Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

I will get them past college and maintain the vision and ethics needed.

In 1526 Kopernicus wrote a study on the value of money, Monetae cudendae ratio. In it he formulated an early iteration of the theory, now called "Gresham's Law," that "bad" (debased) coinage drives "good" (un-debased) coinage out of circulation, 70 years before Gresham. He also formulated a version of quantity theory of money. His work was suppresed as was Sismondi and a few others we have noted. I can reference many works on Keynesian economics based economics back to 980. Walker (1912) cites the political reality in this context even up to Luther's comments on repressionary design of state affairs.

Higgenbotham wrote: If the supposed "problem" is that there are a lot of uninsured, Obamacare may address that. But addressing that particular "problem" does not necessarily have any outcome other than sending an income stream to the health care industry or to the government in the case of the tax. It doesn't guarantee more overall access to ( health ) care.

Which is exactly why I said the scope of your question: "What was wrong with the existing ( health care ) system?"
exceeds the scope of this forum.

People, including the people who wrote the Obamacare law, can not even agree on what the terms "HEALTH INSURANCE" and "HEALTH CARE" mean.

For example does moving millions of the working poor from employer paid health insurance to Medicaid, as Obamacare requires the projections from the Congressional Budget Office must assume will NOT happen, mean less people are insured, or more people are insured, or something else?

Is medicaid insurance? or, is medicaid welfare? Federal law treats it one way in some places and the other way in other places. Medicaid does not have insurance premium payments, it does not have deductibles, and it does not have co-pays (in most states) Most reasonable people would call it welfare not health insurance.

Because of the low re-reimbursement rates doctors treat medicaid as charity work, not insurance, because doctors claim the government dictated reimbursement rates do not even cover the doctors costs of providing the care.

Will the working poor from Florida, Texas, Wisconsin and Ohio move to California, Illinois and New York because the latter states will pay their medical expenses for them through Medicaid, but in the former states the Federal government will require those making over 100% of the federal poverty level to buy federal health insurance. Said federal health insurance having high deductibles and high co-pays.

Then of course there is the issue of what happens if the working poor fail to make an insurance premium payment and lose their federally mandated private medical insurance? Is that family now uninsured under Obamacare, or are they counted as insured even though they cannot go to the doctor without going bankrupt ?

Will the working poor who lost their insurance because they failed to pay an insurance premium still get free care when they go to the emergency room for their medical care and will those costs still be transferred to someone else?

As I said the scope of your question: "What was wrong with the existing ( health care ) system?"
exceeds the scope of this forum.

I see pause in the market and guarded optimism for some time as many.

Banksters



http://www.economist.com/node/21558260

Your a decade or more ahead.

This story came out this afternoon. The Fed is manipulating interest rates and talking about manipulating interest rates some more. Many banksters benefit from the Fed's manipulation, and the banksters try to make it look like the Fed needs to continue to manipulate, so as to gain more benefits.

Some Fed officials want to consider the option of purchasing mortgage bonds. Some research suggests mortgage-debt purchases are more effective than Treasury bond purchases at lowering a broad range of interest rates, and the Fed already has a large portfolio of Treasurys. Prices on mortgage securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shot higher Friday, another indicator that investors put higher odds on a Fed bond-buying program.

They have other options. Since January, the Fed has said it likely won't begin raising short-term interest rates until late 2014. They could extend that to 2015.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 35390.html

No loose nails allowed H.

aedens wrote:Again, at the risk of beating a dead horse, the problem is not one of liquidity - there is plenty of that - the problem is too much debt and not enough velocity of money. You can lower interest rates all day long until the cows come home but if people do not want to borrow or are afraid to borrow, what good does it do?

a, I haven't stated this explicitly in any of these posts. In my view, at its core the problem is not moral hazard, it is not velocity of money, or any of the "problems" commonly cited.

The problem is there is a clique of bandits in New York who have an incentive to destroy the US economy because they get money in return for doing that. We can read the words above. "Bad jobs report" = "more QE", etc. The Fed is enabling this destruction. These bandits, with the grip they have, have all the power they need to destroy the US economy and get rewarded for it. And so far as I know, the last time there was a similar situation was in what is now Italy in the 14th Century, which was then the financial center of Europe. The LIBOR controversy is a subset of what I am talking about and m's post over in the news section discussed the bankruptcy of municipalities based on the sales of swaps by the banksters and I would also add that the banksters went to work directly on Greece as well. The other thing I would mention is why would you send only two regulators into Lehman knowing that it is a ticking time bomb. My answer is it's because he wanted that time bomb to detonate. Or somebody did.

The Justice department gave there view on it already. I have seen the effects first hand also H as you have also.