Friday, April 15, 2016

BloggeRhythms

Not much newsworthy going on today, but a couple of items shed some needed light on how deeply politics affects the nation’s economy and those trying to earn a decent living. 

Tom DiChristopher @cnbc.com reports that: “Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that monetary policy has reached the outward bounds of its effectiveness without another round of quantitative easing.”

For those unfamiliar, Mr. Greenspan, according to Wikipedia was: “First appointed Federal Reserve chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006, after the second-longest tenure in the position (behind William McChesney Martin.)”

Those choosing him again, after Reagan included George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush. In fact, many credit Republican Greenspan as being the one who’s masterful running of the Fed, producing a strongly thriving economy, gave Bill Clinton license to do whatever he wanted administratively. Because the vast majority of voters were doing so well economically, they didn’t want to rock the boat with any changes.  

Now today, Mr. Greenspan opined:“"Monetary policy … has done everything it can unless you want to put additional QE's on. They're not helping that much in the sense that ultimately determines whether or not you're getting an effect from the QE's" beyond increasing price-to-earnings ratios in the stock market, he said during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Alley." 

And then he delivered an analysis which he far above almost all others is qualified to derive, as follows: “Anemic productivity growth and flagging corporate profits can be traced to too much entitlement spending as the world's population ages, 

"If you look at it in a bookkeeping sense, it's because gross domestic savings, everywhere across the spectrum — the political spectrum — has been severely undercut by social benefit increases in virtually every single major country," he said. 

"It's fundamentally … a political problem," he said.

And in that regard, one doesn't need a degree in high finance to grasp his point. It's simple, every day logic. 

Which leads right into the next item, this one from Peter Sullivan @thehill.com who writes that: “Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year. 

“Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether. 

“Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on the health law at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.” 

“While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”  

On the political side specifically: “In the short term, there is a growing likelihood that insurers will push for substantial premium increases, creating a political problem for Democrats in an election year.” 

And here’s a major part of the problem that Republicans warned about from the very beginning: “The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a widely publicized report last month that said new enrollees under ObamaCare had 22 percent higher medical costs than people who received coverage from employers.” 

The reasons for the failure are caused by benefits being extended to those who either pay nothing, or far less than, those who are employed and forced to bear the increased financial burden for everyone. Compounded by government involving itself in an industry where it doesn’t belong, while lacking the talent, personnel, experience or simple business sense to make a complex free-market system work. It's like asking Curly, Moe and Larry to teach quantum physics.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife 

Dana Blanton @FoxNews.com/politics, writes about an apparent phenomenon, whereas the Democratic race tightened in New York to the point that Bill’s wife is only ahead of Sanders by two points, 48-46 percent. “Last month, before Sanders won eight of the nine most recent contests, she had a 13-point advantage (55-42 percent.) 

“The shift comes from women. Clinton’s support has declined 11 points among women, while support for Sanders is up by nine. Support among men mostly held steady -- and it’s in Sanders’ favor: 57-37 percent.” 

But, aside from the demographic makeup of voters, it’s just as likely that much like last time she ran, familiarity truly does breed contempt. Or, more to the point, eventually most people simply can’t stand her. 

As far as the general election projections are concerned, “Kasich, who is in third both in polling and the delegate count, likes to tell folks on the campaign trail that most polls show he’s the only Republican who can win in November.” 

And, if polls are anywhere near accurate, he might be correct because in new potential matchups: “Kasich is up by nine points over Clinton (49 vs. 40 percent), while she’s the one who tops Trump (+7 points) and Cruz (+1 point).  

“The Ohio governor also does best against Sanders.  The Vermont senator trounces Trump (+14 points) and Cruz (+12 points).  Against Kasich, he’s up by just four points.” 

So, having deserted Arkansas for the bright lights of New York, it looks like Bill's wife might be wearing her welcome out there too. Meaning there’s a very good chance she might need a new address. And if the FBI gets involved in choosing her next place of residence, it could actually turn out to be Leavenworth, Kansas.  

Leading to the repeating question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment