LyrArc Article Gist
15% or 1000 of 6800 Yale Students get free tution at $75,000 cutoff income level for free tution since 2020.  With $200,000 as the new cutoff for incomes getting free tution it would cost Yale $72 million more, $72,000 being the tution cost per year and additional 1000 students getting free tution at the new cutoff income level. This suggests it only costs Yale $72 million to look like it is doing something for the middle class that cannot afford Yale's high undergrad tution. But what is Yale doing about the high undergrad tution? Yale Tution goes up from 31,000 in 2005 to $48,000 in 2015, and up further to $72,000 per year for undergrads in 2025. In percentage terms the increase in last ten years is 50% and comparing 2025 to 2005 over 20 years it is up 232%, and comparing 2015 to 2005 it is up 55%. There is no slowdown in the increase in cost of tution at Yale for affordability. Middle class is being squeezed. Parents have to go into savings to send a child to these upper tier schools, as reported in WSJ, with incomes of $250,000 not enough to payoff huge tution fees of undergrads when there are 2 or 3 kids going to college. For Yale it is about business as usual as it can afford the additional $72 million for 1000 more students to be added at free tution- its endowment is at an hefty $44 billion which can easily handle that $72 million added cost to look good in front of the public while leaving things the same in terms of affordability and cost. All down the line at the second tier schools the situation is the same, only down the line when it comes to state universities do things change, but only a bit. It leaves Americans with the feeling that this system is also fundamentally flawed like the health care system and needs complete overhaul. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ingram says Obama's 2015 budget is more of a wish list for Democrats, because 2015 spending levels are already set and House Republicans will put together their own budget putting forward the Republican views. Obama's budget includes new taxes on busiess and the wealthy to reduce the deficit. Other ideas- raise tobacco taxes to pay for universal pre-K education, a "Fianncial Crisis Responsibility Fee" on big banks, overhaul immigraion laws to increase tax revenues, limit itemized deductions for the rich, force drug companies to give large rebates on Medicare prescriptions. Another proposal is a $56 billion "Opportunity, Growth and Security" Initiative, for spending on early childhood education, job training, and medical research. To pay for this he would cut the amount wealthy people can save tax free for retirement, cut crop insurance and raise airline security fees.

LyrArc Article Gist
Government bonds will be purchased by central banks of each country roughly in proportion to the size of their national economies in the eurozone. Risks for 80% of the purchases of bonds in the $1 trillion program will be borne by the central bank of each country. For 12% of the remaining bonds purchases will be made in the European Investment Bank bonds, here risk will be shared with the ECB. For the remaining 8% the ECB itself will make bond purchases. This avoids a situation where the risk of bonds going down in value is borne by that country and not passed on to other countries in the eurozone, as a matter of fairness in distributing risks. This also limits moral hazard where painful budget decisions are not made by countries in need of budget overhauls because risk can be passed on. A big reason why this can work in 2015 is that the eurozone has already emerged from the crisis period of 2012-2013, and is beginning to experience growth in 2015. Just this kind of boost to lending was provided by the U.S. Federal Reserve when the U.S. emerged from its crisis period in 2009-2011, and helped the economy grow in 2013-2014....

LyrArc Article Gist
Improving business conditions and lower unemployment are helping president Macron of France recover from a drop in popularity following the yellow vest protests. Macron tackled the crisis by changing his style of governance from top down to a listener style with regular town hall meetings and meetings with people who were critical of his government. Recent poll from Elabe shows 33% approve of the French leader compared to 23% in December 2018 at the height of the yellow vest protests. The yellow vest protests were from people who felt left out at the lower end of the wage scale who were protesting increasing inequality. Macron also offered minimum wage earners billions of dollars and shelved his economic agenda till he had a better grasp of the French public's opinions. The recovery in the economy means Macron has more flexibility in taking up priority items in the national agenda. The French pension system is fragmented with about 43 different plans, with some plans for transport workers offering generous retirement by age 52. The system is also likely to go into deficit of 10 billion euros in 2022. Brazil has run into major economic crisis from generous pension plans taking up a major part of the budget. Macron wants to increase the number of years people work before they collect pensions, not just increase the retirement age of 62. Most major European countries are at 65 years retirement age, the U.S. is at 66 years. Transport workers paralysed the nation's transport system including subways and bus systems recently to keep their generous benefits. Macron sees himself as promoting a national agenda similar to India for GST, and other countries tackling shortfall in pension systems by increasing the retirement age, even though in the short run people who benefit from the old system oppose it. By addressing grievances at the lower wage levels and tackling glaring issues in the way benefits such as pensions are distributed Macron can win enough support to offset the opposition of entrenched groups. Lawyers will see their pension contributions double for lower benefits and are opposing the pensions overhaul. For decades workers in different groups or sectors took to the streets in protest making any changes even if well thought out and in the national interest hard to make in France. By taking on entrenched groups tactically and first letting the groups express their sentiment before announcing top down changes, and by being an empathetic listener, Macron is showing that he has learned a lot from the past year without losing his sense of what is best for France. It just maybe that in the short run there is an offset gaining some support from neutral groups and losing support of entrenched groups. Yet in the long run when the dust settles there is more overall support particularly through empathetic listening and carefully planned flexible approach to making changes that improve the economy and reduce unemployment. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
In a sign of the low returns in the past year for pension funds, the 896,000 California teacher retirement pension fund CALSTRS, shows returns for year ending June 30, 2016, at 1.3%. Half of the holdings of CALSTRS are in U.S. and global stocks with returns of negative 2.3%. Real estate provided return of 11% but overall the returns were low. Over 10 years the returns of CALSTRS are now at 5.6%. The California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), says its returns on its investments were 0.6% for the past year. With large retirement obligations pension funds in the U.S. face real challenges in this low return environment. Private equity investments of CALSTRS had returns of 2.9%, also lagging behind.

LyrArc Article Gist
A Infratest Dimap opinion poll for broadcaster ARD shows 70% of Germans rating finance minister Schauble's work positively in July 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
A 3 page July 14, 2015 update on the IMF's July 2015 debt sustainability analysis paper on Greece, points to severe damage to the Greek economy in the last year, especially under the uncertainty and closing of the banking system, making debt unsustainable without haircuts or extension of maturities and grace periods. About 85 billion euros is the additional financing needed as a result of the mismanagement under the Syriza government and closing of the banking system. It draws the conclusion that "haircuts could be avoided if instead there was a significant further extension of the maturities of the entire stock of European debt (GLF, EFSF) , in the form of doubling of grace and repayment periods, with similiar concessional terms on new financing." The paper adds that the maturity extension would have to be "very dramatic extension with grace periods of say, 30 years on the entire stock of European debt, including new assistance." One shocking part of the analysis is that within the space of one year from July 2014 to July 2015 the Greek economy went from reaching Debt to GDP ratio of 105% in 2022, to 170% after the closing of the banking system by July 12, 2015, according to the IMF. In 2014 it was at 177% of GDP....

LyrArc Article Gist
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, has a three part proposal for tackling the "too big to fail" problem and concentration of 70% of the U.S. banking assets in a few banks. It calls for Market Discipline to be exercized in a way that the Dodd-Frank legislation fails to do. This is to be accomplished by having deposit insurance and the Fed's discount window apply only to traditional commercial banks, not the nonbank affiliates and parent holding companies. Customers, creditors and counterparties of all nonbank affiliates and the parent holding companies would be asked to sign a disclosure accepting that there is no government guarantee. In addition the largest financial holding companies would be restructured so that all their corporate entities would fall under a speedy bankruptcy process. Fisher does not clarify how he would do this restructuring. The Fisher idea come after changes in the banking industry through internal management restructuring following trading losses, legal settlements and the passage of a Swiss referendum called the Minder Initiative on compensation. Fisher suggests the U.S. Fed and regulatory authorites in other countries should push for further restructuring and calls for action beyond the limited results from 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He is critical of Dodd-Frank's often ambiguous and lengthy worded legislation- 849 pages for the law and 9000 pages for the regulations written to implement the law. Fisher emphasizes the point that its hard to implement a law and enforce rules when its not clear and is difficult to understand....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Federal Reserve governor Daniel Tarullo tells the Council on Foreign Relations that so much remains to be done four years after the financial crisis. The law firm of Davis Polk says 67 percent of deadlines were missed for new rules required to be set in place by the Dodd-Frank legislation, including the Volcker Rule. Tarullo said: "It is sobering to recognize that more than four years after the failure of Bear Stearns began the acute phase of the financial crisis, so much remains to be done." Tarullo fears that crucial momentum may be lost because of the long delays stemming from resistance by the banks. Tarullo met with bank CEO's in April 2012. Banks have protested that Fed stress tests have not revealed the parameters for the testing. Tarullo's response given at a recent Fed conference in Chicago were that this would let banks game the exercize by running the Federal Reserve model and not improving risk management and capital planning, making this a mechanical compliance exercize. Banks have particularly opposed a requirement that limits the risk in business between two banks to 10% of their credit risk....