Markets |
China’s shock 2 percent devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday pushed the dollar higher
and raised the prospect of a new round of currency wars, just as Greece reached a new deal
to contain its debt crisis
China’s devaluation raises currency war fear
as Greece strikes deal
LONDON |
China’s shock 2 percent devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday pushed the dollar higher
and raised the prospect of a new round of currency wars, just as Greece reached a new deal
to contain its debt crisis
Weaker stocks lifted top-rated bonds, with yields on euro zone debt also falling on the Greek deal, struck nine days before Athens is due to repay 3.2 billion euros to the European Central Bank.
China's move, which the central bank described as a "one-off depreciation" based on a new way of managing the exchange rate that better reflected market forces, triggered the yuan's biggest fall since 1994, pushing it to its lowest level against the dollar CNY=CFXSin almost three years.
The Australian dollar AUD=D4, often used as a liquid proxy for the yuan, fell 1.1 percent to $0.7324 as the U.S. dollar rose 0.4 percent against a basket of currencies .DXY before paring gains.
In Asia, the Singapore dollar SGD=D3 hit a five-year low while the Malaysian ringgit MYR=and the Indonesian rupiah IDR= hit lows not seen since the Asian financial crisis 17 years ago. The Japanese yen JPY= hit a two-month low of 125.08 to the U.S. dollar.
The euro EUR=, buoyed by the Greece deal, rose 0.1 percent to $1.1022.
U.S. reaction will be crucial. Washington has for years pressed Beijing to free up the exchange rate to allow the yuan to strengthen, reflecting the growth in the world's second-largest economy.
Today, China's economy is slowing and the new exchange rate mechanism gives markets greater ability to push the yuan lower, just as the United States prepares to raise interest rates - a step that should add to dollar strength.
"It does look, however modest, like an attempt to recoup just a small amount of competitive edge lost in international markets," said Simon Derrick, head of currency research at BNY Mellon in London.
"What happens over the next few days matters. If we have a currency that moves much more freely, fine. If, however, we go back and it's just repegged ... that is currency war."
European shares fell. The pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 index .FTEU3 was down 1 percent, led lower by car makers and luxury goods companies, whose products have just got more expensive for Chinese consumers. Shares in Athens .ATG rose 1.9 percent, however, making it the only European bourse to rise.
This followed falls in Asia. MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan .MIAPJ0000PUS gave up early gains and was down 1.4 percent at its lowest since February 2014. Japan's Nikkei .N225 slipped 0.4 percent.
On Chinese stock markets, airlines and importers fell, though exporters rose. The CSI300 index .CSI300 of the largest listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen lost 0.4 percent and the Shanghai Composite .SSEC closed flat.
BONDS
The weakness in stocks boosted top-rated bonds. German 10-year yields DE10YT=TWEB fell 5 basis points to 0.65 percent and U.S. equivalents US10T=RR dropped more than 8 bps to 2.16 percent.
The deal on a third bailout for Greece also helped yields on lower-rated Spanish and Italian bonds drop 6 bps apiece while Greek two-year yields GR2YT=TWEB fell 4.7 percentage points to 14.74 percent, their lowest since March.
"The Chinese devaluation was taken as 'things are not going that well in China' and this is a risk-off move," said Martin van Vliet, senior rate strategist at ING, adding that "with the Greek deal secured and the ECB continuously buying bonds, peripheral spreads would have been much tighter (but for China)".
Oil prices fell as dollar-priced commodities became more expensive, weighing on demand. Brent crude LCOc1 was down 59 cents a barrel at $49.79.
Gold XAU= fell as low as $1,093.25 before recovering to around $1,1109 an ounce as investors sought safety.
“Probably gold is benefiting from fears that this is a new round of 'currency war'," Macquarie analyst Matthew Turner said, adding that the move had increased uncertainties about the global economy, which tends to be good for gold.
(Editing by Ruth Pitchford and Kevin Liffey)
2%. I guess it could be worse.
ReplyDeleteit will be...
Deletelol
it is...
lol
.
ReplyDeleteJoe is back.
I just learned that Joe Lieberman, storied Middle East hawk, has joined United Against Nuclear Iran as its new Chairman. UANI is one of several pressure groups now rolling out massive ad campaigns against the deal bankrolled by assorted billionaires.
This is not terribly surprising given the rising hysteria over the deal and Lieberman's role as one of Washington's arch Middle East. "UANI has led the effort to economically isolate the Iranian regime, and its bipartisan and international expertise makes it a highly respected voice on the merits of the Iran agreement. I am honored to assume this new leadership role at this important time."
But why exactly does UANI need a new chairman?
After all, they just hired Dr. Gary Samore as chairman back in 2013. Well, Samore had to leave because he supports the deal! Yes, he supports the deal. The deal is such a Chamberlainesque catastrophe that one of the main anti-deal pressure groups had to part ways with its leader because he supports the deal.
Said Samore in the Lieberman press release (emphasis added): "I am proud to have been a part of UANI from its inception and the essential work UANI has done on the Iran nuclear issue, particularly in the area of sanctions and economic pressure. In these partisan times, UANI has been a bipartisan and thoughtful voice on these issues. If the nuclear agreement goes forward--as I believe it should--UANI will continue to play a critical role monitoring implementation and helping to maintain non-nuclear sanctions until Iran changes its behavior in these other areas."
This little nugget captures the current, non-reality-based phase of the Iran nuclear debate in which partisanship, hyperbole and deception have entirely engulfed the debate. I totally understand why people are spooked by the financial windfall Iran will get when it receives its frozen assets. But the premise here was supposed to be that nukes are sui generis and it is critical that we prevent the Iranians from getting them. Opponents have no alternative plan. And contrary to President Obama I actually don't believe the alternative is war. I don't see this or a future American President actually going there. The alternative is to huff and puff and pound our chests and let the Iranians become a nuclear weapons state, just we let North Korea do so in the early years of the previous decade...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lol-anti-iran-deal-farce-hits-crescendo
.
1. The Israeli firsters are in a panic because they know there are not enough votes to override a veto in the Senate.
ReplyDelete2. Even if the US kills the deal, no one else in the EU, China, Russia, Japan, India or Pakistan will follow the US.
3. Aipac and the Israeli Lobby have been exposed to the US public for who they are, a shill for Israel with no regard for US interests.
4. The Pentagon will not get sucked into a war with Iran.
It's amazing how desperate you are sounding.
DeleteIf the deal goes thru?
The Iranians will continue their march to hegemony and mass murder in the middle east.
That's a fact.
The only good news?
More Palestinians will die DIRECTLY from Assad and Iran than you can imagine.
Congrats…
You are signing a death warrant for those you claim to love.
:)
As for Israel?
I am sure it will defend it's self.
Amy Klobuchar came out in support of the deal, yesterday.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post has it:
17 Yes
12 Leaning Yes
13 Undecided/Unclear - Obama needs 5 of them
Washington Post - Running Whip Count
The fact is, Congress set this deal up to succeed, not fail.
DeleteAll this is just theatre. (I thimk)
:)
It is theater.
DeleteIt will pass.
And then you will have the pleasure of the responsibility for enabling a modern day islamic revolution.
If only we could hold you accountable?
Maybe stand trial for treason.
Naw that won't happen…
But there will be bloodshed and it will be directly your own fault… (and the other appeasing cowards that lacked the spine to stand up against evil)
Coward.
Competitiveness and Class Warfare
ReplyDeleteFor reasons not entirely clear to me, recently I found myself thinking about Lester Thurow’s Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe, and America. For those too young, or who don’t remember, Thurow’s book was a monster best-seller in the early 1990s; it resonated with many people who feared that America was losing its economic edge, that Japan was an unstoppable juggernaut, and so on. And it also played into the general notion of global economics as a struggle for competitive advantage, which is a perennial popular favorite.
I was pretty critical of that notion at the time, arguing that economic success or failure had little to do with international competition. But what I found myself thinking about was the question of who really did best in the decades that followed Thurow’s book. And the answer is … nobody.
The chart shows real GDP per working-age adult (15-64) in France, Japan, and America since 1990. The demographic correction is important: Japan has lagged economically, but a lot of that is just demography.
*Surprising Chart*
What’s striking here is how similar the three look. Japan lagged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but recovered. France has lagged since 2010, largely thanks to the eurozone crisis and its misguided austerity policies. But given how much rhetoric there is about structural problems here and there, what’s striking is how little divergence there has been among advanced countries.
What this tells you, I think, isn’t just that international competition is far less important than legend has it. It also suggests that economic growth is pretty insensitive to policy: France and the US are at the extremes of advanced-country regimes, yet there’s not much difference in their long-term performance.
But does this say that policy doesn’t matter? Not at all. For while there is not, repeat not, anything like the zero-sum competition among nations so beloved of business types, there really is the question of who gets the gains. U.S. economic growth has been OK these past 25 years; US family incomes, not so much, because such a large share of growth goes to the very top.
DeleteInternational competition is a mostly bogus notion; class warfare is very, very real.
Paul Krugman
What is interesting is the way those that support the appeasing of the Iranian Islamic Revolution will sink to describe those that stand against it as "israeli" firsters, a know anti-Semitic slut, also they question Jewish American's loyalties.
ReplyDeleteBut what is in American interests?
Funding and supporting a nation of 70 million that rule by fascist means? To support the Mullahs with a cash infusion of 150 billion and to remove the sanctions, all the while normalizing world relations with this regime that is OFFICIALLY at war with America. Is that in it's interests?
I suggest those that are on this blog are so hyped about Iran becoming more powerful (and Assad and Hezbollah) to cheer lead it's assault on the Jewish state gets them off..
Yep, I suggest that Deuce, Rufus and others? Are creaming their shorts hoping that Israel will be destroyed…
But sorry gang, Israel will not go quietly into the night and allow islamic nazis of Iran to simply nuke them.
Iran, is good at mass murder, it has already helped kill 850,000 sunnis in syria and iraq, (not to mention the ten thousand palestinians)
Now as quirk as pointed out, I could give a flying fuck about those victims of Iran (syria, sadr, hezbollah) as they all were in fact jew murdering assholes…
But the real back story?
Iran will continue to murder them in ever increasing numbers…. INCLUDING the ethnic cleansing of the palestinians that lived in syria, iraq, lebanon and more….
:)
The funny thing of course?
Iran doesn't need ICBM's to hit Israel.
And yet it's spends a billion a year on them….
What is American interests?
Supporting the nazi wannabe's of IRan?
Maybe to Deuce and Rufus…
Quirk is just a fool
Yesterday, it was a couple of dozen Scientists; today, it's 3 Dozen Retired Generals, and Admirals.
ReplyDeletehttp://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/">Best Chance
Try Again
DeleteFrom The New York Times:
DeleteTwenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement.
The two-page letter may give the White House arguments a boost after the blow Mr. Obama suffered on Thursday when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and among the most influential Jewish voices in Congress, announced he would oppose the deal, which calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to international oil and financial sanctions.
N.Y. Times
Anyone have any idea on how many members of The GOP Likuds Force will be making the Zionist Haj to Israel?
ReplyDelete...for further instructions of course.
DeleteI think Quirk posted that last night, didn't he?
DeleteFROM JUAN COLE:
DeleteAipac is sending lobbyists to the offices of all US congressional representatives and putting them under heavy pressure to reject the Vienna accords, but it or its subsidiaries are flooding the airwaves with vicious disinformation in an attempt to confuse the American public.
So my question is, on whose behalf is AIPAC intervening in American domestic politics? Even if the J-Street and LA polls are flawed, how likely is it that they are hiding an overwhelming and vehement opposition to the deal among American Jewry (the vast majority of whom vote for the Democratic Party and strongly supported Barack Obama for president)? Or that the gap between Jewish Americans and other Americans on this issue, discovered in the same polls, doesn’t actually exist?
The only logical possibility is that AIPAC is acting on behalf of the Likud government of Israel.
And if it is doing that, it falls under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy repeatedly demanded that the American Zionist Council, the forerunner of AIPAC, so register. Former Senator J. William Fulbright made a case for it in 1988. The 2005 prosecution of two AIPAC employees for passing a classified Pentagon document to an Israeli official should have pitched the question again but did not.
It matters because President Obama and Sec. John Kerry have repeatedly said that the likely alternative to the Iran deal is a war with Iran down the road. Such a war could well be the coup de grace for an already anemic American economy (wages have not recovered from 2008-9).
Logically speaking, AIPAC is ipso facto lobbying our congressmen and women, who are supposed to be representing us Americans, on behalf of a foreign government, to reject peace and send our children to war. In my own view that is pretty despicable.
President Obama is complaining about Israeli interference in US politics. But he has only himself to blame. As long as AIPAC is treated differently from other lobbies for a foreign state, and as long as Obama has his ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers, veto UN Security Resolutions condemning Israel for its massive violations of international law in Gaza and the West Bank, this kind of interference will only mount.
Admittedly, FARA as a law is imperfectly administered in Washington, where foreign countries employ 1,000 lobbyists to pressure Congress. But in the case of Egypt or, say, Vietnam, the lobbyists have to report their activities, and lawmakers too identified with foreign states can suffer reputationally. Also, expert witnesses who testify before Congress, under a recent law, have to be transparent about who they’ve been working for. The documents filed under FARA can also be gotten from the Department of Justice by US citizens, whereas AIPAC’s activities happen in the dark. In fact, it for instance lobbied Congress heavily in favor of the Iraq War but now denies the fact, and we have no way of double checking. FARA reporting would be helpful.
The situation with AIPAC is not unique. Other American ethnic groups often lobby on behalf of a home country. Armenian-Americans tried to use their lobby (which also isn’t registered with FARA) to pressure Nancy Pelosi to have the US Congress recognize the Armenian genocide, at the risk of a rupture of US relations with Turkey. (I’m not taking sides on this issue, just recounting what happened). But then I think domestic US lobbies on behalf both of Turkey and of Armenia should register under FARA.
President Obama should ask Atty. General Loretta Lynch to begin proceedings to make AIPAC register, as well.
AIPAC has openly subverted our Congress, domestic politics, and foreign policy for decades, acting as agent for a foreign power.
DeleteCongress has repeatedly invited the chief propagandist (read professional liar & fear-monger) for this subversion, Israeli PM Netanyahu, acts that carry the stench of treason. We gift israel billions annually (FAR over the admitted $3 B when all hidden aid is counted) needed here for many civilian priorities - priorities that have been short-changed funding wars in the ME partially the result of subversion of Congress and politics supporting the israeli agenda.
YES, it’s far past time to end subversion and treasonous manipulation of our foreign policy by AIPAC and dual-citizenship agents, holding first-loyalty to a foreign power.
- A comment on the Juan Cole story.
ReplyDeleteTue Aug 11, 2015 at 02:08 PM PDT.
France Moves to Re-Establish Ties With Iran
by
Mark LippmanFollow .
13 Comments / 0 New
The Los Angeles Times reports:
Hillary Rodham Clinton made her most forceful defense yet of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran on Monday, saying that “all bets are off” if Congress were to reject the deal and warning of the potential impact to America’s standing in the world.
"The Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, they’re going to say, ‘We stuck with the Americans. We agreed with the Americans. We hammered out this agreement. I guess their president can’t make foreign policy.’ That’s a very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world."
Clinton's words were timely, especially after news from the European Union that France and Germany are already competing to restore commercial ties with Iran.
Last week, French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius was in Tehran where he handed Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani an invitation to visit Paris in November. During the P5+1 negotiations, Fabius pushed the hardest for concessions from Iran. In some ways, his perspective is very close to Clinton's and he has a reputation as one of her admirers.
On the day she announced her candidacy for President, he tweeted.
The message says:
Hillary Clinton, An exceptional woman for a job that requires exceptional qualities.
Fabius, Clinton, and Rouhani represent a New Realism in foreign policy and the end of the Neo-Conservative Era. That doesn't mean Iran is suddenly an ally but its interests, in some areas, coincide with Western interests and it also has capacity for internal change with a moderate government in power.
Obama will be remembered for leading the world forward whether he convinces Congress or not. It's hard to see that with the very narrow rightwing focus of US commercial media. Here's a much broader view presented by France24's English language channel with "The Debate," an in-depth, intelligent panel discussion show available online.
Videos
INTERESTING:
ReplyDeleteWarren Buffett said Monday that Donald Trump has a solid base of support in the race for the Republican presidential nomination that seems unshakable by the real estate mogul's over-the-top comments.
Trump will have a block of delegates when the convention arrives, but with the huge field of GOP candidates, it's possible no one will have a majority, Buffett told CNBC's "Squawk Box" in a wide-ranging interview.
"I wouldn't be surprised if [Trump] maintained a quite a solid base for some time," Buffett said—adding that he won't run out of money.
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE:
ReplyDeleteHillary Rodham Clinton’s attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton’s presidential campaign said Tuesday.
Her attorney also has agreed to give agents a thumb drive containing copies of thousands of e-mails that Clinton had previously turned over to the State Department.
The FBI has been looking into the security of Clinton’s unusual private system, which has emerged as an issue in her campaign amid growing questions from Republicans and some U.S. intelligence officials about whether government secrets might have been put at risk.
The development in the FBI inquiry came the same day that a top intelligence official whose office has been reviewing some of Clinton’s e-mails informed congressional leaders that top-secret information had been contained in two e-mails that traveled across the server.
The finding, contained in a letter sent to leaders of key oversight committees, marked the first indication from government officials that information regarded as top secret — the government’s highest category of security designation — may have passed across Clinton’s server while she led the State Department.
TRUMP AD:
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. has had enough of the Bush family, a new ad from Donald Trump says:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/enough-is-enough-of-the-bush-family-donald-trump-says-in-ad-2015-08-11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwwQ8P7NDWU
It seems to me that the Chinese devaluation will hit Russia and Brazil the hardest.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteThe latest neologism
kravitz:
meaning: a situation where a dick shows up unexpectedly.
.
U.S. stocks were poised for another session with steep losses on Wednesday, with futures sliding in early trade after China allowed its currency to fall sharply for a second straight day.
ReplyDeleteFutures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average YMU5, -0.81% slumped 131 points, or 0.8%, to 17,224, while those for the S&P 500 index ESU5, -0.77% shaved off 14.70 points, or 0.7%, to 2,065.25. Futures for the Nasdaq-100 index NQU5, -0.79% erased 34.50 points, or 0.8%, to 4,476.25.
The main stock benchmarks also suffered from sharp selling pressure on Tuesday, with the Dow DJIA, -1.21% tumbling more than 200 points and the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.96% dropping 1% and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -1.27% falling 1.3%. The losses came after the People’s Bank of China in a surprise move devalued the yuan USDCNY, +0.9723% to shift to a more market-driven exchange rate.
Something came out while ago that leads me to believe that it may be the "market" that's bringing the Yuan lower, and not the government.
ReplyDeleteThe word is that the government (of China) stepped in toward the end of trading And Propped the Yuan Up, ending the fall.
New Report Confirms What The GOP Won't Admit: Obamacare Is Working
ReplyDeleteMore people are insured, and more people can afford their health care.
When Republicans carry on about what a “disaster” the Affordable Care Act is, they rarely acknowledge that the law is helping millions of people get health insurance.
But we don’t need Republicans to tell us these things. We have data.
And now we have some more.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday released the latest results of the National Health Interview Survey. According to the survey, just 9.2 percent of the population, or about 29 million people, had no coverage during the first three months of 2015. That’s down from 11.5 percent in 2014, 14.4 percent in 2013, and 16 percent back in 2010.
Chart
The report doesn’t identify a reason for the decline. It simply communicates the survey findings. But the timing and characteristics of the trend make the primary reason obvious: It’s President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.
DeleteAfter a long, slow rise in the proportion of Americans without insurance -- which for decades had only modest ups and downs -- the rate fell precipitously in 2014. That’s the year that most of “Obamacare” took effect, expanding access to Medicaid for the poor and making subsidized, private health insurance available to working-class and middle-class people who couldn’t get coverage through their workplaces.
The proportion of Americans without health insurance has declined for all age groups, the NHIS data confirms. But the dramatic decline for the youngest age group, 18- to 24-year-olds, actually began a little earlier than the rest -- in 2011. That’s another clue about the role of the Affordable Care Act, since it was in that year that the law began requiring insurers to let children stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.
The NHIS is one of several surveys that experts use to measure the number of Americans without health insurance. All of these studies come with caveats, idiosyncrasies and uncertainty. But each one, including a private survey the Gallup organization released just . . . . .
Huffington Post
Deuce ☂Tue Aug 11, 08:01:00 PM EDT
ReplyDeleteAnyone have any idea on how many members of The GOP Likuds Force will be making the Zionist Haj to Israel?
When does your SS uniform come in?
China Bites The Cherry
ReplyDeleteAre you staring to have the feeling that when it comes to economic policy Xi-who-must-be-obeyed has no idea what he’s doing?
China’s decision to devalue the renminbi had some economic logic behind it. As David Beckworth rightly points out, it’s not just about gaining a competitive advantage. China clearly has a weakening economy, whatever the official numbers may say, and would like to use monetary stimulus. But monetary autonomy and a fixed exchange rate don’t go well together; China’s capital controls give it some leeway, but it is nonetheless suffering from a lot of capital flight — and it wants to liberalize the capital account in pursuit of reserve-currency status. (A foolish goal, but that’s a subject for another day.)
So it would make sense on purely economic grounds for China to move to a free float, and gain the freedom to use monetary policy that, say, Japan has.
But it’s important to understand how that works. When Japan loosens money, it creates an incentive to move funds abroad, causing the yen to fall. This process only stops once the yen has fallen enough that investors consider it undervalued, and are willing to buy Japanese securities in the expectation of a future yen rise. Exchange rate overshooting is an essential part of the story.
China, however, did not let the renminbi float, nor did it devalue by enough to persuade investors that any future move was likely to be up. Instead, it only devalued a little.
This is what Charlie Kindleberger used to call “taking the first bite of the cherry”. (Nobody takes just one bite out of a cherry.) China has now demonstrated that its currency peg is no longer solid; but it has come nowhere near to devaluing enough to create expectations of future appreciation. This is a recipe for convincing investors that the future direction of the currency is down — which means that capital flight will accelerate (and apparently already has.)
Now what? China could just let the renminbi float; given the current state of the Chinese economy, that would surely mean a large depreciation. But this would greatly increase trade tensions and pose problems for foreign policy. Maybe that’s a tradeoff worth accepting, but nothing in events so far suggests that China’s leadership was prepared to take that step. Instead, they went for a small move that was sufficient to destabilize expectations while producing trivial benefits.
A reminder, then, of the lack of wisdom with which the world is governed.
PK
The $4 Trillion Problem With China's Currency Being Market Valued
ReplyDeleteSeveral of the articles discussing the decision of China's central bank to lower the value of the yuan have referred to the assessment of the I.M.F. that the Chinese currency now reflects its market value. Many have pointed out that China's central bank has stopped buying large amounts of foreign exchange to keep the yuan from rising, implying that the current value now reflects the market rate.
The problem with this story is that China's central bank is still sitting on more than $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. If we apply the rule of thumb that it should keep around 6 months worth of imports on hand as a buffer, this implies $3 trillion of excess reserves. This large holding of excess reserves, helps keep up the price of the dollar and other reserve currencies relative to the yuan.
This is the same situation as the Fed is in with its holding of $3 trillion in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs. There are few people who would argue that the Fed's holding of these assets doesn't have the effect of keeping interest rates down. It would be very difficult to come up with a story whereby the Fed's holding of assets keeps interest rates down, but China's central bank's holdings of foreign exchange doesn't keep the value of the yuan down.
Baker
No, Obamacare isn’t killing full-time jobs, new evidence shows
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's health-care reform hasn't meant less time on the job for American workers, according to three newly published studies that challenge one of the main arguments raised by critics of the Affordable Care Act.
One provision of the law, which is widely known as Obamacare, requires businesses with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance to those working at least 30 hours a week. That mandate took effect this year.
Republicans, and some Democrats, worried that employers would look for ways to get around the mandate, either by giving their employees fewer than 30 hours, or by hiring fewer people.
Either result would be bad for workers, one reason that Republican nominee Mitt Romney called Obamacare a "job-killer" during the last presidential campaign. Other Republicans issued similarly bleak warnings.
And GOP lawmakers in Congress have tried more than once to increase the limit from 30 hours to 40 hours per week, with idea of making it more difficult for businesses to avoid the mandate.
So far, though, researchers say employers have not changed how they hire and schedule their workers in response to the law.
"The data, to date, basically say that that hasn't happened, at least on aggregate basis -- that there really hasn't been nearly the change that some people were expecting," said Chris Ryan, a vice president at the payroll-management firm ADP.
Analysts at ADP studied the payrolls of the firms' clients, about 75,000 U.S. firms and organizations. They expected that as businesses prepared for the mandate to take effect, they would adjust their employees' schedules, limiting them to no more than 30 hours a week. Yet ADP found no overall change in employees' weekly schedules between 2013 and last year.
According to ADP's analysis, shifts in scheduling were trivial in every sector of the economy, even in industries that rely heavily on part-time work, such as leisure and hospitality.
Ryan explained that qualified workers have more options as the economy improves, and they're getting pickier. As a result, the priority for employers is attracting the best possible workforce. Hiring and retaining good employees means giving them what they want -- often, health insurance and full-time work.
Delete"There is much more competition for people," Ryan said. "That becomes far more important than the cost of health benefits."
ADP's findings were confirmed in another study by Aparna Mathur and Sita Nataraj Slavov of George Mason University and Michael Strain of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Their paper, published this month in the journal Applied Economics Letters, uses data from the federal Current Population Survey and finds no statistically significant change in the proportion of part-time workers in the sectors most likely to be affected by Obamacare, such as janitorial and restaurant work.
The study, like ADP's analysis, only uses data from before the mandate took effect, on the assumption that employers would begin adjusting their workers' schedules beforehand. Yet Strain said that firms might still reduce their employees' hours in the future once they discover the cost of providing health care.
"There's still a big open question about whether the Affordable Care Act and the employer mandate will increase part time work," said Strain, an opponent of Obamacare. "That question has not been settled. Our paper provides evidence that that shift hasn't happened yet."
Bowen Garrett, an economist at the Urban Institute, disagreed. "It's reasonable to think that if there was going to be a large effect, some of it would have happened in 2014," he said. That was when the main provisions of the law went into effect, and around 15 million people gained health insurance.
This week, Garrett and his colleague Robert Kaestner published their own analysis of the federal survey data, coming to largely the same conclusions as Strain and his collaborators.
They found that circumstances for workers last year were what you would predict based on overall economic conditions in 2013. In other words, the economy has recovered steadily, and if Obamacare has had an effect, it has been too small to measure.
Surprise, Surprise, Republicans full of shit, again
WHAT REPUBLICANS LEARNED FROM THE ZIONIST HAJ:
ReplyDeleteThe past year has seen an effective merger between the Republican Party and Israel's right-wing Likud Party. This is particularly explicit with regards to the presidential race, where contenders are courting pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who could instantly unleash tens of millions of dollars to bolster their candidacies.
As a part of this “Adelson primary,” as it has been dubbed by the media, these presidential candidates are taking trips to Israel, where they meet with far-right politicians and studiously avoid interacting with everyday Palestinians or the occupation. They then come back and tell fairy tales of a liberal democracy under existential threat.
Here's who has gone and what they've come back to say.
Rick Santorum: Santorum has not yet announced, but is considered a likely contender. He visited Israel last year on a trip organized by the right-wing group “Patriot Voices.” While there, he called the right-wing outlet Newsmax to give an interview. Despite the tremendous political, economic and military support the United States provides Israel, Santorum said “the average Israeli knows whose side that John Kerry and Barack Obama are on, and it's not to protect the security of Israel.” For Santorum, re-arming the Israelis as they were assaulting the Gaza Strip while vocally defending their actions simply wasn't supportive enough.
Scott Walker: Walker visited Israel this month, and when he returned he wrote a post on Medium detailing his “reflections.” The Israel Walker says he saw is “one of the world's most vibrant democracies,” and one of “America's most important allies.” That's an odd phrasing for a country that systematically disenfranchises 4.5 million Palestinians and gives millions of non-Jews citizenship without the same full legal rights as Jewish Israelis. Walker also seemed to endorse the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying he would “take the fight to them before they take the fight to us,” which echoed similar remarks by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in support of the unprovoked war against Iraq.
Ben Carson: The former neurosurgeon's strange comments about Israel actually began before he actually got there. GQ's Jason Zengerle accompanied Carson on his trip to the country, and witnessed a bizarre conversation he had with his Israeli guide. He admitted he did not know what the Knesset (the Israeli legislature) actually did, and had his guide explain it. After she finished, he responded, “It sounds complex. Why don't they just adopt the system we have?” When he actually got to Israel, he was quick to draw conclusions. When informed about foreign fighters ending the Syrian civil war, he concluded, “It's just like the troublemakers in Ferguson.”
When he returned to the United States, Carson was suddenly an expert on world affairs, trying to lump in Iran with ISIS. “We need to recognize that the Shia in Iran are every bit as dangerous, perhaps more dangerous,” he said, a sectarian warning that could easily be found in the text of an extremist Saudi cleric.
Carly Fiorina: The former HP executive visited Israel in 2010, in a trip widely seen as oriented around courting pro-Israel political forces. This spring, she claimed that tensions with Israel are “in no small measure due to President Obama,” simply ignoring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's series of provocative words and actions. She also went further, pledging to repudiate an Iran deal on her first day in office—essentially rejecting Obama's diplomatic efforts.
DeleteComing Polarization
Israel is playing a greater role in the GOP presidential race than perhaps ever before. The Adelson primary is transforming the same political party that once harshly clashed with Israeli leadership over its failure to make peace into one that is indistinguishable from the Likud.
But something else is happening on the Democratic side. While candidates there are not openly calling for sanctions or cutting aid to Israel, they're not leaping up to defend it, either. The topic is all but absent in the Democratic primary, despite the fact that the party is the traditional base of the pro-Israel lobby. Polling shows that the party's rising base of young people and racial minorities is increasingly hostile to Israeli foreign policy, in ways that will surely at some point impact American policy.
Many in the United States have lamented the increasing polarization of the Israel issue, but it is that polarization that may finally give Americans a choice about policy, rather than bipartisan support for Israel, right or wrong.
Zaid Jilani is an AlterNet staff writer. Follow @zaidjilani on Twitter.
Thus, the GOP Likuds Force.
DeleteYour blatant anti-semetic labeling of those that support Israel is telling.
DeleteYou call them "Israel firsters", zionists, and of course "GOP Likuds Force"
You are using language directly from David Duke's website.
Congrats.
The attempt to distort the meaning of "zionism" is replete with examples in history.
DeleteYou remind me of the UN's own "zionism is racism" men a few decades ago.
On a daily basis you prove your hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Don't like the term "anti-semite"?
Too bad.
The Iran deal is against Israeli interests. That is a fact.
ReplyDeleteBut what is missing from this blog is the fact that the Iran deal screws America.
It FUNDS Iran to murder Americans (amongst others).
It enables Iran to continue it's terrorist ways without any penalty.
From blowing up US marines in Saudi Arabia, to plotting to murder at restaurant in Washington DC it gets them off the hook.
Iran is named, by the Obama administration as the world's leader in state sponsored terror. The Obama administration admits that the unfrozen assets will fund hezbollah and hamas and other groups in it's world wide operations that do intact murder Americans.
Kerry even admitted that..
So why the rush for a bad deal?
Why not continue sanctions?
Why take the pressure off Iran?
Why when they have been caught cheating on every international agreement so far, make more agreements that are intact un-testable?
Why a 24 day period for inspections ONCE APPROVED? Which means that if America wants to inspect a NON-military site, they have to get approval from Russia, China and the EUropeans 1st, then and only then will they star a 24 day countdown.
Why will Iran be allowed to collect their own soil samples?
Why are the military sites off limited to the UAEA?
WHen obama took office they had 900 rev 1 centrifuges that they insisted the year before they did not have…
Now they have 19,000 and 1/2 are rev 3. 4 times as powerful.
This is progress?
Why? Because the deal specifically deals with the nuclear aspect of things. If you want sanctions levied for all that other stuff feel free to lobby away!
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteWHen obama took office they had 900 rev 1 centrifuges that they insisted the year before they did not have…
Now they have 19,000 and 1/2 are rev 3. 4 times as powerful.
Is the Iran nuclear deal a great agreement? No. Is it a good agreement? Yes. Is it the best you are going to get at this point? Of course.
You offer up the best argument for this deal yourself. Iran has been under sanctions for the past 35 years. When Obama came into office, he busted his butt getting the world to apply more sanctions, the most ever against Iran, he got them applied by most of the major powers, the EU, Russia, China, the UN. And what good did it do? If anything it encouraged Iran, as you just pointed out, to work faster towards nuclear capability. Did it stop Iran from supporting its surrogate groups? No. Not that either. We had, if not more extensive at least more crippling sanctions on NK and Iraq and they did no good.
Beyond this, the idea of applying more sanctions to loosen Iran's resolve and bring them back to the negotiating table is idiotic and a non-starter. First, Iran would never agree to it. Second, cancelling the current agreement will likely result in less sanctions against Iran as the big international players let them expire, in other words less economic pressure not more. In addition, we will be dissing all of our partners in the P5+1 who helped negotiate the treaty and saying to the world that the US president is incapable of negotiating foreign policy, in this case, a policy most of the world thinks is needed and approves of.
For the last 15-20 years, Netanyahu and those that echo him have been arguing that Iran is only a few months away from the bomb. Where 10 years ago the claims were laughable now it is pretty much accepted that Iran is a few months away from having the capability to produce a bomb. If true, arguing that new sanctions would prevent Iran from getting the bomb if it actually wanted one would be ridiculous.
The Iran agreement moves the break-out period back from a few months to a year. It moves its higher refined uranium for the most part out of the country. Where today they may have enough material that if further refined could make anywhere up to 10 bombs, with this deal they would only have enough material for about 1/3 of a bomb. Two-thirds of its centrifuges (including the more high-powered ones) will be moth-balled during the agreement. It will stay that way for at least 10 years. Some have predicted any program that would end up in a bomb would be put off for 15-25 years at a minimum. The end of the agreement does not preclude extending the agreement or negotiating another one. The NPT restrictions would still apply. The same responses that we have right now we would also have then. Of course, this is a good deal. For the US.
.
.
ReplyDeleteOne Big Shark
.
.
ReplyDeleteAsh, did you have anything to do with putting this political ad together?
We've got Trump, Canada Has Wyatt
.
No, but I have been contracted to do some political stuff recently - trying to get the youth vote out for the upcoming Canadian federal election. Www.harpoon.ca
DeleteMake that http://harpoon2015.ca/
Delete.
DeletePretty good, Ash.
And the guy really looks like a Canadian.
.
.
ReplyDeleteOne Man's View of the Current Syrian Situation
.
Another strong Unemployment Claims number this morning. 266,000 4 wk. average
ReplyDeleteNot bad.
Guess who. :)
DeleteGuess who. :)
DeleteAnother strong Unemployment Claims number this morning. 266,000 4 wk. average
ReplyDeleteNot bad.
Now what? :)
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteRegrettably, however, there is tremendous pressure on the American public and on Congress to reject the deal. Some of that pressure is simply partisan: Many Republicans came out in opposition before the details were even announced.
Some of it originates in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His government’s opposition is being echoed and amplified by some American Jewish and right-wing Evangelical Christian organizations, who are flooding the media, the political grass roots, Jewish communities, and Congress with anti-deal hype.
Their arguments are a medley of misrepresentations, half-truths, and fantasy. Like the claim that the agreement gives Iran a path to a nuclear bomb after 15 years. Or the contention that nuclear sites can be cleaned up as easily as meth labs. Or the assertion that this is a “bad deal” and a “better deal” was not only possible but remains achievable.
All of these arguments have been powerfully dismantled by actual experts. Last week, President Obama dealt convincingly with each of those contentions. But opponents of the deal continue to insist on their own set of tendentious “facts,” grounded in the opinions of lobbyists and pundits who were determined to oppose this deal before the ink was even dry.
Americans should listen instead to the nonpartisan national security and nonproliferation experts, the overwhelming majority of whom support the pact. They should heed the words of the 60 US national security leaders who wrote that the deal is “unprecedented in its importance for preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran” and the five former US ambassadors to Israel who recently urged Congress to support the agreement. They should read the letter sent by more than 100 former US ambassadors, who called the deal “a landmark agreement in deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons.” They should review the statement signed by more than 70 European political, diplomatic, and military leadership figures, who wrote that the Iran deal is “a sound framework for ending the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program.”
Americans who have special concerns about Israel should be aware that anti-deal American Jewish groups do not speak for American Jews on this issue. According to recent polling, a plurality, if not a majority, of American Jews support the deal.
Nor should they be misled into believing that the Israeli prime minister represents the totality of Israeli views. Serious Israeli experts, such as former Israeli intelligence chiefs Efraim Halevy and Ami Ayalon, have been outspoken in their endorsement of the agreement. Dozens of former Israeli generals, diplomats, nuclear experts, and other national security leaders have come out with forthright or nuanced support.
And finally, they should pay close attention to these words from President Obama:
“We have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war. . . . If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear [program] or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/08/12/listen-experts-support-agreement/bG8VCPUw3UkgCDUovM421K/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article
.
Their arguments are a medley of misrepresentations, half-truths, and fantasy.
DeleteNot a serious person, just propaganda.
Sure, go to the Likud, their GOP flunkies or Netanyahu for the straight info.
Delete.
DeleteIt is hard to tell if WiO merely reads this shit off his talking points sheet or he is just that damn goofy.
What he fails to understand is that this agreement is about Iran's nuclear aims. He talks about everything else but.
Iran doesn't have a single nuke, and the accord is meant to keep it from building one, at least for the next 10 years. The question that the deal's opponents, such as the Republican presidential candidates or Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, must answer is this: What is the realistic, plausible alternative to JCPOA that will achieve the same goal, short of going to war? I have yet to hear any credible answer to this question. Schumer said simply that we should go back to the negotiating table and get a "better deal." This isn't just naïve, it's preposterous.
The U.S. wasn't negotiating only with Iran for the past several years, but also with Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Each of these countries, some our allies and some our rivals, was operating out of their own national interests, not ours. As far as they are concerned, the deal is now done and the international sanctions against Iran will be lifted. The entire European Union and the United Nations Security Council have officially approved it, and Russia and China are already gearing up to trade with Iran. Anyone who says we can get a "better deal" will need to explain how they will get these five major powers to accept a new American position, re-impose sanctions that run counter to their own economic interests, and go back to the drawing board. Beyond that, the deal's opponents will also need to explain how they would get Iran to renegotiate a tougher deal, especially when Tehran's hardliners believe they've already given up too much with JCPOA...
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/08/13/opponents_of_iran_deal_have_no_ideas_111368.html
Those calling on Congress to oppose the Iran deal try to escape this dilemma by insisting that the alternative to this deal is simply a “better deal.” According to this line of thinking, after Congress rejects the deal we can turn up the pressure on Iran, persuade or coerce the international community to increase sanctions, bolster the credibility of the use of force and oblige Iran to renegotiate. Iran will agree to continue to freeze its nuclear program in the meantime, and sometime in the future, either under this administration or the next, agree to better terms, presumably (based on the critiques of the Vienna deal) including an even smaller enrichment program with indefinite limitations, an end to Iranian support for terrorism, greater restrictions on research and development, the outright closure of the underground facility at Fordow, a public accounting of past nuclear weaponization work and “anywhere, anytime” inspections, including at military sites.
This would indeed be an excellent outcome. But it is implausible to the point of fantasy, and irresponsible to suggest otherwise...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/iran-deal-rejection-121257.html#ixzz3ij5IZ496
.
.
DeleteRepeat,
I have yet to hear any credible answer to this question. Schumer said simply that we should go back to the negotiating table and get a "better deal." This isn't just naïve, it's preposterous.
This would indeed be an excellent outcome. But it is implausible to the point of fantasy, and irresponsible to suggest otherwise...
Yet, WiO and Bibi and Dershowitz and the neocons and the GOP enthralled to the Lobby and the MIC deny it despite the views of top experts in nuclear non-proliferation, the IAEA, key military experts, intelligence people here and in Israel, our key allies, and much of the world.
.
Highlights
ReplyDeleteBig upward revisions underscore a very solid and very important retail sales report. Retail sales rose 0.6 percent in July with June revised to unchanged from an initial reading of minus 0.3 percent and with May revised to a jump of 1.2 percent from 1.0 percent. The revisions to June and May point to an upward revision for second-quarter GDP.
Vehicle sales, as expected, were the standout in July, jumping 1.4 percent to nearly reverse June's 1.5 percent slide and nearly matching May's historic 1.9 percent surge. But even outside vehicles, retail sales were strong with the ex-auto reading rising a solid 0.4 percent. Restaurants, in another strong signal of consumer strength, rose an outsized 0.7 percent following June's 0.5 percent gain. These are very strong gains for this component. Excluding both vehicles and gasoline, retail sales rose 0.4 percent, again another solid reading.
Strength in both vehicles and restaurants point to the health of the US consumer and will likely give the hawks the courage, despite all the troubles in China, to push for a rate increase at the September FOMC.
Recent History Of This Indicator
Retail sales are expected to post a solid 0.5 percent gain in July which, if realized, would turn up talk for a September rate hike. Strength in the July report is expected to be centered in motor vehicles though other components are also expected to have good showings. Both the ex-auto reading and the ex-auto ex-gasoline core reading are expected to rise a very respectable 0.4 percent.
Definition
Retail sales measure the total receipts at stores that sell merchandise and related services to final consumers. Sales are by retail and food services stores. Data are collected from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Essentially, retail sales cover the durables and nondurables portions of consumer spending. Consumer spending typically accounts for about two-thirds of GDP and is therefore a key element in economic growth. Why Investors Care
Retail Sales
In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
ReplyDeletePRINCETON, N.J. -- Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time. Far fewer support allowing those immigrants to remain in the U.S. to work for a limited period of time (14%), or to deport all of these immigrants back to their home countries (19%). U.S. adults' views have been largely stable over the past decade.
Gallup
So now it is stated fact that Iran, if it chooses, can breakout and build a nuke in about 2-3 months or less.
ReplyDeleteBibi was right.
Anytime Iran wishes to cheat and build a nuke in an UNDECLARED site it can.
If it hasn't already.
Since Iran will not allow inspections at any military site by anyone. Since Iran has already been outed hiding sites in the past. Since Iran lied about even having centrifuges in the past.
What makes you so sure they will not lie to cover up illicit programs and sites in the future.
They have not even, and will not come clean about aspects of the warhead research that is in violation of past agreements.
How does lifting sanctions and unfreezing 150 billion in assets that JIMMY CARTER froze help in preventing Iran from continuing to deceive inspectors?
Maybe the best way is to NOT LIFT sanctions on them, in fact, lifting sanctions on non-nuclear issues, like their support for international terrorism, should not be lifted until Iran reforms.
In the rush to get at the Iranian marketplace the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans are selling the rope to hang themselves.
If you have an enemy that calls for the "death of America" you should not make their life easier to kill you.
.
DeleteBibi was right.
:o)
Right, and only 20 years late. Reminds me of those bears who keep repeating that there is going to be a market crash soon, repeating it year after year until there finally is a turn in the market and then they gloat, "See, I was right." And remember, what Iran can achieve in a few months is the capability to build a bomb not a bomb something they say they don't want.
Anytime Iran wishes to cheat and build a nuke in an UNDECLARED site it can.
Nonsense. Do you just pull this shit out of your ass or are you just batshit crazy? It's one thing to do undeclared research in a hidden site, its an entirely different matter to build a bomb. This agreement restricts two-thirds of Iran's enrichment capabilities and monitors them. Experts at the IAEA indicate that it would take Iran years to develop a bomb from scratch in some secret site and that long before they got very far their efforts would be detected.
What makes you so sure they will not lie to cover up illicit programs and sites in the future.
Merely, the words of the experts and their confidence that with the improvements that have been made in surveillance technology and testing they will be able to monitor and detect any illicit activity. Nuclear material just isn't the easiest thing to hide.
Maybe the best way is to NOT LIFT sanctions on them...
I might accept this argument if its proponents could offer a logical alternative to this agreement, an alternative that isn't fantasy, an agreement that isn't specious, naive, or just plain goofy.. They can't. They say keep the sanctions in place but we have been doing that for decades and it has gotten us to the situation we are in today. They get insulted when Obama says the only alternative to this agreement at this point is war. Yet, in the absence of this agreement, Iran has no incentive to change the path it has been following. The sanctions regime is likely to be diluted as our partners let them expire. Sanctions will provide neither a carrot or a stick. If we are unwilling to allow Iran to get the bomb, the only alternative will be war. And if we go to war then it will only set back Iran's program a few years while the agreement sets it back at minimum 10 years.
No, if the choice comes down believing politicians with agendas vs experts on nuclear proliferation, scientist, intelligence personnel, the military, etc., I'll go with the latter.
.
QuirkThu Aug 13, 05:01:00 PM EDT
Delete.
Bibi was right.
:o)
Right, and only 20 years late.
He's been right for 20 years.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
But right is right.
Iran is a threat to the world.
Bibi was right in sounding the clarion call.
If not for Bibi?
You'd already be sucking mullah dick…
But you are lining up to do that anyway..
.
DeleteDon't be silly, Bibi merely plays the role of chicken little to a T. He is a habitual liar and an agitator.
Iran is a threat to the world.
Nonsense. Gain some perspective. Maybe Iran is some sort of threat to your world not mine.
Russia during the cold war was a threat to the world. Nuclear arms up the kazoo, every type of delivery system, and the conventional arms to back up their threats. They also said they would bury us. And unlike Iran which has eschewed the use of nuclear arms some there actually publicly claimed that a nuclear war could be 'won'. Now that is what I would consider a threat to the US. Yet, we still negotiated with them and reached agreements.
If not for Bibi?
You'd already be sucking mullah dick…
Damn, boy, you should seek some help. You've taken the express train to lalaland.
.
Obamacare Safety Net Catching People Who Lose Health Insurance
ReplyDeleteObamacare isn't just for people who are uninsured today. It's also for people who lose their insurance tomorrow.
WASHINGTON -- The Obamacare health insurance exchanges appear to be doing a good job when it comes to one of their most important yet underappreciated functions: offering a fallback option to people who lose their health coverage during the year.
Already this year, almost half a million people have taken advantage of that safety net, a new government report shows.
Since the federal HealthCare.gov system and those run by states like California and Kentucky went live in October 2013, sign-ups during the annual open enrollment periods have garnered most of the attention, as has the rapid increase in the number of Americans with health insurance.
But a key function of these health insurance exchange marketplaces is to provide a place people can go if they lose their health coverage, such as when they lose a job and the benefits that came with it, or when they start working for an employer that doesn't offer a health plan.
On Thursday, the federal government for the first time released data suggesting Americans are taking advantage of this option. According to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, half of the 944,000 new enrollees on the federally run exchanges in 37 states between Feb. 23 and June 30 signed up because they'd lost their previous coverage. The agency doesn't have data for states that fully operate their own marketplaces.
Losing health coverage is one of the qualifying events that allows individuals to access the exchanges outside of the regular yearly sign-up through what's called a special enrollment period, or . . .
HuffPost
Wind Turbine Delivers 10% Higher Yield
ReplyDeleteAugust 12th, 2015 by Joshua S Hill
Unveiled at the EWEA Offshore trade show earlier this year, Siemens’ new 7 MW offshore wind turbine has begun testing in Denmark.
Siemens is exceedingly proud of its new SWT-7.0-154 wind turbine, claiming that “under typical offshore conditions” the turbine can generate 32 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, which is the equivalent electricity to supply up to 7,000 homes.
With one turbine.
The SWT-7.0-154 wind turbine has the same rotor diameter of 154 meters as its predecessor, but is delivering a nearly 10% higher energy yield, the prototype of which is now beginning test operation in . . . . . .
Cleantechnica
Anytime Iran wishes to cheat and build a nuke in an UNDECLARED site it can.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Do you just pull this shit out of your ass or are you just batshit crazy? It's one thing to do undeclared research in a hidden site, its an entirely different matter to build a bomb. This agreement restricts two-thirds of Iran's enrichment capabilities and monitors them. Experts at the IAEA indicate that it would take Iran years to develop a bomb from scratch in some secret site and that long before they got very far their efforts would be detected.
"experts" at the IAEA will not be allowed to visit any military site.
"experts" at the IAEA MISSED Iran's centrifuges.
"experts" at the IAEA MISSED Iran's plutonium site.
"experts" at the IAEA didn't KNOW about the North Korean/Syrian/Iranian plutonium plant in Syria
"experts" at the IAEA didn't KNOW about the North Korean violations.
And if given a little time? I could list another 12 - 20 examples of how the IAEA was worthless….
:)
So I see your experts at the IAEA and raise you……
Iran has cheated and lied with every agreement it has signed in the past.
From concealing physical sites to illegally importing dual use technology.
Even LAST week Iran's top general, in violation of UN sanctions traveled to Russia.
And before the sanctions are even lifted, they are arranging purchases of banned military equipment.
Yeah, you play nice and trust the mullahs, hope they use some lube when the fuck you up your ass..
Me?
I dont trust the mullahs and my ass aint for fucking.. Unlike yours.
Oh and who says Iran doesn't already have a bomb?
DeleteOr is going to purchase one from North Korea?
Obama? You?
The IAEA?
Well sorry Senior Quirk, I don't trust you, the IAEA or the Iranians to keep their word.
We don't have snap inspections, unfettered.
We don't require IRan to change it's behavior.
We don't stop Iran from working on ICBM's.
We don't get shit…
Now maybe you are happy with the appeasing coward's deal?
But I aint a coward, nor a traitor.
ANd either you are an appeasing coward? Or you want Iran to get a nuke.
Which is it?
Spoken as a dyed in the wool Israeli-firster. Who you think you are to call anyone a coward is laughable. You are a punk.
Delete.
DeleteAll of the issues raised by WiO have been addressed here numerous times before. It is useless wasting time on him, much easier just to put up papers that address all the issues he raises like this one that addresses all the pros and cons or the battleground issues associated with the agreement. Since it is rather long and addresses both the pluses and minuses of the agreement, I doubt he will wade through it. Much simpler to take the talking points he is fed, still...
Negotiating the Iranian Nuclear Deal
or this
Four Demonstrably False Claims About The Iran Deal That Are Showing Up On The Opinion Page
.
GOP Hajjis checking in with headquarters:
ReplyDeleteIran nuclear deal tops agenda as Georgia freshmen visit Israel
August 13, 2015 | Filed in: Barry Loudermilk, Buddy Carter, Hank Johnson, Rick Allen.
WASHINGTON — As Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his case against the Iran nuclear deal to a few dozen members of Congress visiting him in Jerusalem, Netanyahu whipped out a whiteboard to illustrate his point.
In this case, he was preaching to the converted, an all-Republican group that included Georgia freshmen Barry Loudermilk, Buddy Carter and Rick Allen. But he gave them new ammunition and additional urgency as they prepare for a September showdown with the Obama administration.
Loudermilk, of Cassville, and Carter, of Pooler, in phone interviews with the AJC on Wednesday from Israel, described the meeting as a key moment of the trip. Said Carter:
“Certainly Israel has made it clear that they’re going to do what they have to do to protect their homeland, and it’s not difficult to read through the lines to understand what he is saying is they’re going to have nuclear arms as well. He went on to point out you can count on these other countries in this region to join in.”
Israel has not publicly acknowledged its nuclear program, but is almost universally acknowledged to have nuclear arms already.
AND THE “NO SHIT, YOU THINK?” AWARD GOES TO:
The congressional trip was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, the charitable counterpart to the American Israel Political Action Committee – an immensely influential group that has been lobbying against the Iran deal.
The comments following the above post tell what REAL Americans think:
ReplyDeleteJefferson1776 1 hour ago
These yahoos can't do their job at home and go on the road and give away tax money.
FlagShareLikeReply
DS
DS 3 hours ago
"Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same."
http://wapo.st/1L3wxvQ
"Why hawks should also back the Iran deal: Rejecting it would weaken the deterrent value of America’s military option." --- Carl Levin and John Warner
http://politi.co/1JeyJDo
FlagShareLikeReply
GaBlue
GaBlue 6 hours ago
Raise your hand if you already knew that the American taxpayers give the Nation of Israel approximately $11 million per day.
Raise your hand if you already knew that Israel has enough money to provide all their citizens with the BEST medical care, abortions on demand, and a college education -- at virtually no cost to the citizens.
FlagShareLikeReply
Mike Schwarzer
Mike Schwarzer 7 hours ago
Israel's plots unfold.
Anyone who understand the deal know Benny is selling BS. No different the Bush's WMD in Iraq. They are trying very hard to make this an us against them conflict and avoid the facts. Only snippets of misinformation.
An NPT with Iran means NO NUKES EVER, if you told otherwise it's a lie.
It's an old trick to scare everyone and raise patriotic furore to make people unthinkingly fall into line. This trick has been used since the beginning of civilization.
Look at the deal, see that it is comprehensive and congressional votes should follow the facts. The 'No' vote only means;
1) Senator in the pocket of the Israeli lobby,
2) Confused as to which government they serve,
3) lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the deal,
4) Wants another war with Iran just like iraq and Afghanistan.
Not congressional or presidential material.
We know the US has been overrun by Israel spy's. But this will be the first time with the right issue to learn how infiltrated the US is by the Zionists. If the US has no political integrity the world will laugh at the congress as the puppets of Israel. And voters will need to consider protecting their political system just as they would with communist infiltration. Once the vote is casts the 'No' they will be marked men and there will be a backlash by the silent majority.
The country is learning just how far the GOP Likuds Force is up Netanyahu’s ass. The election results will be a treat.
ReplyDeleteNo one believes for a second that the Israeli-firsters give a crap about anything other than their total subordination to Israel.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul's campaign is running an advertisement in New Hampshire and Iowa through the weekend accusing Donald Trump of being a Democrat. For many years, Trump espoused views that are more moderate than the positions he has taken recently.
ReplyDeleteThe spot includes footage from 2004 of Trump saying, "I've been around for a long time, and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
Trump responded, telling The Washington Post's Jose A. DelReal and David Weigel that his views have changed. Historically, though, the economy has indeed done better under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership, regardless of how you measure it.
Here's a chart showing the average rate of economic growth under each president since the Second World War, taken from a recent paper by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They note that when a Democrat was in the Oval Office, the average rate of growth was 4.4 percent. Under Republicans, the average rate was just 2.5 percent.
It's not just broad measures of economic growth, either, Blinder and Watson observe. Industrial production increased at an average rate of 5.6 percent under Democrats, compared to 1.8 percent under Republicans. The unemployment rate under Republicans averaged 6 percent, compared to just 5.6 percent under Democrats. The average return on the stock market has been 8.1 percent under Democrats, and 2.7 percent under Republicans.
DeleteInflation is only measure by which the economy's performance under Democratic and Republican presidents is more or less equal. Prices have increased an average rate of 3 percent under Democrats, compared to 3.3 percent under Republicans — not a significant difference.
You might be thinking that even if the economy as a whole does worse under Republican presidents, the wealthy do better, since Republicans tend to favor low-tax policies on the wealthy. That's not true either, though. As the political scientist Larry Bartels shows in this chart, things have been better for Americans under Democrats, no matter how much money you make.
It's up for debate whether Democrats can take the credit for their record on economic performance. Blinder and Watson note that Democrats have benefited from . . . .
DeleteWashington Post
Current state of play
ReplyDelete(Updated 3:39 p.m. on Aug. 13)
Yes or leaning yes (34 needed to uphold veto, keep the deal): 30
No or leaning no (67 needed to override veto, kill the deal): 57
Unknown/unclear: 13
Whip Count Washington Post
The Republicans are going to be glad to see this sonofabitch Go.
Delete:)
CARLY FIORINA CHECKS IN WITH HER GOP NITWIT CREDENTIALS
ReplyDeleteALDEN, Iowa -- GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina said Thursday that parents should not be forced to vaccinate their children against diseases like measles and mumps, although she added that public school systems can forbid unvaccinated children from attending.
"When in doubt, it is always the parent's choice," Fiorina said during a town hall in an agricultural building in rural Iowa on Thursday evening. "When in doubt, it must always be the parent's choice."
Fiorina's comment came in response to a question from a mother of five children who said that because of her religious beliefs, she will not allow her children to receive any vaccines that were created using cells from "aborted babies." Fiorina told the woman that parents must be allowed to make such decisions.
"We must protect religious liberty and someone's ability to practice their religion," said Fiorina, receiving a round of applause. "We must devote energy and resources to doing so. Period."
THE GOP LIKUDS FORCE HAJJIS CHECKING IN FROM THEIR CONSTITUENCY IN ISRAEL:
ReplyDeletePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is advocating for his country's best interests when he opposes the Iran deal and has not interfered in Washington politics, Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters in Jerusalem on Thursday.
“I do not see where Benjamin Netanyahu was interfering with anything,” said McCarthy, just one day after he and 35 other visiting Republican congressmen met with Netanyahu.
The prime minister held a similar meeting on Sunday with a visiting delegation of 24 Democratic congressmen.
McCarthy said that his group’s Wednesday conversation with Netanyahu lasted for 90 minutes. Netanyahu listened to the group and answered its questions, McCarthy said.
Congress is expected to vote by September 17th on the deal to curb Iran's nuclear program that was worked out between Tehran and the six world powers — the US, Russia, China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
BESIDES KEVIN MCCARTHY’S DEEP CONCERN FOR GIVING ISRAEL WHATEVER IT WANTS< WHAT IS HE DOING FOR ACTUAL AMERICANS IN CALIFORNIA?
ReplyDeleteHouse Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday said his chamber will not vote on the Senate’s six-year highway bill.
McCarthy’s declaration that the House will not be “taking up the Senate bill” means a short-term extension is the only way to prevent a lapse in federal infrastructure funding at the end of the week.
It also means the Export-Import Bank, linked to the highway bill in the Senate, will not be renewed until September at the earliest.
The charter for the bank, which provides loan guarantees to help U.S. corporations sell goods overseas, expired on June 30 — a result cheered by conservatives who blast Ex-Im as an example of “corporate welfare.”
Supporters had seen the highway bill as a great chance to renew the bank.
McCarthy’s decision leaves Congress with two possible paths forward.
The House could simply do nothing, leave town and hope that will force the Senate to swallow the five-month highway bill it passed two weeks ago. That measure does not include any Ex-Im language.
Another, less confrontational option would be to go smaller and send the Senate a two- or three-month highway patch, punting the issues of highway spending and Ex-Im until after Labor Day, when Congress returns from its summer recess.
Senate and House Republicans are on different planets when it comes to the highway bill.
Besides the fight over the Export-Import Bank, House Republicans prefer a shorter-term bill to buy time for negotiations with the White House on tax reform, which Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) believes could be used to pay for a full six years of highway funding.
The Senate bill, crafted by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), covers six years but only pays for three years of funding.
Top House Dem and GOP leaders issued a joint statement this morning in support of Israel.
ReplyDeleteMajority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) noted their recent congressional delegation to Israel, where they toured an Iron Dome missile defense site.
“During the summer of 2014 as Hamas indiscriminately launched rockets at civilian population centers, the Iron Dome protected innocent lives by intercepting roughly 90 percent of Hamas’s rockets,” Hoyer and McCarthy said. “As we visited the towns of Ashkelon and Sderot near Gaza, we saw firsthand that without the Iron Dome, many more people would have lost their lives.”
“Congress stands united with Israel, not only in support of its Iron Dome defenses, but also in preserving Israel’s security and ensuring the safety of its people. In these dangerous times, Israel can always be certain that the American people are by their side.”
Too bad actual American Americans security and safety is not given the same attention.
ReplyDeleteHoyer told CNN that, in his private meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the congressional trip, Bibi expressed “nothing that he hasn’t said publicly.”
ReplyDelete“He believes it’s not a good deal. He believes it ought to be rejected. And he believes a better deal ought to be pursued,” Hoyer said.
The Democratic whip said he intends to spend the week relaxing with his family, but after that give the deal “very careful consideration because I know it’s one of the more important decisions that I will be asked to make as a member of Congress.”
“I do not believe that if the agreement were not approved that that is a path to war. We imposed the sanctions through Congress with the cooperation of the administration and sanctions, in my opinion, brought Iran to the table,” Hoyer said. “The first step would have to be to keep sanctions in place and perhaps to be tougher … I don’t agree that we would set the country on a path to war.”
Hoyer added with a knowing smile that the meetings “resonated those concerns” he has about the deal.
THE BIBLE BELT
ReplyDeleteA Florida couple have been arrested for allegedly turning a 13-year-old girl into their sex slave and sealing her off from the outside world for more than five years.
Rob Johnson, 44, and his wife, Marie Johnson, 43, from Port St. Lucie, took in the then 13-year-old girl to live with them after her mother died.
Soon after her arrival the teenager was told that she could only be part of the family if she had sex with the couple, according to the Port St. Lucie Police Department.
The pair were arrested on Tuesday and charged with felony sexual assault charges.
The girl told investigators that she was forced to call Rob “master,” and that Marie Johnson had pushed her against a wall and held her by her throat until she agreed to the meet the sexual demands.
She also said that she was beaten when she failed to follow the couple’s directions or complete her chores.
The girl, who has not been identified, said that the abuse happened repeatedly for five years until she was 18 years old.
According to police, throughout this time Rob Johnson held Sunday school classes for his family at their home, invoking Old Testament Bible Passages to justify the couple's actions.