LyrArc Article Gist
Banking regulation in the U.S. after the Dodd-Frank legislation differs from banking regulation rules proposed by the Independent Commission on Banking in Britain. Britain has a much bigger financial sector relative to the size of its economy than the U.S., posing larger systemic risks. The commission in Britain is proposing structural changes that would separate investment banking from deposit taking at banks. Banks would have separate balance sheets for these two activities- and operate them as separate subsidiaries- even though they are part of one holding company. This means it would be harder to raise money cheaply for risktaking in investment banking. Under the Volcker Rule in the U.S., banks investment banking and deposit taking would not be separated in a structural separation- there would still be one balance sheet- only banks ability to trade with their own capital and run hedge funds would be constrained. Some banks have spun off trading operations in the U.S. and the the rules banks have to follow have not been clearly defined. Too big to fail is still a problem under current American regulation, though its effects are mitigated to some extent. As one expert puts it, its hard to regulate the banks because too much money is involved and the banks have the money and the lawyers to prevent or dilute new rules. The argument made by the banks in Britain is that universal international banking provides a public benefit and efficiencies. But John Vickers, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, and chairman of the Independent Commission on Banking, has a different view. He said recently, "it seems quite hard to identify and quantify real efficiencies as distinct from purely private gains."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman on raising the Medicare eligibility age and how this affects lower income seniors. The urgent need to rein in health care costs in the U.S. as other countries have done.

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even China has not campaigned the way Canada, Mexico and British, American media have against DJT Tariffs because China knows it is basically about getting an even playing field when it is the only country with $1 trillion in trade in its favor in 2024, 12 times the Japanese high of $82 billion trade surplus in 2007. But why should China campaign when the American and British, German media are going to do the job for China? A simple quiz to K-12 would ask school children when is the last time a country has a $1 trillion trade surplus? Answer: Never. Greg Ip has written a few years back that the devastation of China outshoring of American factories and jobs was unlike the 1980's Japan trade invasion because of first China's size, second by the speed with which it happened at 10-14% Chinese GDP growth. There is a third Japan was an ally needing US for security and backed down, China's case is different it is challenging the US for control of the world economy and will fight this one over the long haul. Greg Ip of WSJ on the 53 countries asking to negotiate US Liberation Day April 2, 2025 Tariffs. These countries include Allies of the US in full support asking to negotiate Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India Allies of the US in partial support asking to negotiate Britain Allies of the US not in full support asking to negotiate Germany, France Allies of the US in the past campaigning against the US, asking to negotiate Canada, Mexico Not Allies of the US, not in full support, not campaigning against the US China A look at his list tells one only one thing, mostly all trading partners except for the $146 billion exports of the US which represents exports to China are the exports that are at risk if things don't work out on tariffs. This is what the media today WSJ added this last week to the NYT, Wash. Post and the BBC, Guardian of UK, German media will not tell the reader.  The DJT Tariffs and Tariff negotiations are Lighthizer Tariff negotiations which won the fight with Japan in the 1980's over unfair trade and gaining a level playing field. Lighthizer as Deputy US Trade Representative conducted the tough negotiations with Japan. He was USTR in 2016-2020 and his Deputy Jamieson is now USTR in 2025       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
J.P. Morgan Chase announces $2 billion in trading losses in May 2012. The Chief Investment Office unit made a bet with a trading strategy that CEO Jamie Dimon said had grown very complex. These losses could grow or shrink during the rest of the year.

LyrArc Article Gist
Gretchen Morgenson cites two views on the newly approved Volcker Rule in December 2013. Prof. Richard Sylla of New York University sees the rule as going part way in the direction of the Glass-Steagall Act, which gave the financial markets five or six decades of financial stability. Just the fact that the rule is on the books should give the bank officers pause before engaging in questionable financial activities, is his view. Prof. David Skeel of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, believes only aggressive enforcement can make the law work because of the way it is written. He says regulators have fallen short in enforcement in the past and have not been held accountable. Only by making regulators accountable, including penalties for regulators failing to do their job, would this work says Skeel. By not imposing penalties for regulatory failures in the last crisis there is more likelihood for this sort of behaviour to continue. Instead the same regulators are now given greater powers after an earlier failure. Considering the Skeel view, the importance of the attestation- that is now required from bank senior executives that the Volcker Rule's provisions are being followed- take on an important role in ensuring enforcement. This also coincides with Mr. Volcker's view that the bank officers should have to take on the responsibility for making sure that they are doing it the right way....