the application process.

The infant’s death at Lewis Gale is particularly acute, tragic example of how there government-enforced restrictions on medical care can have real consequences, but it’s not the only one. In a paper published last year by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,Thomas Stratmann and Davild Wille argue that hospitals in states with CON laws have higher mortality rates than hospitals in non-CON states. The average 30-day mortality rate for patients with pneumonia, heart failure, and heart attacks in states with CON laws is between 2.5 percent and 5 percent higher even after demographic factors are taken out of the equation.

Yes, our health care system is often a complete mess and people don’t always have access to the care they desperately need. Abandoning CON laws that restrict what medical services can be provided, and by whom, would demonstrably improve access to care and possibly even lower health care prices by increasing competition for medical treatments. Then there could be more happy endings to terrible stories like the one the Kimmel family went through last week.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2pPHOvC
via IFTTT

Obamacare “Death Spiral”: Maryland Insurer Seeks 50% Premium Increase For 2018

For the past several months we’ve observed in complete amazement as Democrats have repeatedly hailed the ‘great accomplishments’ of Obamacare while the system was literally, and quite tangibly, collapsing in epic fashion all around them.

The latest evidence of Obamacare’s “death spiral” comes from the state of Maryland where insurers have  just submitted their rate increase requests to Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer.  Unfortunately for Maryland residents the numbers are fairly staggering, in a bad way, with the largest insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, requesting a 50% YoY premium increase.

The new rates would mean that a 40-year-old nonsmoker in the Baltimore area would face premiums ranging from $359 a month to $715 for a benchmark plan, before receiving any federal subsidies.  CareFirst said the rate increases are necessary because the company has lost $600 million serving ObamaCare exchanges since the company first started selling plans in the marketplace 4 years ago.  Per the Washington Post:

“What we’re seeing is greater sickness levels. The pool of beneficiaries is becoming sicker, in part because healthier people are not coming in at the same level we hoped,” said Chet Burrell, chief executive of CareFirst, which insures about 215,000 people through the marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act in all three states.

 

Burrell said he was worried that the market was in the early stages of a death spiral, in which sick people who need insurance stay in the pool but healthier people drop out, causing insurers to raise rates — driving even more healthy people out of the market.

 

“We were hoping for more stability. The factors that I have described to you today lead to instability and to a spiral, and we think we are in the beginning of that,” Burrell said.

The rate filings are a starting point for negotiations, but Burrell noted that the numbers could rise. He said his company had made its filings assuming that the cost-sharing reductions, billions of dollars in federal payments that lower out-of-pocket expenses for about 7 million Americans, would be made. Politicians have not committed to making those payments in 2018, and if those go away, premiums could rise another 10 to 15 percent, Burrell said.

Meanwhile, the proposed 2018 rate hike of 50% comes on top of a 25% hike in 2017 meaning that Maryland residents will be paying 87.5% more for individual health insurance plans in 2018 than they were in 2016. 

Obamacare

 

Of course, Maryland’s Insurance Commissioner noted that these initial rate requests are just a starting point for negotiations and held out hope that all would be well in the end. 

The Maryland Insurance Commissioner released rate requests from three other insurers, which ranged from 18 to 37 percent increases. A 40-year-old nonsmoker in the Baltimore area would face premiums ranging from $359 a month to $715 for a benchmark plan, before receiving any federal subsidies.

 

“It’s important to remember that these rates are what companies have requested, and not necessarily what will be approved,” Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer, Jr. said in a statement. “There will be a thorough review of all the filings. As in years past, we may require changes.”

Of course, all of this should come as little surprise to our readers as we’ve been writing for years that the entire Obamacare system was on the “verge of collapse” as premiums were soaring, risk pools were deteriorating and insurers were pulling out of exchanges all around the country leaving many Americans with just a single ‘option’ for health insurance (see “Obamacare On “Verge Of Collapse” As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017“).  In fact, the following charts provide a stunning illustration of that collapse (charts per Bloomberg):

Ocare

 

But sure, Obamacare is a great system and Republicans are trying to ‘ruin’ healthcare in America.

via http://ift.tt/2q8wSvS Tyler Durden