Surveys are meaningless..
Consumer spendings have been coming up even tho real incomes shrink..
They may be successful at re-inflating the bubble at least on a short term

Mike,where did you get such statistics? Base on the recent report releasedyesterday, all major retailers ended in the negative numbers in the lastquater. And the unemployment did not decrease.

To Epshtein: if standard deviation is less than+/- 5 you can not make any inferences with that data. So, 0.1% does not tell usanything for the period of time.

The false economic improvement (temporary) is coming. Ant it will be helped with our Brezhnev style media...


Until of the new tax provision with take place and new business tax season comes... then brace for impact... since there is not too many people left to "shave", the businesses will have to closing.

I just rean on one of the blogs - the real unemployment is around 17% and rising...


Cheers...(D)(D)(D)

Galina, the data i get directly from Bloomberg datafeed
Last month Personal Spendings were up .4%

now, about the "real" unemployment..
it's all about the definition.. i can't tell which one is the "right" definition.. you can say it's 17%, or 38.2% or 9.2%.. it's largely irrelevant.. as long as you always computer the trend based on the same definition.. that's the only important condition.

To Лютак, question... How did you manage to calculate std? Are you trying to say that we cannot make any long term conclusions based on one month results? Who would argue with that?
The only thing it does say (assuming the calculations in July were made the same way they were made in June) that unemployment rate didn't go up whether you like Obama or not.

The margin of error for this data is actually very hard to compute, due to the sampling methodology they are using.
Historically an average revision of data has been about .2%.

Before passing the stimulus bill, they argued that IF the bill didn't pass the umemployment would go up above 9% in April...now we are in August and it's away above 9%...the stimulus obviously didn't work...now>>why are they asking about the second stimulus if they have not even spent all the money yet??

I think the real reason, Sveta, is that they want to try to get the money well before midterm elections next year. Which may shift the power in congress. People don't forgive things like that "give my money to the poor slab, who has a shitty car, so he can drive a brand new one" gimmick. You'll see.

***********.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhkF3dqXR0
this is really cool.....:-D

BOB&TOM TV: "Obama Man" by Greg Morton

Как вам нравиться Обамы автомобильная политика?Мне помниться что по крайней мере в НьюЙорке было нечто подобное,но только с оружием. За любой сданный ствол платили 180долл без лишних вопросов.Пеступность от этого меньше не стала,но денежки налогоплательщика были разбазарены.Грешен-тогда сам подумывал сдать свой китайский СКС -купленный за 120 долл для охоты и купить что либо более качественное,но совесть замучила.

Пожалуй, единственная инициатива Обамы, которую я поддерживаю и озвучил годы назад - создать государственные страховые компании - (я бы пошёл даже дальше - национализировал существующие), не пройдёт... Что вы думаете на этот счёт?

Надеюсь, что не пройдет. Национализация страховых компаний и приведет к социалистическому перевороту. Не дай бог это случиться

Mike, what do you think about this?
***********.ft.com/cms/s/0/90227fdc-900d-11de-bc59-00144feabdc0.html
this is from the man who predicted all the mess we are in right now
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini

Sveta,
I know who he is of course, and did read his FT article.
He was not the only one who predicted this turn of events there were 100s of people.
I somewhat agree with his reasoning.. i posted many times what i think will happen.
I don't believe in U or W recovery at this point, my view is something like an L - shaped recovery.
At this point world governments injected about 20 trillion into the world economy in order to mitigate de-leveraging process.
I think this was a mistake, de-leveraging should have been allowed to take place.
We got a small bump up based on those actions, however we have made the problem worst on the intermediate term.

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. unemployment will surge to 10percent this year and the budget deficit will be $1.5 trillionnext year, both higher than previous Obama administrationforecasts because of a recession that was deeper and longer thanexpected, White House budget chief Peter Orszag said.
The Office of Management and Budget forecasts that the U.S.economy will shrink 2.8 percent this year, worse than the 1.2percent contraction the OMB projected in May. For next year, thebudget office said the gross domestic product will grow 2.0percent, less than the 3.2 percent expected in May. By 2011, theeconomy would be well on its way to recovery, growing at a 3.8percent annual rate, according to the administration’s mid-yeareconomic review, released this morning.

***********.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNaqecavD9ek
those idiots still want to push for the HealthCare bill adding to the deficit - it will kill the economy... :-|

Honestly speaking, i don't think the healthcare bill will help or hurt the economy on the short-intermediate term.. at least in it's current state.
Even if the costs is 100bln/year.. there are no inflationary pressures, so additional 100bln in bond sale would not be a big issues at all.

tax increases on high earners and small businesses will not hurt the economy?
you don't think that if they cut reimbursements to some healthcare professionals (businesses), it will result in higher unemployment?

tax increases are not in a bill right now.. they are debating how to fund the costs of universal coverage.. and i don't think there has been a definitive decision made.
also i don't believe this has anything to do with re-reimbursements to the healthcare professionals and don't see how this will result in higher unemployment.

********online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html
I know nothing is definite yet, but this is what they want to do...
Medical businesses are also businesses and provide employment...if their income(reimbursement) shrink, taxes increase (they will have to provide health insurance or pay add. tax 8%), in addition to having to pay surtax on their income...if all these will not affect small businesses (and may result in paying people off), don't know what does...
Anyway ANY tax increase in a time like this is a bad idea, and everybody knows that...last person to pass tax increases in a recession was Hoover and it led to the depression...

this is VERY OLD article, which discusses an old version of the house bill.
i believe the current bill does not have a new tax idea or a surtax idea.
again, the healthcare plan by itself would not hurt economy, however if they do it wrong it could.
i do hope a bill will emerge that would somehow allow for healthcare coverage for all Americans.

again, the healthcare plan by itself would not hurt economy, however if they do it wrong it could.
i do hope a bill will emerge that would somehow allow for healthcare coverage for all Americans.
Mike, I didn't know you believe in utopia...:-)

healthcare coverage for everyone is utopia? the entire developed world outside the US lives in utopia?

No, utopia is that somehow you can cover everybody (against some people's will btw (some are even poor who qualify for Medicaid today!! and some with incomes over $75K who choose not to buy coverage) without somebody paying for it, and not affecting the economy...
and how is "the entire developed world's economy" doing compared to the US, btw??...

so, those who "chose" not to buy coverage and get really sick.. what happens to them?

Well, it all depends...some are saving money for such things through their Health Saving Accounts...if they are poor, they will be covered through programs already in place...there are lots of places that raise money for people in need without means...etc...hospitals provide financial assistance/discounts...
I am sure you know all these...:-)
btw, anyone who believes in the myth of utilizing less ER services with availability of Healthcare for everyone should take a look with what's going in MA (thanks to Romney(sc) )...their ERs are going broke (because their healthcare is "free", people are using ERs as primary services)...

ERs are a loss center for every hospital, does not matter which state you are in, same way trauma department also loses money for every hospital... specifically due to those people who chose not to buy health insurance and can't afford to pay their ER/trauma fees.
So 2 things happen most of the time
1) Patient defaults in their debt to the hospital and goes into bankruptcy
2) Hospital takes a loss on the case
By far not everyone can qualify for medicaid..
For example.. if a person has asset to their name ( home, car, 401k) even after they exhaust their savings would not be able to qualify until they drain all those.
This is totally a lose-lose proposition..
Mandating health coverage the same way we mandate car insurance is definitely the way to go.

***********.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/24/er_visits_costs_in_mass_climb/
please read this article about the MA ER situation SINCE they've initiated UNIVERSAL coverage (the costs have gone up)...
Mandating health coverage the same way we mandate car insurance is definitely the way to go.
Now, I thought it was all about healthcare reform without hurting the economy...how do we "mandate" a family of four with an annual income of $35K to buy coverage?? can they really afford it?
1. You either mandate their employer to provide it - which will ultimately hurt the economy...
OR
2. You tax others to help them buy it - which will also hurt the economy...
Tell me if I am missing something...

so, what is a family with $35K income to do?
constructive proposals?
Now if you have this level of income, you can get coverage for children through CHIPS (400% poverty level cutoff), but what about the adults?

how do we "mandate" a family of four with an annual income of $35K to buy coverage?? can they really afford it?
.
Not sure about other states, but in NJ they can get coverage through NJ Familycare (only adults with children are eligible) - single adults are out of luck.

well, if having coverage if your priority you can
1. try finding employer who provides it (Wal-Mart is still hiring, doing good even now, making profits, and provides good health coverage)
2. you can utilize free healthcare clinics
3. you can buy catastrophic coverage to be covered for expensive medical expenses
what government can do to help those people afford coverage
1. tax-credits
2. allow people buy coverage out of state (this will generate REAL competition among insurance companies)
3. Tort-Reform (should lower healthcare costs and eventually insurance premiums in the future)
4. offer tax credits to doctros/hospitals who offer assistance to the uninsured
Remember having a job for those people is much more important than having coverage right now!

well, if having coverage if your priority you can
1. try finding employer who provides it (Wal-Mart is still hiring, doing good even now, making profits, and provides good health coverage)
2. you can utilize free healthcare clinics
3. you can buy catastrophic coverage to be covered for expensive medical expenses
.
4. You forgot to mention that one can also marry someone who has health insurance, move to Canada,or quit their joband get rid ofall their assets to qualify for medicaid. (tr)
.
Remember having a job for those people is much more important than having coverage right now!
.
For what people and when did they elect you their representative?

" try finding employer who provides it"
so if you are a social worker 9$34k/yr) straight out of college with diabetes , or LPN ( $24k/yr) with lupus, or a technician who can't afford paying $600/mo through an employer offered plan, or works at a business that does not offer insurance, you need to quit your job and become a cashier at Walmart?
And those examples are very real.
Xerox offers insurance family of 4 needs to pay $600/mo for and it has $2500 per person deductible. So if you have two children with asthma, you will have to spend $5K BEFORE your insurance even kicks in.
cont...

University of Rochester offers Aetna that has such restrictive policiespeople sue it all the time for refusing out of network coverage. Thoselawsuits have nothing to do with tort reform, people are suinginsurance company for NOT paying for care.
We had to fight for a month for them to "allow" liver transplant outof network, and they didn't even want to understand that there isnoone in town who does those surgeries at this age....
The only thing I have to say to those who are happy with status quo and love their insurance companies :
hope none of you or your loved ones encounter one of those situations when you will feel like you are banging your head against the wall (after all the money you paid them) and they are not paying for treatment.
Keep enjoying enriching insurance companies and their executives(v) - it's good for your health!

what's the point of asking a question if you don't read the answer? Did I say to keep everything the same? All those examples that you gave usually work for healthcare organizations such as hospitals and most of them provide insurance...
whatever...

I read the answer...
in the meanwhile United Healthcare CEO made $750mil - thank you all subscribers for generous contributions:-D
"In the meanwhile we are going to move all your asthma drugs into a 3rd tier so your copayment will be $35 per prescription X4 X 2 familymembers =" HAhaha(hu)
"Oh,btw, we made a nice deal with the manufactures, so we are getting even more money in our pockets through those exclusive deals - aren't we smar"t(hu)
Yes, dear Americans, you all have your choices!
Luchshe but' zdorovum i bogatum chem bednum i bol'nym -
swyataya istina!

Julia as usual full of "Pravda" so-called facts.
lets do some factchecking.
people sue Aetna it all the time
from Aetna 10k filing: annual litigation costs for Aetna under 20mil
which is less then 0.1% of the total revenue
united healthcare CEO 750mil hmm
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Hemsley
Business Week reports his annual salary as $1,300,000[4]. Forbes Magazine ranks him at 296th in its 2009 Special Report on CEO Compensation[5]. His compensation was estimated at $3,241,042 by the FierceHealthcare newsletter[6].
feel like you are banging your head against the wall (after all the money you paid them
customer satisfaction with health insurance industry is 73%

this is just skimming from the top of shit bullshit.

Svetlana, now about MA ER costs.. they are rising despite the universally mandated coverage..
It takes more then insurance to change some peoples mindset about going to ER with every little problem. It's not about insurance, but about education..
This does not mean MA system of forcing insurance coverage on to everyone failed.

Mike, you are SOOO cute when you are arguing with me...(lo)...what happened to your libertarian side?? (tr) ... mandating??...:-)
the fact of the matter is MA is broke, the state income tax is the third largest in the nation...their economy оставляет желать лучшего...most of the people do have access ot healthcare, they just don't get care - they don't have healthcare providers (shortage of doctors, nurses, etc.)...
***********.healthbeatblog.org/2008/12/on-health-care-reform-stimulating-the-economy-the-massachusetts-example.html