The New York Fed is, by custom and design, clubby and opaque. It is charged with curbing banks’ risky impulses, yet its president is selected by and reports to a board dominated by the chief executives of some of those same banks. Traditionally, the New York Fed president’s intelligence-gathering role has involved routine consultation with financiers, though Mr. Geithner’s recent predecessors generally did not meet with them unless senior aides were also present, according to the bank’s former general counsel.
By those standards, Mr. Geithner’s reliance on bankers, hedge fund managers and others to assess the market’s health — and provide guidance once it faltered — stood out.
His calendars from 2007 and 2008 show that those interactions were a mix of the professional and the private.
and also why it's nonpartisan. So, firstly we can go by facts instead of philosophies but also so you don't have to join in any cheerleading rah, rah, even econ rah rah and keep plugging away for good policy.
I think though, a key is to get very specific.
For example, there is a "dead" bill, these are bills that are great ideas and get dumped into committee where they die.
One is for a Congressional trade office, another, Dorgan is to have an automatic review of trade policy the minute the trade deficit reaches > 5% (as I recall this was the last number) of GDP.
Isn't this the problem generally? Take the health care bill(s)? No one knows what's really in them, so you get people criticizing with generalities instead of very specific pieces of legislation, specific bill clauses and specific ramifications?
Now that is one aspect of this site I hope to promote, which is to get that focus onto specifics..
so instead of "that sucks" or "rape of middle class", you have "credit card companies still can charge loan shark rates, unlimited, reform bill did nothing to cap interest rates on unsecuritized debt"
It's really important because without specifics there is nothing the public can grab onto to write their legislators about, demand that it get passed, demand it be stopped.
Instead you get defocused, generalized rage and anger(which is clearly bubbling intensely now).
But as of right now the record is not good. I am trying to find some quotes but Leo Hindery's article suggests that there are people in the Administration that believe that service sector jobs are just as good as manufacturing jobs. Who could that be? Larry Summers?
This is beyond politics. This about survival of a huge segment of our population.
Firstly, this is to stop high frequency traders, hedge funds, speculators. Capital gains cannot really do that, not unless capital gains based on frequency is changed plus the rules for institutional investment houses is changed to be the corporate tax rate instead of capital gains.
This legislation is very obviously not regressive as mentioned. Poor people are not engaging in high frequency trading!
"Buy American" provision in stimulus. This is not news to you, Robert:
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently waived important portions of the "buy American" obligation for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, saying they would be inconsistent "with the public interest." And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has been working for the last month to curtail the inclusion of any such provisions in future U.S. legislation.
Although we should probably look at what the deal was with the auto bail out for more intel, but it could be worse, in terms of putting up a token fall guy.
But I agree, I wrote piece after piece during the primaries on how Obama just completely ignored, except many to increase the offshore outsourcing of it....the manufacturing sector.
So, I'm taking this news as a positive with caution.
This RSS feed goes out to a lot of manufacturing groups, so I'll be looking to see what they say (economists heavily focused on manufacturing, trade).
Instead of attacking the serious structural problems the Obama Administration has chosen to maintain the status-quo by re-inflating the bubble.
Our economy faces significant structural defects that required progressive and significant changes to it. Obama Administration, as with most of its proposals, has chosen not to lead but to part of problem in Washington - the endorsement of the 'neo-liberal' economic growth model.
I can't speak for other graduate degrees but I know for a fact that the value of a law degree has been decreasing for decades. In spite of this, the cost of going to law school has never been higher, and new law schools are popping up all over the country.
Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no reliable source of data regarding the actual return value of a law degree. The schools themselves present skewed employment data based on surveys returned by graduates, but these statistics overly represent successful graduates and are very likely fraudulent. Prospective students see these statistics and enroll in law school, assuming crushing debt that they will never repay.
The wide availability of federally backed loans has spurred over-consumption of law degrees (and probably other degrees as well). This diminishes the value of the degree and increases the cost of obtaining it. Supply and demand principles don't apply because of false information given to prospective students combined with the fact that the lender who finances the education assumes none of the risk (federal loans are fully repaid by the Fed in the event of default, private loans are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy). Graduates then find that not only is there massive competition for the available jobs, but many jobs are being offshore outsourced to individuals without the crushing debt or degree.
By the way, you might be interested to know that the federal government treats bogus offshore degrees the same as American degrees when evaluating candidates for federal jobs.
a Transaction tax on Security tranactions is a dumb idea.
since it will discourage people from taking risks while the govt benefits from people taking the risk in trading a stock.
Keep it the way it is or raise the Capital gains tax, a tax based fairly on earnings not just transactions.
Mainly its those nutty Californians who are behind this regressive legislation and look where California is behind the eight ball.
Some people love him, and others do not. I happen to think that Matt Taibbi is one of the few authentic investigative journalists left out there.
Anyway, some time ago, Rolling Stone put Taibbi on assignment to write a comprehensive piece on "health care reform", whatever it is. His report appeared in the September 3rd print edition and is now available online at this link.
I read the article earlier today and it enraged and disgusted me, but it did not surprise me. The process of corruption involved in the evolution of this "reform" measure to date is diligently exposed by Taibbi. Bottom line, we will end up with some legislation that will give even more opportunites to the healthcare insurance industry to rip off the average citizen. Here's Taibbi's concluding paragraphs:
All that's left of health care reform is a collection of piece-of-shit, weakling proposals that are preposterously expensive and contain almost nothing meaningful — and that set of proposals, meanwhile, is being negotiated down even further by the endlessly negating Group of Six. It is a fight to the finish now between Really Bad and Even Worse. And it's virtually guaranteed to sour the public on reform efforts for years to come.
"They'll pass some weak, mediocre plan that breaks the bank and even in the best analysis leaves 37 million people uninsured," says Mokhiber, one of the single-payer activists arrested by Baucus. "It's going to give universal health care a bad name."
It's a joke, the whole thing, a parody of Solomonic governance. By the time all the various bills are combined, health care will be a baby not split in half but in fourths and eighths and fractions of eighths. It's what happens when a government accustomed to dealing on the level of perception tries to take on a profound emergency that exists in reality. No matter how hard Congress may try, though, it simply is not possible to paper over a crisis this vast.
Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It's more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators — the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses — who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all — they, at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with the wearing of a T-shirt in November.
This is at the end of 7 long online pages that are written in an informative and entertaining way; the inimitable Taibbi style. Read the whole article, it is well worth the time. But make no mistake, the US Gov't. is not interested in looking out for the average American, in any way, shape or form. We are the krill for the predator whales.
They are not separating out the employer from the coverage...
then frankly I do not trust Wyden. He has a proposal to separate out health insurance from employers, but he is just so corrupt (kind of that corporate liberal level) I just don't listen to much he has to say.
But, yes that's clearly a problem, varies greatly and also contributes to age discrimination. They perceive older workers as costing more, often due to health insurance.
i.e. you can work at a large corporation and have great coverage, a mid-size, skimpy coverage...
and a startup....that's the pray you don't get sick plan.
One of the things i don't understand is why didn't the Obama Administration explain to people who our current employer sponsored health care system is unstable.
A huge number of people who are insured receive their coverage through employer. What happens when that employer: a) eliminates coverage because it is too costly; b) goes bankrupt or ceases operations; c) worker or dependent has pre-existing condition; d) employer shifts more and more premium costs to workers w/out corresponding increase in actual wages/salary?
Workers are SCREWED. I think people would understand that but fail to realize it now.
That is what a recently unemployed family member (w/dependents) was offered under COBRA. The stimulus is helping for the time being but when it runs out before the person gets a job that person and dependents will join the ranks of the uninsured.
Now, there is no question that employers may be tacking on some "mark-up" on the premiums but that is what has been offered - nothing illegal for employer to "mark-up" premium especially under the guise of "administrative costs".
considering some of the skimpy coverage, the employer is really paying $1200/month per individual employee (I'm ignoring dependents). That seems beyond belief high when one isn't getting vision, dental and have a high deductible.
Not that I don't believe insurance companies are screwing employers as well as small business/individuals.
COBRA allows certain employees to continue health care coverage at the group rate for certain period of time - 18 months. The group rate doesn't include the portion that employers typically pay. So, if the group premium rate is $1200 per month, but would be less to an active employee because of employers contribution, the former employee pays the full $1200.
The stimulus plan, which this story points out is temporary, called for a gov't to pay for a portion of the group rate. COBRA is NOT a great deal - the group rate is a huge chunk of change particularly for a person w/family to support and bills to pay.
But what happens if the employer ceases operations - COBRA doesn't matter because the health care plan ceased to operate with the company.
I have to agree with Robert Oak's comment that COBRA is little more than an attempt to say "we did something", because of the serious costs that people would incur in trying to continue paying even a portion of their health insurance. In some locations where employees are not laid off but have been "temporarily laid off", their health benefits have been retained until they are again fully employed or move on to a new employer.
This seems like a far more reasonable manner of operating that really protects those who have lost their work from financial disaster caused by illness. Of course, this would require having employers accountable for their employees well being in a way that would be "inconvenient" for too many businesses.
Geithner, Member and Overseer of Finance Club
This article, in the left sidebar, has Mr. Geithner's schedule.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
and also why it's nonpartisan. So, firstly we can go by facts instead of philosophies but also so you don't have to join in any cheerleading rah, rah, even econ rah rah and keep plugging away for good policy.
I think though, a key is to get very specific.
For example, there is a "dead" bill, these are bills that are great ideas and get dumped into committee where they die.
One is for a Congressional trade office, another, Dorgan is to have an automatic review of trade policy the minute the trade deficit reaches > 5% (as I recall this was the last number) of GDP.
Isn't this the problem generally? Take the health care bill(s)? No one knows what's really in them, so you get people criticizing with generalities instead of very specific pieces of legislation, specific bill clauses and specific ramifications?
Now that is one aspect of this site I hope to promote, which is to get that focus onto specifics..
so instead of "that sucks" or "rape of middle class", you have "credit card companies still can charge loan shark rates, unlimited, reform bill did nothing to cap interest rates on unsecuritized debt"
It's really important because without specifics there is nothing the public can grab onto to write their legislators about, demand that it get passed, demand it be stopped.
Instead you get defocused, generalized rage and anger(which is clearly bubbling intensely now).
In the context of health care reform:
Transcript
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
That has been a really funny pics and vids. Especially the last one. Good morning to everyone!
But as of right now the record is not good. I am trying to find some quotes but Leo Hindery's article suggests that there are people in the Administration that believe that service sector jobs are just as good as manufacturing jobs. Who could that be? Larry Summers?
This is beyond politics. This about survival of a huge segment of our population.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Firstly, this is to stop high frequency traders, hedge funds, speculators. Capital gains cannot really do that, not unless capital gains based on frequency is changed plus the rules for institutional investment houses is changed to be the corporate tax rate instead of capital gains.
This legislation is very obviously not regressive as mentioned. Poor people are not engaging in high frequency trading!
I agree with that but if we get real policy change, don't forget to "be nice". ;)
"Buy American" provision in stimulus. This is not news to you, Robert:
Buy American-Why Not?
This would not be the first:
1) Jared Bernstein, one of the few (possibly only) progressive minded economists, is neutered.
2) Much talked about "Middle Class Task Force" - which I think Bernstein is part of. What are they going to do - probably nothing?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Although we should probably look at what the deal was with the auto bail out for more intel, but it could be worse, in terms of putting up a token fall guy.
But I agree, I wrote piece after piece during the primaries on how Obama just completely ignored, except many to increase the offshore outsourcing of it....the manufacturing sector.
So, I'm taking this news as a positive with caution.
This RSS feed goes out to a lot of manufacturing groups, so I'll be looking to see what they say (economists heavily focused on manufacturing, trade).
Obama so far as not shown the courage and leadership necessary to revitalize the manufacturing sector.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Instead of attacking the serious structural problems the Obama Administration has chosen to maintain the status-quo by re-inflating the bubble.
Our economy faces significant structural defects that required progressive and significant changes to it. Obama Administration, as with most of its proposals, has chosen not to lead but to part of problem in Washington - the endorsement of the 'neo-liberal' economic growth model.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I can't speak for other graduate degrees but I know for a fact that the value of a law degree has been decreasing for decades. In spite of this, the cost of going to law school has never been higher, and new law schools are popping up all over the country.
Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no reliable source of data regarding the actual return value of a law degree. The schools themselves present skewed employment data based on surveys returned by graduates, but these statistics overly represent successful graduates and are very likely fraudulent. Prospective students see these statistics and enroll in law school, assuming crushing debt that they will never repay.
The wide availability of federally backed loans has spurred over-consumption of law degrees (and probably other degrees as well). This diminishes the value of the degree and increases the cost of obtaining it. Supply and demand principles don't apply because of false information given to prospective students combined with the fact that the lender who finances the education assumes none of the risk (federal loans are fully repaid by the Fed in the event of default, private loans are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy). Graduates then find that not only is there massive competition for the available jobs, but many jobs are being offshore outsourced to individuals without the crushing debt or degree.
By the way, you might be interested to know that the federal government treats bogus offshore degrees the same as American degrees when evaluating candidates for federal jobs.
a Transaction tax on Security tranactions is a dumb idea.
since it will discourage people from taking risks while the govt benefits from people taking the risk in trading a stock.
Keep it the way it is or raise the Capital gains tax, a tax based fairly on earnings not just transactions.
Mainly its those nutty Californians who are behind this regressive legislation and look where California is behind the eight ball.
Some people love him, and others do not. I happen to think that Matt Taibbi is one of the few authentic investigative journalists left out there.
Anyway, some time ago, Rolling Stone put Taibbi on assignment to write a comprehensive piece on "health care reform", whatever it is. His report appeared in the September 3rd print edition and is now available online at this link.
I read the article earlier today and it enraged and disgusted me, but it did not surprise me. The process of corruption involved in the evolution of this "reform" measure to date is diligently exposed by Taibbi. Bottom line, we will end up with some legislation that will give even more opportunites to the healthcare insurance industry to rip off the average citizen. Here's Taibbi's concluding paragraphs:
This is at the end of 7 long online pages that are written in an informative and entertaining way; the inimitable Taibbi style. Read the whole article, it is well worth the time. But make no mistake, the US Gov't. is not interested in looking out for the average American, in any way, shape or form. We are the krill for the predator whales.
They are not separating out the employer from the coverage...
then frankly I do not trust Wyden. He has a proposal to separate out health insurance from employers, but he is just so corrupt (kind of that corporate liberal level) I just don't listen to much he has to say.
But, yes that's clearly a problem, varies greatly and also contributes to age discrimination. They perceive older workers as costing more, often due to health insurance.
i.e. you can work at a large corporation and have great coverage, a mid-size, skimpy coverage...
and a startup....that's the pray you don't get sick plan.
One of the things i don't understand is why didn't the Obama Administration explain to people who our current employer sponsored health care system is unstable.
A huge number of people who are insured receive their coverage through employer. What happens when that employer: a) eliminates coverage because it is too costly; b) goes bankrupt or ceases operations; c) worker or dependent has pre-existing condition; d) employer shifts more and more premium costs to workers w/out corresponding increase in actual wages/salary?
Workers are SCREWED. I think people would understand that but fail to realize it now.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
That is what a recently unemployed family member (w/dependents) was offered under COBRA. The stimulus is helping for the time being but when it runs out before the person gets a job that person and dependents will join the ranks of the uninsured.
Now, there is no question that employers may be tacking on some "mark-up" on the premiums but that is what has been offered - nothing illegal for employer to "mark-up" premium especially under the guise of "administrative costs".
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
considering some of the skimpy coverage, the employer is really paying $1200/month per individual employee (I'm ignoring dependents). That seems beyond belief high when one isn't getting vision, dental and have a high deductible.
Not that I don't believe insurance companies are screwing employers as well as small business/individuals.
COBRA allows certain employees to continue health care coverage at the group rate for certain period of time - 18 months. The group rate doesn't include the portion that employers typically pay. So, if the group premium rate is $1200 per month, but would be less to an active employee because of employers contribution, the former employee pays the full $1200.
The stimulus plan, which this story points out is temporary, called for a gov't to pay for a portion of the group rate. COBRA is NOT a great deal - the group rate is a huge chunk of change particularly for a person w/family to support and bills to pay.
But what happens if the employer ceases operations - COBRA doesn't matter because the health care plan ceased to operate with the company.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I have to agree with Robert Oak's comment that COBRA is little more than an attempt to say "we did something", because of the serious costs that people would incur in trying to continue paying even a portion of their health insurance. In some locations where employees are not laid off but have been "temporarily laid off", their health benefits have been retained until they are again fully employed or move on to a new employer.
This seems like a far more reasonable manner of operating that really protects those who have lost their work from financial disaster caused by illness. Of course, this would require having employers accountable for their employees well being in a way that would be "inconvenient" for too many businesses.
Pages