LyrArc Article Gist
Elizabeth Rosenthal looks at Obamacare's contribution to cost containment in 2013-2014. Rosenthal says its is a kind of delicate maneuvring at the edges, because serious work needs to be done. The fee-for-service and many of the drivers for increases in medical costs, the old system of pricing, are still in place. In 20 years at the current rate and after Obamacare health care will still take 25% of the U.S. budget if nothing is done. Healthcare costs are about half that of the U.S. in some of the advanced European countries. She calls Obamacare a trickle down theory of cost containment becaue it leaves most of the drivers for cost increase in place and works at the margins. Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt calls it an ugly patch on a somewhat ugly system. Rosenthal cites the armies of consultants anticipating every move to reduce prices, and working on "strategic billing'' to increase revenues for hospitals and doctors. For those who say the prices are now up more slowly than in the past, Michael Chernew of the Harvard Medical School, has this to say- its like a diet, reminding us that that we haven't even lost weight, just gaining weight slower than before. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib, executive editor of of the WSJ, attributes the divisions in America both on the left and the right to a deep skepticism among people about the intentions of the U.S. political and financial establishment to conduct the country's affairs in a way that benefits all people. Both the traditional Democratic and Republican establishments, the Bush-Reagan, Clinton-Obama politicians and the financial community were seen as self-serving and looking after their own interests. The right of center supply side economics and the the tolerance for immigration levels of 30% rise in the last decade were discredited. A much larger recovery program was seen as needed from the deeply bruising effects of the financial crisis of 2008, started by the reckless financial establishment behaviours, than either the Reagan supply siders or the Obama people had understood or planned. This opened the way for Mr. Trump to take up the cause of ordinary Americans with a message of ambitious infrastructure development, confronting China's use of trade adversely affecting American workers, and slowing down immigration. And within the Democratic party the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders with programs for a wealth tax that would finance Medicare for All and college education supported by the federal government. Both the traditional Republicans under Bush and Democrats under Clinton Obama were seen not upto the task, after the 2008 financial and economic crisis created deeper scars than were imagined possible. The lack of effective policies under Bush or Obama simply aggravating the situation further. The culture wars have split Americans down the middle with a breakdown of the traditional American family and social structures creating deep anxieties in America. Obama's comments unsettled people in the heartland when he said that economic decline in the Rust Belt had made people there to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."   The trillions of dollars spent in wars in Asia and the Middle East were seen by Mr. Trump as an enormous waste when much needed investment was deprived of attention at home. Mr. Trump hammered this point home till today it is well accepted across America.  Even as political divisions persist they are now on how to tackle the redevelopment and growth of the U.S. The new focus of agreement has shifted with agreement across the country that infrastructure development in the U.S. and defending workers rights to jobs and opportunities is the top priority. That trade relations need to be reshaped keeping this priority ever present in negotiations. As a result all parties could agree on infrastructure and the recently concluded agreement for trade with Mexico and Canada and phase 1 of negotiated agreement with China. In overseas affairs the U.S. under Trump seeks cost sharing with a 2% of GDP defense spending by other nations so that money can be diverted to use at home. In this sense the debate has already shifted in the U.S. and the UK to how to address the problems of uneven development and growth across the two countries and better allocation of scarce resources to needs at home. Which is for the U.S. a good thing in the middle of all the perception of divisions.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial says sharks circle in Congress to kill the Obama plan for a new consumer protection agency with the necessary powers to protect consumers. Campaign contributions to members of Congress by the banking industry is having anegative effect. But says the NYT the federal regulators who put the interests of banks first are also having the negative effect. It cites the example of a Fed governor, Elizabeth Duke, who says the Fed has all the powers to protect consumers, in a Congressional hearing. Says NYT the Fed was given sweeping powers to prevent predatory lending in 1994, but did not issue new rules till July 2008, till the damage had alredy been done. And not just to consumers, but to the American and global economy. It goes on to say that consumer protection is the unwanted stepchild in the regulatory community as protecting consumer s is spread across 20 statutes and seven different agencies. Considering the damage to the economy that has already been done its amazing that the same tired old arguments can be repeated without severely straining credibility. The close relations between Geithner, Rahm Emmanuel Obama's chief of staff, and others in the administration with the banking industry do not bode well for coming up with the strong legislation to protect consumers. See the link to Chase's Dimon's close relations to Rahm Emmanuel and members of the Obama administration. And the close connections which helped the banking industry kill legislation that would have helped homeowners, by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures....

LyrArc Article Gist
How Elizabeth Warren, a Professor at Harvard Law School, influenced economic advisor Summers and President Obama in their decision to form a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. She met with Summers recently and they have known each other for a long time at Harvard University. Warren has spoken up for consumers, and written several books and articles on the subject of protecting consumers, credit and economic stress. She was the chief advisor to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission and chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel which acted as a watchdog over the TARP program. Ms. Warren says she first got the idea of a financial products agency while researching a 2003 book about middle class families who did well on one income, but now were having a difficult time coping with two incomes. She made the point that it wasn't overspending by many families that was to blame but poorly designed financial products. In 2007 she wrote an article in the journal Democracy about this idea of an agency to protect consumers of financial products. She says overhauling the regulation of financial products is necessary not only to help consumers make good decisions, but also help "make the market work." And she adds that the market "has been badly regulated" through a system of seven federal agencies, each of which has jurisdiction over some aspect of consumer financial products. See the other link in the WSJ of June 20, 2009, by Jason Zweig, which talks about the influence of a friend of Obama at University of Chicago Law School, Prof Sunstein, on the formation of a Consumer Protection Agency. Sunstein, and Thaler, a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, wrote a book "Nudge" which shows the impact of psychology and the behavioural element in decisions made by consumers. Sunstein and Thaler express the idea that there are advantages in having standard products that cannot lie to consumers, and are based on the "fair-dealing, openness and transparency" the President emphasized. They act as an anchor for all other products, which are compared to these products. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This BBC report of Queen Elizabeth since 1953 when she took on the leadership of an impoverished nation that was no longer an Empire, shows how she has responded to one change after another till the coronavirus. She has appeared almost as a rock of ages for Britain in the midst of upheavals.  Here are some of her own words of these periods of change. "The traditional values etched across our history equip us well for this age of change." On the Commonwealth of Nations an entirely new conception in 1950's. "To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life." Warning of triumphalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, aware of the pitfalls of capitalism and socialism now more obvious than ever in 2022- "We, who claim to be of the free world, should examine what we really mean by freedom, and how we can ensure that, once in place, it is there to stay." On other happenings standing back from the fray, trying to filter out the "ephemeral from the enduring." "Distance can lend an extra dimension to judgement, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion - even of wisdom - that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those task it is in life to offer instant opinions." For Elizabeth, in the midst of all the changes what truly mattered was "the regular worthy rhythm of life."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain staged a rehearsal for a pandemic called Cygnus in 2016. Till that time the preparations for a pandemic that started years earlier during the SARS crisis were conducted vigorously. Yet the by this time Britain was becoming immersed in the Brexit struggles in the ruling Conservative Party. Prime minister Cameron resigned on July 13, 2016  and was replaced by Theresa May. From that time on the struggles with pro Brexit factions led by Boris Johnson consumed the COnservative Party and sucked the life out of the pandemic planning that Britain had conducted for years before. The recommendations to correct deficiencies from the pandemic rehearsal exercize were ignored. The second failure happened as the crisis approached. Again the Brexit date of January 31 intervened and the months long struggle to get Brexit had taken so much energy and tired out most of the British public including new prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson. Johnson did not attend the first Cobra meeting of the highest level ministers and military, convened on January 25, 2020, as reported in the Times. Such meeting are convened only for a national threat. Only 5 weeks later on March 2 did the prime minister attend a Cobra meeting. During this time the situation was grave in Italy with rising cases and infections. The entire process was conducted during this time by the Health minister Mr. Hancock who had assured the public that the situation was under control. Britain now has the highest number of infections in Europe exceeding that in Italy- at 240,000 on May 15, 2020. The prime minister and his adviser Mr. Cummings, were also infected by the virus, and Mr. Johnson spent time in ICU before recovering. Queen Elizabeth addressed the nation on Easter day, the first such address since 1940, to boost Briain's spirits. Never had Britain been less prepared as in 2020 when earlier preparations were ditched for austerity plans and events such as Brexit fatigue conspired to strip the nation of the crucial 5-6 weeks of preparation since the first January 25 Cobra meeting of the highest people in government.  Never had such preparation even for 6 weeks been more crucial than in February and March as the infectivity ratio was determined by infectious disease specialists at the best British universities and scientific institutions to be between 2.6 and 3.4 compared to the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 which was somewhere between 2.0 and 3.0. This means every one person infects another 3 persons, compared to about 1 person in a regular flu season. This reproduction ratio and the nature of coronavirus remain a threat today as Britain, Europe, the U.S. and the world reopens.  As reported in the Times the infectivity ratio was also the reason for the mindset that refused to believe that the virus was real because at 3.0 infectivity the only way to tackle it was a "lockdown," and this was itself an "apocalypse" scenario for many in the pro-Brexit Conservative party that won the election, which badly wanted to get back to economic activity after Brexit. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Perceptions of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping in China. The image of Jinping as one who stands up for ordinary Chinese and opposes corrupt officials is promoted in Chinese media. His visit to a small fast food place in Beijing, the Qingfeng Steamed Bun Shop, where he paid for the food, and took it to a folding table, is shown repeatedly on Chinese media. The cult of personality did not appeal to Communist leader Deng Xiaoping following two decades of a personality cult for leader Mao created by incessant propaganda. Under Hu Jintao, Jinping's predecessor the effacement was complete with the leadership taking a very low profile, and emphasizing scientific progress and technological development under a system setup by Deng's successor, Zemin, a former mayor of Shanghai. Some aspects of the old Mao era depiction of a strong leader who cared about China's interests above all else and was with the ordinary people, farmers, workers and students, is being revived today. It fits Xi Jinping's profile of a leader who spent time in the countryside with farmers, which happened when he was assigned at the age of 15 to Shanxi province during the Cultural Revolution period of the late 1960's- what Harvard professor Elizabeth Perry calls his adolescent socialization period- and his views of the positive role played by the Communist party, inspite of the excesses of the Party and the persecution suffered under Mao by Jinping's father when he fell out of favor. The link to Jinping's Hebei province shows the difficulties suffered of growing up during the Cultural Revolution, and his personal struggles including efforts to get into Tsinghua University as his father fell out of favor with Mao. As a result Xi has a inbuilt wariness for political positions. The story shows considerable ironies as Xi's father, a revolutionary war veteran from Hebei province, fell out of favor first with Mao and for a second time for criticism of Deng's crackdown at Tienanmen Square. Just to survive and grow during so many changes from the fifties China to the twenty first century China, shows remarkable resilience and strength, which is why Singapore's leader Lee Juan Yew sees much emotional stability in Xi Jinping. Is the personality building effort a Communist Party propaganda version of the careful nurturing of image done in western media for favored persons, or a revival of an older Mao type personality building effort? Xi's own wariness suggests it may be the former with some aspects from China's own past, as he promotes the Communist Party's claim to lead China for another generation by reducing corruption and furthering technological progress....

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out in the NYT that Hillary Clinton actually won in the popular vote by a substantial margin, by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. He says that Democrats need to pay more attention to the working class in midwestern states- the job losses, crumbling infrastructure, and the plight of communities such as Detroit, Michigan which suffered through the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, and again with the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis of the City of Detroit. With a similar situation in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Ohio, in places like Toledo and other parts of communities facing industrial decline. While the Silicon Valley centred region powered the economy in California, and the financial industry and real estate powered New York, older midwestern communities never really recovered from a long decline stretching over 2 decades. The result was the loss of faith in Democrats among union workers and young people, leading to the loss of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. For most of its history the Democratic Party was based on its union and working class base including a large number of white voters. Only under Obama because of his unique candidacy was the coalition so dependent on the minorities vote. Before minorities were part of the Democratic coalition, but not in the way under the Obama candidacy. A return to its historic and normal base among whites in unions and working class communities, liberals, minorities, is a way to go back to the historic and natural base of Democratic support. In a sense dependence on tech communities for election funding and the tech booms, globalization, may have distorted Democrats sense of their historic role as champions of the working class and middle class communities throughout the country. There is now an opportunity to restore this lost mission of protecting the interests of the middle and working class who have seen huge drop in net worth as reported by Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve at the Inequality Conference on October 17, 2014-"62 million households with a net worth of $11,000 for the year 2013." Poorly covered in the media and not made the utmost priority by Democrats (or Republicans). In the words of Janet Yellen, this was in the past several decades "the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality since the Great Depression." She added the shocking words "by some estimates, income and wealth inequality near their highest levels in the past hundred years, and probably much higher than much of American history before then." Even discussion in the media goes back to the Obama coalition and treats it as a way forward for Democrats, when history shows it was different and the situation described by Yellen calls for a serious response. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
CNN reporter Cassie Spodak provides this exceptional report into the minds of New Hampshire Democratic voters who gave Bernie Sanders a 22 percent lead in the New Hampshire Democratic primary over Hillary Clinton. In October 2016 Hillary Clinton has the support of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election. She described it as "100 percent support" in television debate. Sanders has appeared with Clinton twice, and campaigned 4 times in New Hampshire, and continually across the country. Younger New Hampshire voters still long for Sanders as their favored candidate. Older voters and some who have been motivated by Sanders to run for local office see the shaping of the Democratic Party platform as a victory for Sanders. Key planks of Sanders, taxes on the wealthy and higher incomes to pay for student tuition, infrastructure, and helping working class families, are now key parts of the Democratic platform. These voters see this as a pragmatic step and are enthusiastic in their support for Hillary Clinton. Overall Clinton now has 87 percent of Democratic voter support in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/UNH poll in mid October 2016, and she is doing well with millenials and independents nationally, a critical bloc of voters for Clinton to show nationwide support. One member of the steering committee for Sanders in New Hampshire named Dudley Dudley, reflects the opinion that has shifted the party to emerge united during and even more so in the final months of the presidential campaign of 2016- she tells the CNN reporter Spodak that she supports Hillary because "of the way she has grown, and stretched," and the way Clinton and Sanders are now campaigning together and working together. Both Clinton and Sanders deserve credit for their extraordinary ability to grow during their campaigns and during the party's way to shape the way forward. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporters Corkery and Yoon give a remarkable account of the individual homeowners and investors inside one toxic subprime mortgage security from Countrywide Financial Corp. named CWABS- 2006-2007. There is Amanda Gavini of Fort Myers who continued making mortgage payments against the odds after a illness and death in the family. And a couple Donald Mudd- Patricia Starr who were approved by Countrywide for a $171,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan at 8% with a $10,000 down payment for a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. The approval came only 3 months after the couple emerged from personal bankruptcy in 2006, and by 2009 Mudd was missing payments. Other borrowers such as Mrs. Gavini in Florida took out two loans at 7% and 11% in 2006, have continued making payments and are still unable to refinance under the HAMP or HARP government programs. It is because of these homeowners who continue to make payments helping the security price recover, that one of PIMCO's funds which owns a stake in this security has made good returns. Hedge fund Marathon Asset has also made good returns on this security because of the U.S. government's Public Private Investment Program to help banks recover by providing government incentives for purchase of these securities from banks. This was a way to get banks holding these subprime securities to resume normal lending in financial markets....

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...