If indeed the topic of Obama’s speech today from Glendale, CA is “the state of the economy“, then it should be a short speech.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/egDrbdElbNE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
another site
Today the Supreme Court
agreed to hear two cases that challenge Obamacare’s contraceptive
mandate as a violation of religious freedom. Last year the
Court
upheld the requirement that individuals obtain
government-approved medical coverage by treating it as an exercise
of the tax power. This will be the Court’s second opportunity to
assess the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.
In one of the cases the court plans to hear,
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, David and Barbara
Green, who own the Oklahoma-based chain together with their three
children, argue that forcing them to provide their employees with
health plans that cover certain forms of contraception violates the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Greens specifically
object to four kinds of contraception—Ella, Plan B, and two
IUDs—that work by preventing implantation of fertilized ova, which
they view as morally equivalent to abortion.
RFRA, which Congress passed almost unanimously in response to a
1990 Supreme Court decision that loosened the restraints on
laws that limit religious freedom, says “government shall not
substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion”
unless the burden is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling”
interest. Last June the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
ruled that the contraceptive mandate probably fails this
test, especially since it already exempts as many as 100 million
health plans, including those offered by churches and other
nonprofit religious organizations. The court also noted that the
Greens have no religious objection to 16 of the 20 contraceptives
covered by the mandate.
The other challenge to the contraceptive rule,
Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, involves a
Pennsylvania cabinet company owned by the Hahns, a Mennonite
family. The Hahns, like the Greens, object to contraceptives that
prevent implantation rather than fertilization. But in July the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
rejected their RFRA claim, concluding that their business is
not covered by the statute because it is a for-profit corporation
and therefore does not qualify as a “person.” The Court held that
“a for-profit, secular corporation cannot engage in the exercise of
religion.”
The 10th Circuit rejected this distinction. “It is beyond
question that associations—not just individuals—have Free Exercise
rights,” it said, quoting a 1984 Supreme Court decision: “An
individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the
government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously
protected from interference by the State unless a correlative
freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends [was] also
guaranteed.” If people do not lose their religious freedom when
they exercise it through nonprofit corporations (such as churches)
or for-profit businesses that are not incorporated, the 10th
Circuit asked, why should they sacrifice this right when they
combine the corporate form with a profit motive? For example,
“Would an incorporated kosher butcher really have no claim to
challenge a regulation mandating non-kosher butchering practices?”
The 10th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court, in the 2010
case Citizens
United v. FEC, overturned restrictions on political
speech by both commercial and nonprofit corporations, recognizing
them as tools that individuals use to exercise their First
Amendment rights.
In a 2007 Reason article, I
explored RFRA’s implications for religious rituals involving
prohibited drugs.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/scotus-will-hear-religious-challenges-to
via IFTTT
Today the Supreme Court
agreed to hear two cases that challenge Obamacare’s contraceptive
mandate as a violation of religious freedom. Last year the
Court
upheld the requirement that individuals obtain
government-approved medical coverage by treating it as an exercise
of the tax power. This will be the Court’s second opportunity to
assess the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.
In one of the cases the court plans to hear,
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, David and Barbara
Green, who own the Oklahoma-based chain together with their three
children, argue that forcing them to provide their employees with
health plans that cover certain forms of contraception violates the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Greens specifically
object to four kinds of contraception—Ella, Plan B, and two
IUDs—that work by preventing implantation of fertilized ova, which
they view as morally equivalent to abortion.
RFRA, which Congress passed almost unanimously in response to a
1990 Supreme Court decision that loosened the restraints on
laws that limit religious freedom, says “government shall not
substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion”
unless the burden is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling”
interest. Last June the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
ruled that the contraceptive mandate probably fails this
test, especially since it already exempts as many as 100 million
health plans, including those offered by churches and other
nonprofit religious organizations. The court also noted that the
Greens have no religious objection to 16 of the 20 contraceptives
covered by the mandate.
The other challenge to the contraceptive rule,
Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, involves a
Pennsylvania cabinet company owned by the Hahns, a Mennonite
family. The Hahns, like the Greens, object to contraceptives that
prevent implantation rather than fertilization. But in July the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
rejected their RFRA claim, concluding that their business is
not covered by the statute because it is a for-profit corporation
and therefore does not qualify as a “person.” The Court held that
“a for-profit, secular corporation cannot engage in the exercise of
religion.”
The 10th Circuit rejected this distinction. “It is beyond
question that associations—not just individuals—have Free Exercise
rights,” it said, quoting a 1984 Supreme Court decision: “An
individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the
government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously
protected from interference by the State unless a correlative
freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends [was] also
guaranteed.” If people do not lose their religious freedom when
they exercise it through nonprofit corporations (such as churches)
or for-profit businesses that are not incorporated, the 10th
Circuit asked, why should they sacrifice this right when they
combine the corporate form with a profit motive? For example,
“Would an incorporated kosher butcher really have no claim to
challenge a regulation mandating non-kosher butchering practices?”
The 10th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court, in the 2010
case Citizens
United v. FEC, overturned restrictions on political
speech by both commercial and nonprofit corporations, recognizing
them as tools that individuals use to exercise their First
Amendment rights.
In a 2007 Reason article, I
explored RFRA’s implications for religious rituals involving
prohibited drugs.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/scotus-will-hear-religious-challenges-to
via IFTTT
November
November 29
Mingle with Kringle is today from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Come to downtown Newnan to celebrate the arrival of Santa to historic Newnan and witness the lighting of the Christmas tree.
Come drop by the Senoia Area Historical Museum and take a journey through the past. The museum’s newest exhibit, “The Joy of Christmas Pasts,” showcases over 50 Christmas cards from the first half of the last century. Come take a nostalgic trip down memory lane into the joys of Christmas past.
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-26-2013/things-do-nov29-dec19
Winter’s soul-chilling winds have already staked their claim on the calendar, and any balmy respite we may enjoy from now until, oh, say March, will be illusory at best,
Time to load up on crisp red apples from the Georgia hills. Time to finish the wood stacked since last summer, time to move it onto the porch on its dry fibers ready to burst into warmth and brightness on a rain-dark night.
Time to gather family close again, to touch each others’ hands, reminding us of old bonds and new dreams. Time to celebrate life.
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/sallie-satterthwaite/11-26-2013/time-care
Come out to Brooks and enjoy the sights and sounds of Christmas, beginning with the Tour of Homes Sunday from 2 p.m.-5 p.m., followed by the Town Tree Lighting at 5:30 p.m., and Santa’s arrival at 6 p.m., The evening ends with a “Music Alive” concert. Downtown Brooks.
For more info, contact Bebe Moore at 770-719-3194 .
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-26-2013/brooks-ushers-holiday-season
High school sports roundup
Swimming
Landmark competed Nov. 19 in North Atlanta in a meet that included Grady, Maynard T. Jackson Booker T. Washington high schools. Both the boys’ and girls’ teams placed third overall, and Ty Janyaem was second in the 100 breaststroke.
Boys basketball
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-26-2013/sports-roundup
The concept of the “liquidity trap” is well-known to most: it is that freak outlier in an otherwise spotless Keynesian plane, when due to the need for negative interest rates to boost the economy – a structural impossibility according to most economists although an increasingly more probable in Europe – central banks have no choice but to offset a deleveraging private banking sector and directly inject liquidity into the banking sector with the outcome being soaring asset prices, and even more bubbles which will eventually burst only to be replaced with even more failed attempts at reflation. Sadly, very little of this liquidity makes its way to the broad economy as the ongoing recession in the developed world has shown for the 5th year in a row, which in turn makes the liqudity trap even worse, and so on in a closed loop.
Since there is little else in the central bankers’ arsenal that is as effective in boosting the “wealth effect” – which is how they validate their actions to themselves and other economists and politicians – they continue to do ever more QE. And since banks are assured at generating far greater returns on allocated capital in the capital markets, where they can use the excess deposits they obtain courtesy of the Fed’s generous reserve-a-palooza as initial margin for risk-on trades, the liquidity pipelines remain stuck throughout the world, and loan creation – that traditional money creation pathway – is permanently blocked (as is the case in the US).
Everywhere except the one place that has yet to actually engage in conventional quantitative easing: China. At least explicitly, because loan creation by China’s state-controlled entities and otherwise government backstopped banks, is anything but conventional money creation. One can, therefore, claim that China’s loan creation is a form of Quasi-QE whereby banks, constrained from investing in a relatively shallow stock market, and unable to freely transfer the CNY-denominated liquidity abroad, are forced to lend it out. Paradoxically, this “non-QE” is exactly how QE should work in the US and other developed markets.
That’s the long story.
The short story is far simpler.
In order to offset the lack of loan creation by commercial banks, the “Big 4” central banks – Fed, ECB, BOJ and BOE – have had no choice but the open the liquidity spigots to the max. This has resulted in a total developed world “Big 4” central bank balance of just under $10 trillion, of which the bulk of asset additions has taken place since the Lehman collapse.
How does this compare to what China has done? As can be seen on the chart below, in just the past 5 years alone, Chinese bank assets (and by implication liabilities) have grown by an astounding $15 trillion, bringing the total to over $24 trillion, as we showed yesterday. In other words, China has expanded its financial balance sheet by 50% more than the assets of all global central bank combined!
And that is how – in a global centrally-planned regime which is where everyone now is, DM or EM – your flood your economy with liquidity. Perhaps the Fed, ECB or BOJ should hire some PBOC consultants to show them how it’s really done.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/PgAxCfYmeaE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
The concept of the “liquidity trap” is well-known to most: it is that freak outlier in an otherwise spotless Keynesian plane, when due to the need for negative interest rates to boost the economy – a structural impossibility according to most economists although an increasingly more probable in Europe – central banks have no choice but to offset a deleveraging private banking sector and directly inject liquidity into the banking sector with the outcome being soaring asset prices, and even more bubbles which will eventually burst only to be replaced with even more failed attempts at reflation. Sadly, very little of this liquidity makes its way to the broad economy as the ongoing recession in the developed world has shown for the 5th year in a row, which in turn makes the liqudity trap even worse, and so on in a closed loop.
Since there is little else in the central bankers’ arsenal that is as effective in boosting the “wealth effect” – which is how they validate their actions to themselves and other economists and politicians – they continue to do ever more QE. And since banks are assured at generating far greater returns on allocated capital in the capital markets, where they can use the excess deposits they obtain courtesy of the Fed’s generous reserve-a-palooza as initial margin for risk-on trades, the liquidity pipelines remain stuck throughout the world, and loan creation – that traditional money creation pathway – is permanently blocked (as is the case in the US).
Everywhere except the one place that has yet to actually engage in conventional quantitative easing: China. At least explicitly, because loan creation by China’s state-controlled entities and otherwise government backstopped banks, is anything but conventional money creation. One can, therefore, claim that China’s loan creation is a form of Quasi-QE whereby banks, constrained from investing in a relatively shallow stock market, and unable to freely transfer the CNY-denominated liquidity abroad, are forced to lend it out. Paradoxically, this “non-QE” is exactly how QE should work in the US and other developed markets.
That’s the long story.
The short story is far simpler.
In order to offset the lack of loan creation by commercial banks, the “Big 4” central banks – Fed, ECB, BOJ and BOE – have had no choice but the open the liquidity spigots to the max. This has resulted in a total developed world “Big 4” central bank balance of just under $10 trillion, of which the bulk of asset additions has taken place since the Lehman collapse.
How does this compare to what China has done? As can be seen on the chart below, in just the past 5 years alone, Chinese bank assets (and by implication liabilities) have grown by an astounding $15 trillion, bringing the total to over $24 trillion, as we showed yesterday. In other words, China has expanded its financial balance sheet by 50% more than the assets of all global central bank combined!
And that is how – in a global centrally-planned regime which is where everyone now is, DM or EM – your flood your economy with liquidity. Perhaps the Fed, ECB or BOJ should hire some PBOC consultants to show them how it’s really done.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/PgAxCfYmeaE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
As we noted previously (here and here), the exuberance over ‘lower’ gas prices is a little overdone. Perhaps more worrying though, as Bloomberg’s Jo Brusuelas notes, wholesale gasoline futures are pointing to about a 5% rise in gasoline prices during the next few weeks. This would essentially erase the entire decline in gas prices seen since Sept. 1. As Brusuelas warns, because recent gains in inflation-adjusted personal disposable income on a per capita basis can be directly tied to falling gasoline prices, rising prices may come at an inopportune time for many larger retailers.
Via Bloomberg’s Joseph Brusuelas,
Real per capita disposable income is up 0.9 percent on a year ago basis – weak under any conditions. The reversal of those modest gains due to rising gas prices would not bode well for what is shaping up to be the most challenging holiday spending season since 2009.
Consumer spending and sentiment are notoriously sensitive to price increases at the pump. If gasoline futures are correct, the 5 percent increase in prices may result in as much as a $40 billion hit to consumer wallets just as the traditional holiday spending season hits its stride during the next few weeks.
While gasoline prices are down 16 percent since the February peak, the combined effects of the $148 billion increase in tax rates on upper income households and the resetting of the payroll tax effectively offset potential early-year gains in personal disposable income.
For middle income consumers and those further down the income ladder, small changes in disposable income can have a significant effect on discretionary spending. Among this group, 48 million individuals receive food stamps and will already see a net loss of about $16 billion in transfer payments due to cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Under conditions of weak income growth and modest employment gains, aggressive discounting by retailers has not translated into a sustained acceleration in overall spending.
Demand for services has averaged 1.8 percent during the expansion, well below the 3 percent level seen during the previous two business cycles. On a year-ago basis, overall retail spending peaked in 2010 and has continued to decelerate since.
Meanwhile, November gains in retail outlays were directly tied to transitory events rather than a broader shift in the overall behavior of consumers. Auto purchases in October were pushed forward into November due to the government shutdown. The spillover of the “iPhone effect” into November also temporarily boosted the overall level of spending and probably helped mask underlying weakness in the retail sector.
Since the end of the Great Recession, the upper two quintiles of income groups have emerged relatively unscathed while the lower three quintiles continue to bear the disproportionate burden of the adjustment underway in the domestic labor market and broader economy. This suggests the status quo in the economy and overall spending will probably continue to hold; upper-income consumers benefiting from historically low interest rates, home price increases and appreciation in equity markets will contribute the lion’s share of gains in holiday spending this year.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/IIbeiCttAUo/story01.htm Tyler Durden