I think you are confusing Treasury Bills (very short term) which are priced as you say and which are a market the fed has always participated in as a way of tweaking monetary policy (repos) or for other reasons.

Treasury Notes and Bonds are different. Pricing has to do with yield there too. If they trade at "par" ie 100, then they will yield what they were issued at. Actually it's bit more complicated.

But the reason that Bonds (30 year maturity) and Treasury notes (10 year maturity) influence Mortgage rates, is that at least in theory, the price discovery which occurs in the market place for these securities reflects the yield that investors want on these securities, which will be very much tied to the yield they want on mortgages (just somewhat lower since the risk is lower on the Treasuries.

I heart Patrick.

It's obviously true what you said about the political bias of many "puppets" of the health care
special interests. I would change number 3 to read:

3. Having lost the election to a black man who is ten times smarter than Bush, and 15 times smarter than they are.”

The good news is that republican party which isn't all bad, but is dominated by corporate interests, and the interests of the rich, has destroyed itself, with the tactics it employed to gain a majority. It started back with the so called "moral majority." This was a way to break in to the conservative southern part of the democratic party. But it has now gone so far, that even many of the the corporate puppet masters must be ashamed of the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter types who spew ignorance and hatred (which does have an appeal to many) as it main theme.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. At this point, the rich combined with the low brow "white trash" constituency just aren't enough for them to win elections. Still, i do fear how our current economic situation plays out.

Many republicans now must actually hope for such extreme failure of Obama, and for things to be so terrible that fear mongering and hatred can bring them back to power. Ironically some of them refer to Obama as Hitler like.

Please excuse the digression. I know this thread was supposed to be about health care reform. Many previous comments, including Patrick's reflected my point of view. The president did a good job yesterday as well. I heard it wasn't even covered by Fox.

"Fair and balanced" baby.

Rhaman, did you read this ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/health/policy/10facts.html?_r=1&ref=patrick.net

It's from today's list of Links by Patrick.

Let me guess. You don't need to. Just a "gut feeling ?"

Also Rhaman,... Let's hope that you never have a preexisting condition. For that matter, hopefully
you never get sick and only pay your premiums (or your employer does as a benefit).

Under those circumstances, you and your insurer will remain very happy with your "freedoms."

Kingdombuilder :

I heard him say he was uncomfortable with what he had said. Are you the kind of self righteous jerk who rubs someones face in it, when you know that even they regret saying something ?

Do you have a well informed opinion that you can articulate ?

I think that many of us are willing to learn. Mostly what patrick is about is reading and sharing links to what others are saying. For example he includes arguments on both sides of the inflation deflation question.

Don't you have anything other than your self righteousness to share ?

I find BubblePopper's post interesting.

Could a logical inference be that California representatives and senators screwed up and didn't do their job of getting a share for the battery companies in California ? Or that the California companies weren't nimble enough to open branches in Indiana or Michigan ? (maybe better anyway for tax state reasons).

I'm not saying you are wrong, as I know nothing about this. But I would hope that maybe the battery story is not over yet for western companies with promising technology. Maybe they can sell themselves to companies in Michigan. Or maybe the next round of stimulus will include a piece for them.

It seems to me that in future technology oriented businesses there is a place for government support. Especially businesses that compete against entrenched interests. Energy is the perfect example, because oil and coal are still the cheapest, and yet they have costs that hit us in the future with pollution, global warming, and with skyrocketing costs when supplies dwindle if the more "renewable" replacement hasn't been developed.

I too appreciate the health care links. This is an especially HUGE issue for just another few months
(not that it won't be after that), but now is the time for us to get informed, and hopefully time for the ignorance to fade and for disinformation to be supplanted by facts and intelligent discourse.

If you don't want the health care links on Patirick's site, why not just not read them.

In fact, the fed doesn't set the prime rate, but they sort of do do indirectly. They set the fed funds rate. But they also enter into the treasury market buying or selling short term treasuries. Ultimately what they do is very convoluted, and too complicated for most to comprehend.

As for long term rates (such as mortgage rates) that is really determined by the market for long term securities (treasury bonds, mortgage backed securities) and there have been times when the fed lowering rates was percieved to be so infationary that long term rates went up. So historically the fed doesn't really have a way of determining long term interest rates. Except for now, when they actually enter into these long term securities markets because they feel they need to, to prevent disaster.

Patrick I usually agree with most of what you say. E.g. I thought you were right on in "The psychology of American Fascism." But the cynical sort of "it's because 'they' want to keep you a slave," I don't buy. That is the net effect, but I don't see that as the intention.

They aren't going to allow prices to come down as much as the market would take them, because that would be an unparalleled disaster to too many, and a perceived disaster to so many other real estate owners. Really it's just that everyone screwed up, including the bankers in the belief that real estate values would stay up (relatively high). It's a new world where we don't inflate wages, when we (or they) are virtually trying to inflate everything. Assets were inflating like crazy from the credit bubble, but wages weren't because of cheaper labor elsewhere.

Maybe that's an oversimplification. But there are many interests being protected when prices are artificially held up now. Or maybe it's just using artificial means to prevent them from overshooting the downside due to the lack of credit market functioning and so on, and also due to a negative feedback loop of more and more people being so far under water that they walk.

So they prop it up. Funny how people don't get easily bothered by markets over doing it to the upside. That's just another example of the beauty of free markets. But over doing it to the downside ? That's another story. Actually understandable when everyone is so leveraged.

Anyway, I just can't get behind the conspiracy idea that the bankers or whomever needs to keep us enslaved to get more work out of us. When you look at the majority of the 7 billion people in the world, I would say at least 5 billion of them get far less for their work than we do. And I think it's by looking there, to the rest of the world, that one can understand the pressures (toward some kind of equilibrium in the long run) that unfortunately but naturally put some downward pressure on our average standard of living.

It wouldn't bankrupt the government.

Medicare already pays for the most expensive end of life care for everyone that makes it beyond 64
years of age. This is something like two thirds of what this country spends on health care. If we had
"medicare for all" to pay for major medical and hospital stays etc, along with private supplementary
insurance or HSAs (health Savings Accounts) provided by employers, maybe also high copays to
keep people from wasting doctors time, it wouldn't cost that much more in taxes.

It would be a far better deal than what we get with the insurance companies.

But those same insurance companies and those who wish to see Obama and the democrats fail refuse
to comprehend what would otherwise be obvious.

Maybe as a clue consider that we are the only country that does it this way, and yet all of our health statistics are far from number one. Probably not even if you just considered only the rich.

Wake up right wingnuts !

Not sure what happened on my formatting there.

1) I don't think I am expected to live to 88 nor would 20 yrs be average time someone lives after
retiremnet at 68.

2) You accounted for the growth of the money during the 20 years of money in, but not dring the out years. Assuming 5% yield, 505,00 can be annuitized to pay 40,000 per year for 20 years. So it's worth 505,000 at retirement if you want to assume 20 years. If you assume 14 years ( living to 82 ) then it's more like 402,000.

3) Without further analysis, yes, the benefits part of my compensation is pretty good. But I didn't even talk about how challenging it is teaching high school kids.

4) As for "wealth" creation. Some govt services do not create wealth. It can be argued as Jefferson did in his arguments for public education that it does indeed create wealth. But as far as I am concerned that's beside the point.

We took a long time building these problems and living a prosperity that was at least somewhat false. And sure, many are hurting and angry. But let's not cut off our nose to spite our face.

Elliemea, thanks for the quote. I didn't know how accurate I was.

"Furthermore, old age begets older age. Today, a 65-year-old American man can expect to live to 81.6"

The argument I hear is "why should one component of my compensation be something that everyone else doesn't get." That's an argument I don't understand. Maybe I could ask, how does the CEO get 150 million per year if everyone doesn't get that ?

As for the claim that unions are a way of protecting employees. Yes, it's true. And it's complicated. Maybe some employees don't deserve that protection. Maybe some should be more easily fired. But what about the 95% who end up committing themselves to these professions and then at least have some job security, especially between age 50 and 65.

Why is it that people say " I don't have that,...why should you ?" Why don't they say, "hey. that's pretty cool, more of us should have that.

Silly point I guess. We are so.....

To Elliemae. I'm A Mathematics teacher, and I have a masters degree in Math not English, although my personality is such that even if English were my subject, I would still sometimes make those kinds of errors in emails or in a forum such as this. Feel free to judge me. It's an interesting alternative to understanding where I'm coming from.

My union dues are something like $57/ month. So you're wrong. And you and others are proof that we would terribly compensated without our union. I agree about a very small percentage being overprotected by the union, but focusing on that alone is deciding to ignore the many benefits of the union. And yes, I know, they are benefits to us, not you, or maybe only very indirectly to you.

Troy, about your "thrown me in jail" point, I get it. And sadly, I also get it that only maybe in the distant future will we all have such "benefits." Or maybe never. I think they have you and Mish and others programmed to believe it isn't economically feasible.

Interesting.

A few typos are all I saw. But hey, enjoy your high horse.

I agree about us agreeing to disagree about unions. But the fact is that in most places, teachers are still extremely underpaid. Not so much in LA, but then our classes are way too large (avg of about 40 per class). Without our union, we would be screwed, and the quality of teachers would be much worse. I believe that in writing such as this, it goes without saying, that it is my not all that humble opinion.

Was forwarde3d this the other day. Not sure where it was posted.

No Borders

by Alice Rothchild on June 2, 2010 ·

I write with a mixture of outrage and heartbreak as the news unfolds
about the Israeli commandos boarding the flotilla of ships bound for
Gaza, carrying wheelchairs, home building supplies, medications,
playgrounds, and thousands of tons of desperately needed materials.
Some 800 internationals from 50 countries sought to call attention to
the Israeli blockade of Gaza through non-violent action and to provide
material support to a population suffering from collective punishment
begun in the 1980s and now under almost total closure. The activists
hoped to make it impossible for us to ignore the siege, to highlight
the humanitarian catastrophe, and to take personal action as
individuals. They wanted us to see that 10% of Gazan children suffer
from chronic malnutrition and two-thirds of Gazans face daily hunger.
As an unreconstructed war zone where much of the civil infrastructure
has been destroyed, communities are periodically engulfed in untreated
sewage which also flows directly into the Mediterranean, polluting
fishing waters. With a destroyed power station, residents suffer from
frequent electricity blackouts, inadequate fuel to run generators, and
a massively compromised health care system. And then there are the
2400 homes destroyed in the last invasion and never rebuilt. The EU
foreign policy chief recently called for an end to the Israeli
blockade. On May 28, Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper, ran an
editorial stating, "The government has to decide right away to resume
indirect talks with Hamas, to be more flexible about releasing
prisoners and to lift the siege on Gaza." Rabbis for Human Rights
Israel supported the flotilla.

At 4:30 am on May 31st, Israeli soldiers boarded the boats in
international waters, leaving over ten dead and sixty wounded. I am
left wondering: Why is that not an outrageous act of international
piracy? Will this trigger world condemnation and actual foreign policy
and military consequences? After the invasions of Lebanon and Gaza,
the separation wall, the checkpoints, the frequent incursions, the
restrictions of movement and family reunification, the thousands of
Palestinian civil society activists languishing in administrative
detention in Israeli jails, is there a limit? For years, in the West
Bank and Gaza, Palestinians have been killed and maimed invisibly, but
now the IDF kills international peace activists apparently with
impunity as well. I am reminded that Jewish suffering does not justify
the excesses of Israeli military actions; that, as an Israeli activist
once told me, a country without borders to its land and its behavior
ultimately becomes a monster.

I admit I had a strange fantasy when I learned of this most recent
flotilla making its arduous way towards Gaza. I thought, if the
Israeli government were smart, they would let the boats come close to
shore, peaceably remove the hundreds of unarmed internationals and
send them home, and deliver the wheelchairs and concrete and medicines
as a humanitarian gesture. It would have been a political victory:
siege intact, few to bear witness, and a little less desperation in
Gaza. But in the name of “security” the monster is devouring itself.
Not only have people died, but the Israeli government has taken
another step backwards in its battle for international legitimacy and
given fuel to more militant resistance and hatred.

A week ago, my daughter in Seattle called after a bruising meeting at
her local, politically savvy food co-op where there had been an
ongoing and productive discussion about the pros and cons of selling
Israeli products and the possibility of boycotting the hummus and
couscous as an act of conscience to protest the Israeli occupation. A
group called Stand with Us subsequently launched a barrage of emails,
hysteria, and accusations of anti-Semitism, successfully squashing any
opportunity for political conversation. I have seen this kind of
behavior all over the country. As a mother, grounded in Jewish values
and a concern for human rights for Israelis and Palestinians, appalled
by the McCarthy-like behavior in my own community and the rightward
swing of Israeli politics, what do I tell my children? I cannot stand
with this Israel. I believe in the power of nonviolent resistance. The
Palestinian people are not our enemies. I am ashamed of what this
county has done in my name.

Iwogiwog says

The age of oil will effectively end in 6 years. Whatever comes next, it will RADICALLY change the nature of the United States. I tend to agree that some suburbs will become slums, especially those built on tiny lots and those far from city services.

I can't see the age of oil ending quite that abruptly (without some kind of unforeseen wars). People will pay more and there will be shale and so on. It can see it dropping, maybe even sort of fast because of increased demand in asia, but not that fast.

Haha. Even though economists ultimately are terrible at predicting economic events, I have enough respect for them to think that this "study" will get the respect that it deserves. If anything, as a liberal, I find the results reassuring.

I agree with Troy. Terrible questions.

One could sum it up with this - from the wsj article (quoted from Klien, the author of the study):

>>>>>>>>>

According to him, there may be exceptions ( there are many ). So the correct answer is false,....period.

Sorry, but what an idiot. And of course I can guarantee with 100% certainty that he is a libertarian or a conservative. Obviously, that's what gives him the ability to define what the enlightened answer is in the first place.

Hey, at least it's consistent.

I think I inadvertently commented out my quote fro the WSJ article. What's up with that patrick.

Heremarcus says

marcus says

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Extremely well said:

CBOEtrader says

So basically, what you’re left with a number of questions in which people respond out of their ideological reference points because the questions are ambiguous, substanceless, or confusing. Klein is blaming the victims, as it were.

Although calling it junk science is too complementary.

This would have been a fitting question for the conservative respondent:

Do you agree or disagree that lowering taxes ultimately raises tax revenues to the government ?

( with no mention of other variables or even how high taxes were before lowering, it has just the right amount of ambiguity to guarantee the incorrect answer from conservatives. The correct answer is false, because it can only be logically correct if it is always true.)

It's 2010. I don't know about team morale, but if in this day and age a man can't appreciate and
enjoy working with an attractive woman, without it "distracting" him, or without having some sort of inappropriate "feelings," I would say that is entirely his problem.

In this case my guess is the true problem is that they need more attractive women around, not less. ( although I guess that sounds sexist ).

You guys both have interesting perspectives. Maybe idealistic of me, but I lean toward Troy's view that higher (but efficient) social spending can mute the excessive (bublishis) tendencies of capitalism, while not killing it.

Yeah, I know liberals dream of some naive utopia. I don't think so. In my life time the top marginal tax rates have had a very huge swing. Check this out..

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I'm not advocating a 90% tax rate on the rich ( was Eisenhower actually a communist ?), but there is an optimal middle ground.

And Troy's right, some European countries are FAR closer to an optimal mix than we are.

Sorry bubblicious......

Sounds theoretical.

Lobbyists have way too much input into legislation where the corporate interests of free enterprise collide with the welfare of the public. Now, corporations are going to be able to have much more influence in elections. This drives up the price of running for office, and ultimately is a waste of resources. It's going to take the idea of a political "puppet" to a whole new level.

How does real free enterprise help to prevent this from happening ?

Also, isn't it impossible to have the interests of free enterprises always aligned with the public good ? Defense companies are an easy example. Was is simply good for them. Couldn't this one day create a problem ? Eisenhower thought it would.

War is simply good for them ( dang ).

And somehow interest rates stay low ( they better ).

I can see the possibility of a world government developing much sooner than most think, although probably not in my lifetime.

Maybe the world government comment is too serious a reaction to that piece. But it is true that the financial and economic interdependence that has developed in the past 40 years or so is remarkable. Still, speculating about hopeful ways that things might evolve many decades from now is probably pointless. There are too many big questions and hurdles that will come first.

thomas.wong1986 says

But as anyone can tell you who has a business background such reserves for losses are already set up and taken to earnings. Everything else from this administration is publicity.

I understood the escrow account to be an initial commitment to distribute $20 billion toward the clean up and injured parties. This is not the same as the internal way that corporations account for possible future losses.

They have now taken ( or committed to take ) their first 20 billion of their losses over this.

Those are broad ideological statements. And they don't ring true to many very economically literate people.

I could say "the wealthy come up with elaborate reasons why taxes need to be lower, and they argue for this, when in fact it is really just about their greed. They are in fact voting themselves largess from the public treasury. And then these wealthy conservatives use the religious right and claim of family values and "liberal" bashing to get the uneducated sheep to go along with them."

But if I were to make such a statement, that doesn't make it true. It would just be one small convoluted exaggerated piece of the truth.

It's about where one puts their focus, and it's about balance. No liberal claims that there always has to be more regulation of everything. And no intelligent conservative is going to say taxes always need to be lower. ( that is, as taxes go to zero govt revenues do not go to infinity).

CBOEtrader says

I plan on moving my speculative cash (about a third of my portfolio) into super aggressive bets slowly over the next two to three years.

That's a tricky business, because it's not likely to be predictable. On the one hand equities might end up an inflation hedge, in fact it could account for how high the market is now. But on the other hand, what if interest rates shoot up ? Most people assume they will, if inflation kicks in.
You end up with a opposing forces.

Just like with real estate, in the long run a good inflation hedge, but in the short run interest rates can take things the other way.

Just thinking about it makes me want to accumulate some "dry powder."

Thanks for adding to this thread, so that it got my attention. I was too busy back then to read it. Great stuff from Troy, Nomograph, I wog and others ( and lets not forget Ray ).

I've been trying to think of some other phrases like " too big to fail."

How about...

"too small to succeed"

or

"too old to learn."

Interesting about FAZ. I sometimes miss my trader days. I was at one time a floor trader ( both the CBOE (oex) and bond options next door at the CBOT ). It's still in my blood, and small hobby.

I am going to look into FAZ. If it hss options like behavior, then that would allow for some pretty interesting albeit convoluted strategies with the FAZ options.

Maybe the opportunity will be in a sort of "spread," such as if commodities shoots up and bonds haven't dropped yet, or something along those lines. The cynic in me fears that it will be something so dramatic that the market freezes, the government steps in and then when things reopen, or get back to liquid conditions, it's a whole new game.

But if you are on the floor, then those illiquid conditions might be interesting for you.

Apparently the biggest taxpayers are the ones who decided how low taxes should be, including the unpaid for Bush tax cuts, which is ironically a reason for much higher deficits and much higher taxes for all in the future.

Back when Al Gore ran for president, he talked a lot about a "lock box" for payroll taxes which go toward social security. But Gore lost and this never happened. So this money goes into the pot of money spent now ( and is counted in budget deficit as if it were federal tax receipts ).

So what about someone who pays a significant percent of their income in to payroll taxes, but pay no federal income taxes ? By the way these citizens are the reason for fox news claimed that 50 percent don't pay taxes.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904160032

.

Poor people are the people who don't pay taxes.

I have never read a study on it, but my intuition is that people with life circumstances such that they aren't paying federal income taxes probably fall within the significant group of people who don't vote anyway.

Therefore I agree with Nomograph that it wouldn't make a difference.

So please let me continue my fantasy about American democracy, okay ?

Actually one group in could make a difference with is the young. That is of voting age but in post secondary education phase. And hey, you know the evil influence all of those liberal professors have on college students.

yes, but again,...payroll taxes are spent now, not saved for your retirement. They are not considered part of "federal income taxes," but they are withheld the same way, paid on april 15th the same way, and spent and considered part of this years deficit the same way as federal income taxes.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904160032

Sheeeesh ! We've been around this too many times.

The people who don't pay taxes ( other than students ) have no significant effect on elections. Maybe this last time the election for president might have been effected a little more than usual by the votes of the disenfranchised, but that wasn't just because Obama is black, it's also because of the idiot we had last time ( maybe not quite as stupid as he seemed, just as Obama might not be quite as smart as he seems ).

I guess it could be argued that if the trend of recent decades continues and the wealth of our country becomes even more concentrated at the top, and while demographics continue to shift and whites become a minority ( but not a minority of the wealthy ), that it would certainly benefit the wealthy if only those who paid a lot in taxes could vote.

But as others have said, this would be the end of America as we know it, and not in a good way. The things you are afraid of are well protected as long as at least a significant majority can have a middle class life or better ( and no, I don't mean for free).