patrick.net

It doesn't mean that the appreciation will continue, it was just stated that people rapidly sold off, and then rebought quickly. Not exactly a ponzi scheme, unless the same people are going to continue doing this year after year.

It sounds more like a stock crash like we had, then a rebound. People who bought at the very bottom did great! Especially if they had all their cash on the side lines.

WillyWanker says

Patrick’s claim to ‘honesty’, after writing that sad and (obviously) desperate ‘Glenn Beck Vicious Rumor’ thread, is tenuous at best. It’s support for 0bamaCare, like that, that netted the Senate a man like Scott Brown.

And yet, you're reading this forum, owned by a sad and obviously desperate man. What's that say about you?

"Tongue in" what? I need a moment...

“ObamaCare” seems to have no definition. It’s just a phrase used to vaguely diss Obama even while actually agreeing with all his points on health care, such as more competition and an end to legal discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

While I agree you have the right to edit headlines, I don't agree with your claim that everyone that "vaguely" opposes “Obamacare” somehow agrees with "all his points on health care." For example, I know of no one that "agrees" that the federal government should be allowed to FORCE anyone to "buy" healthcare insurance. Many people do not even know that under the Democrats' plan, there are stiff penalties from the outset for those that refuse to participate. Incidentally, this is the first time in history that the federal government will force American citizens to purchase anything from a private entity. If this is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, in time the penalty will significantly increase.

RayAmerica says

For example, I know of no one that “agrees” that the federal government should be allowed to FORCE anyone to “buy” healthcare insurance. Many people do not even know that under the Democrats’ plan, there are stiff penalties from the outset for those that refuse to participate. Incidentally, this is the first time in history that the federal government will force American citizens to purchase anything from a private entity. If this is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, in time the penalty will significantly increase.

Well, now you do know someone. You HAVE to madate it. Otherwise noone would buy coverage until they were sick. After all, you can't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, so why buy insurance until you need it?

If you want to be purist "anti-socialist" then you must avoid all insurance. After all it's a sort of commune. You are pooling money to pay fora stranger's illness when you are not ill. Properly speaking the Libertarian thing to do is either save money to pay for future illness, or visit a registered bookie every year that you are well, and make a bet that you will become ill in the coming year. If you remain well the bookie wins, if you become ill you.... errr win. The modern obsession with insurance is a bit odd you must admit, it floats a rather large administrative sector that contributes little.

tatupu70 says

Well, now you do know someone. You HAVE to madate it. Otherwise noone would buy coverage until they were sick. After all, you can’t be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, so why buy insurance until you need it?

Why am I not surprised that you would be all for government imposed penalties on American citizens? So much for individual liberties.

Troy says: The problem wasn’t too much government, but too little.

I would frame it a different way. There was too little governance. The Fed and Treasury had largely the same powers as now, but they chose not to probe deeply into underwriting standards. They opted not to increase reserve requirements when lending was getting overheated. I don't think that we need a whole bunch of new laws or agencies (unless it's to limit naked shorts and exotic derivatives). Greenspan and Bernanke both had the available tools to apply the brakes at any time in the past 10 years. Along with Paulson & Co., they deliberately chose not to exercise their powers, for a variety of theoretical and ideological reasons.

Like Charlie Munger said recently on Slate: These economists had intense faith that any outcome at all in a free market—even wild growth in casino gambling—is constructive.

In other words, your agencies and laws are useless if you have poor bureaucrats running the show. There is no way to pass a law that says, "Don't appoint poor bureaucrats to critical government positions.", hence a large component of this problem cannot be resolved via legislation.

RayAmerica says

Why am I not surprised that you would be all for government imposed penalties on American citizens? So much for individual liberties

Why am I not surprised that you completely distort what I said and ignore the actual issue at hand?

tatupu70 says

Why am I not surprised that you completely distort what I said and ignore the actual issue at hand?

I haven't ignored anything you've said. You believe in the government FORCING American citizens to purchase insurance from private companies ... I don't.

"Well, now you do know someone. You HAVE to madate it. Otherwise noone would buy coverage until they were sick."

Where in the Constitution does Congress have the right to force people to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation? I have an idea: Maybe the NAR lobbysists shoudl get Congress to MANDATE that everyone buys a house! We can outlaw homelessness. And we should pass a law to mandate everyone has a job. We can outlaw unemployment!

HousingWatcher says

Where in the Constitution does Congress have the right to force people to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation?

Wow--the Constitution is no longer a framework, but a document that specifies anything and everything that can happen in the US? If that's the case, then send Congress home--no need to make laws. If it's not specified in the Constitution, then it's not allowed....

HousingWatcher says

Where in the Constitution does Congress have the right to force people to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation?

Commerce Clause. The same power that prevents you from growing a small amount of MJ in your basement is the same power that can force you to insure yourself.

The liberal majority knew this in Raich, which is why they voted on that as they did.

You believe in the government FORCING American citizens to purchase insurance from private companies

You bet your sweet bippy I do. Economists say we can't get something from nothing, but FORCING all Americans to carry coverage will over the long run take money out of the housing market and put it in the medical services sector.

Lower housing costs and healthier Americans. What's not to like?

tatupu70 says

If it’s not specified in the Constitution, then it’s not allowed….

Well, that actually isn't quite what their argument is. I believe in constitutional limits to the Fed's power. Like the 5-4 case the told the Congress that they couldn't pass a no-gun zone around schools.

Congress needs to focus on the big-picture stuff and not try to run states. I consider a national health insurance system big-picture enough.

Vicente says

If you want to be purist “anti-socialist” then you must avoid all insurance. After all it’s a sort of commune. You are pooling money to pay fora stranger’s illness when you are not ill. Properly speaking the Libertarian thing to do is either save money to pay for future illness, or visit a registered bookie every year that you are well, and make a bet that you will become ill in the coming year. If you remain well the bookie wins, if you become ill you…. errr win. The modern obsession with insurance is a bit odd you must admit, it floats a rather large administrative sector that contributes little.

I don't think anyone is arguing for pure socialism or pure anything else either. What I would like to see is voluntary socialism. If you want to buy something like insurance, buy it. If not then don't. Prepare for the consequences of your choice. Just don't let anyone choose how to spend your money for you.

AdHominem says

Vicente says

If you want to be purist “anti-socialist” then you must avoid all insurance. After all it’s a sort of commune. You are pooling money to pay fora stranger’s illness when you are not ill. Properly speaking the Libertarian thing to do is either save money to pay for future illness, or visit a registered bookie every year that you are well, and make a bet that you will become ill in the coming year. If you remain well the bookie wins, if you become ill you…. errr win. The modern obsession with insurance is a bit odd you must admit, it floats a rather large administrative sector that contributes little.

I don’t think anyone is arguing for pure socialism or pure anything else either. What I would like to see is voluntary socialism. If you want to buy something like insurance, buy it. If not then don’t. Prepare for the consequences of your choice. Just don’t let anyone choose how to spend your money for you.

So what should we do with the uninsured? Let them die? "Sorry sir, you chose not to be insured. This M.I./stroke/car accident/cancer/etc is gonna cost you likely X amount of dollars. And since you can't pay we are stopping care now. Enjoy the afterlife."

I'm an RN at a large university hospital and I'm imagining the conversations now. :O(

Leigh says

I’m an RN at a large university hospital and I’m imagining the conversations now. :O(

The basic problem is people think they're immortal. I know I did in my 20s when I didn't carry any insurance from 1992-1996. Never crossed my mind.

Making it optional just means people are free to rationally if riskily go uncovered, using the money to bid up housing instead. Free market fundamentalists see nothing wrong with that, but that's because they are fixated idiots.

"Making it optional just means people are free to rationally if riskily go uncovered, using the money to bid up housing instead. Free market fundamentalists see nothing wrong with that, but that’s because they are fixated idiots."

So you say we shoudl require everyone to buy insurance to keep housiong prices down? Well then let's keep houses down even further by madating that everyone buys a new car every year. Let's require everyone to go to college. Let's require everyone to buy bottled water. THere is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows Congress to have an inruance mandate. Why do you support a mandate? Do you have insurance company stocks in your portolio?

"You bet your sweet bippy I do. Economists say we can’t get something from nothing, but FORCING all Americans to carry coverage will over the long run take money out of the housing market and put it in the medical services sector.

Lower housing costs and healthier Americans. What’s not to like?'

Your idea will utterly fail. The fine is only going to be $750. That is compared to $4,000 + for an individual policy. People will just pay the fine. Drivers are required to have insurance but we all know uninsured drivers are on the road. Your idea of a mandate only benefits the insurance industry. Personally, I think linking an individual mandate to lower housing costs is insane. Housing will not be affected at all by it. In fact, if it is successful, the bill will actually INCREASE housing costs since people will not have to sell or go into foreclosure when their medical bills become overwhelming and the insurance company cancels their policy. Anyone who supports the mandate is a shill for the insurance industry.

HousingWatcher says

THere is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows Congress to have an inruance mandate.

Commerce Clause, look it up.

Why do you support a mandate?

I just said why -- health insurance is not an optional luxury, it is a necessity. I favor a single-payer system as can be found in Japan, Canada, and the other G-8 nations, BUT WE ARE TOO F----ING STOOPID as a nation to be willing to implement this.

No biggy. I've got mine, for now at least. $3000/yr. If everybody has to pay then there will be fewer people trying to get something for nothing and we all win.

HousingWatcher says

Anyone who supports the mandate is a shill for the insurance industry.

I would prefer single payer option, of course. But people like you are even MORE against that.

'tis a joke, this entire debate.

I am not a free market crazy. I support a public option.

One of the problems I see is that 80 y.o.'s think they are immortal, or at least their family members think so. We can keep death at bay for weeks on end given today's technology and advancements in medication ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$). As the boomers reach their 70's I predict many restrictictions on care. Ethics panels will be in high gear looking at co-morbidities (cardiac issues, cancers, diabetes, etc) and quality of life. Death, it's a fact of life.

Have the people above overlooked forced auto insurance????

It's not the Fed sitting on the money. It's banks. The money "sitting idle" is money that banks are not required by law to keep with the fed, but are choosing to anyway.

Federal Reserve profits are given to federal government, not distributed to banking shareholders beyond a very small amount.

Dude. Stop watching Glenn Beck.

jackoByte says

Have the people above overlooked forced auto insurance????

My father-in-law sells insurance in Alabama. He can always tell when some one's drivers license is up for renewal because they come in to by auto insurance. Then they drop it the next month.

I theorize that forced auto insurance was pushed through by those that sell auto insurance...really?!?! Kind of like what's happening on Capitol Hill with health care. And that ain't gonna work either. Get private insurance out of the equation and see what happens.

Auto insurance is not forced since you dont have to buy it if you don't drive. There is an option NOT to buy it. With the health insurance mandate, there is no such option.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS?cid=123

The fed's actual balance sheet is a bit more worrying.

As I read somewhere, the Fed is not going to wind its balance sheet down, its balance sheet is going to wind IT down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2554239320100225

The Fed has printed nearly $1.25T of money to buy agency MBS, essentially replacing China and the Fortune 500 as the bagholder of these formerly money-good instruments.

The public option is not an option at all. You will be required to buy into the feds system if you fail to find coverage on your own. In the current bill a self employed person that changes his plan would be required to join the so called "option" at what ever price/coverage they will dream up. I'm not for any goverment option
it will cost more for everyone...paying for thousands more government employees saleries and pensions.

beershrine says

The public option is not an option at all. You will be required to buy into the feds system if you fail to find coverage on your own. In the current bill a self employed person that changes his plan would be required to join the so called “option” at what ever price/coverage they will dream up. I’m not for any goverment option
it will cost more for everyone…paying for thousands more government employees saleries and pensions.

All available evidence to the contrary. The US currently spends by FAR AND AWAY the most per capita on health care and enjoys somewhere below average results.

nevermind

"I’m not for any goverment option
it will cost more for everyone…paying for thousands more government employees saleries and pensions."

So you would rather pay the million dolalr salaries of insurance executives?

CEO of Wellpoints's Salary: $9.8 million

Anthem Blue Cross CEO Salary: $42.5 million

MAssachusetts Blue Cross CEO salary: $4.3 million

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-blumenfield-md/huge-compensation-package_b_464678.html

I dare you to find me a govt. burrecrat who makes anywhere close to these salaries.

Aetna CEO Ronald Williams: $24 million ($467,000 per week)

Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

Man you add those salaries up and you're getting into some serious money. $120M is 600 bureaucrat's salaries.

Private health insurance is just make-work for paper pushers. Libertarians only defend it because they know they are on the losing side of the argument and it's the last card left in their anti-gummint deck.

And just think about how much insurance and pharmaceuticals spend on marketing/advertising! Add that to the overhead. I'd love to see those numbers.

They gotta pay someone to send out all those denial letters.

Leigh says

So what should we do with the uninsured? Let them die? “Sorry sir, you chose not to be insured. This M.I./stroke/car accident/cancer/etc is gonna cost you likely X amount of dollars. And since you can’t pay we are stopping care now. Enjoy the afterlife.”

I had a conversation much like this with a lovely young woman - under 30 years old - who made a poor choice an blew out her liver. She didn't qualify for Medicare (you have to be disabled two years) and she didn't qualify for Medicaid. She didn't have any money and wasn't placed on the transplant list.

She died.

Leigh says

Add that to the overhead. I’d love to see those numbers.

MRK

2008 Sales: $24B
Cost of goods sold : $5.5B
R&D: $5B
Overhead: $7.5B
Income Tax: $2B
Shareholder Profit: $8B

So on a $25 prescription, the pills cost $5 to make, $5 to develop, $7.50 to sell, and $8 for the shareholders.

Whattacountry.

I think Patrick is a swell guy. I have noticed a bit of rewriting, but that's acceptable behavior for any blog owner. Shucks, I do it too sometimes.

Over all, patrick.net is one of the best sites on the web and being retired at the old age of 54- forced you may say, I find his site to pack more bang for the buck that those other wimpy sites that promise, but just don't deliver.

And as a former California property owner and now exile living in the Wisconsin countryside, I get a kick out of watching the destruction of the 49r state from afar.

Keep up the good work Patrick, and stay forever young.

peace out

The little guy,

Gotham Wisconsin

Blue Swan says

We are really close to a huge labor shortage. The only thing that is about to inflate is salaries. Goods and houses will remain stable or fall. The Banks need money so companies can start paying their workers more.

Huh? What reason can you possibly give that we're going to have a labor shortage? Retirement of baby boomers? Hah. Boomers can't afford to retire any more. They will keep working until they die. You've heard of the "glass ceiling" for women. Young workers are going to experience the "grey ceiling".
Unemployment is rampant and not improving (look for census hiring to depress the numbers in coming months but it's an illusion). There is major overcapacity all over the economy. I don't see a wage-price spiral coming.
The banks are sitting on cash because they don't want to lend and no one wants to borrow. Also, they know how much trash is on their books and they're holding cash to offset expected losses.