People, more and more of them, understand the impossibility of improving the economy by giving a handful of people the power to expand or contract the money stock at will. In simplest terms it is a ridiculous idea. It can’t work. It doesn’t work. And this analysis is further proof. And sooner or later the current system will not have the necessary popular support to survive.
This slow exodus of insurers from the health law's marketplaces represents a serious threat to the continued stability and existence of its exchanges. Obamacare is perched on the edge of a death spiral. The fundamental problem is simple: Insurers are losing money... was that the plan all along for the Affordable Care Act?
Poor economies impact countries in a number of detrimental ways including higher rates of poverty, unemployment and chronic disease. Now, a new study shows the bad economy is to blame for another unfortunate trend: the rise of the selfie generation and "spornosexuality."
If Obamacare enrollments continue their current trend and insurers continue to hike premiums at alarming rates then Republicans may not have to worry about "repealing and replacing Obamacare" as it might just work itself out "naturally".
Thanks to Obamacare, it is frequently better for a middle class family to get no raise than even a decent sized raise. The wage point varies, but many will say “Dear employer, please don’t pay me more. It will cost me a lot of money”.
Last Friday, stocks soared as Yellen dropped hawkish hints that The Fed would raise rates "because it was appropriate" implying everything is awesome. One week later - following a terrible Fed-narrative-imploding jobs print - Hillary Clinton-donor and Fed member Lael Brainard goes back to full dove-tard: BRAINARD: U.S. JOBS IN MAY REPORT SUGGESTS LABOR MKT HAS SLOWED, SEES BENEFITS TO FED WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL DATA. Nothing would surprise us less to see stock go green today on this dovish news - just as they did last Friday on hawkish sentiment. If (Fed speaks) THEN (Buy).
"As stock prices rise, the gains are disproportionately distributed to the wealthy. Lower- and middle-income families who are also wealth-poor are less likely to expose their savings to the higher risks of equity markets.... gains in the stock market tend to benefit those in the wealthiest portion of the income distribution, who have better access to and higher participation in these asset markets."
You have to love it when one of Donald Trump’s wild pitches sends the beltway hypocrites into high dudgeon. But his rumination about negotiating a discount on the Federal debt was priceless. No sooner did the 'unschooled' Trump mention out loud what is already the official policy of the US government than a beltway chorus of fiscal house wreckers commenced screaming like banshees about the sanctity of Uncle Sam’s credit promises.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say we need government employees for maintenance of fisheries, mail delivery, and invading Middle Eastern countries. Fine. Can we at least dispense with the misnomer public servant? A servant who makes more money than those “served” (by threat of force), provides subpar service, takes away jobs, and is immune to firing cannot be accurately titled servant.
Does the deployment of helicopter money not entail some meaningful risk of the loss of confidence in a currency that is, after all, undefined, uncollateralized and infinitely replicable at exactly zero cost? Might trust be shattered by the visible act of infusing the government with invisible monetary pixels and by the subsequent exchange of those images for real goods and services? To us, it is the great question. Pondering it, as we say, we are bearish on the money of overextended governments. We are bullish on the alternatives enumerated in the Periodic table. It would be nice to know when the rest of the world will come around to the gold-friendly view that central bankers have lost their marbles. We have no such timetable. The road to confetti is long and winding.