Why all these new guns laws and no economy cares?

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

None of it is from subsidies - this is employer-sponsored coverage. I can't do a perfect 1:1 versus the exchanges since I only pay 25%, but if I were on the exchanges there are options available such that the total cost of the policy, including likely oop expenses, would be similar to the total cost of my current policy.

So your employer reduced your group coverage somewhat, or if they offer a range of plans you went with one with less coverage and a higher deductible and have lower premiums. Your employer may not even be subject to the mandates yet dependent on how large they are. Yeah, your case is sure an apples to apples pre- and post-Obamacare

Re stimulus, don't confuse stimulus with near-zero-interest Fed money. The stimulus package that got passed was less than half the size of what most serious economists thought it should have been to have an effect. This was general consensus at the time it was going through Congress. Furthermore, since much of the stimulus spending was contingent on the states applying for or initiating stimulus projects, rather than the certainty of well-defined Federally-driven projects - which would have been much more effective, but also impossible to get through the House - much of the stimulus money, though approved, was never put into the economy to begin with. So we got a "better than nothing, but still not much" stimulus. Thus the Fed initiated QE in the face of weak stimulus to ensure at the very least that there is not a liquidity freeze in the overall economy, and ensure inflation through expansion of the money supply to encourage lending and spending. But Fed Reserve policy can only go so far (make lending attractive) compared to the what a completely enacted stimulus directed by the Feds rather than the states would have done, as the Fed Reserve cannot initiate spending projects or directly pay people.

If Keynesian policies had been enacted, that chart would look different. But they were not.

Yeah, the Keynesian policies were enacted. I don't know how anybody can call the trillion-plus dollar "stimulus" anything but Keynesian. Just because the very partisan and very leftist economist Paul Krugman said that the stimulus needed to be bigger doesn't mean it wasn't still a stimulus and that it still didn't work.

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

How does spending less money put more money into the economy if those with the cash to spend aren't spending it?

To answer that question you have to ask yourself why there are people sitting on money. It doesn't make much sense as idle money just loses value due to inflation. However a lot of very smart people are doing just that. The reason is that the current regulatory and taxation regime has made losing a small amount of value in letting capital sit idle a much better bet that trying to expand the business and potentially set yourself up for massive expenses for doing so or find yourself expanded beyond the point where you can actually expand and make any money (marginal benefit of expanding is negative.) The "50 employee" limit for the 2015 Obamacare insurance mandate is a great example of this. If your business is 40-something people, you may incur a massive cost if you grow above 50 employees, much more so than in just hiring that last worker as now you have to cover all of your employees with insurance, not just the 51st one.

Originally Posted by bler144

Your graph is a bit cherry-picked. The trend since 1998 is generally down.

Given the way labor participation is calculated (all adults over 16), a decline in that rate is to be expected regardless of economic conditions. The boomers are a statistical elephant moving through the python. As they slide into retirement the number has to come down, just as the rate spiked up around 1966 as they entered the labor force.

I used the graph off the BLS website which used the very cherry-picked and illogical time period of "the last 10 years." Besides, the oldest Baby Boomers, born in 1946, only reached age 65 in 2011 so you would not expect the graph to show a steep dropoff around the beginning of 2009- it would start later. However the drop in the graph perfectly traces with the tenure of Obama as president.

[MUTGR]

Even New York's upper crust is now learning about the joy's of Obamacare:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/ny...nted=all&_r=1&

[STLviaMSP]

^I know an engineer in Brooklyn, 37 or 38 years old with no kids or dependents, that used to insure through the Freelancers' union. He had a catastrophic policy that cost $600 and change per month, with a $10k deductible. He signed up for a bronze policy that costs him about $350 a month, and although I don't know the oop max/deductible, it legally can't exceed $6350.

[STLviaMSP]

The Fed "stimulus" by its nature can't be directed toward any particular outcome, so unlike, say, a spending bill that specifies projects that will result in hires, all the Fed money plus low/no interest does is devalue currency and inflate import prices in hopes that those with the money to invest will pursue investments in the form if RnD, domestic production hiring, and other projects. It is such a blunt instrument that takes such a circuitous path to peoples' wallets that while better than nothing, it isn't much of a stimulus per se.

And my point about the engineer (or artists and writers) is that 1) it is not the "upper crust" of NYC nor is it clear that they are in fact feeling "pain." I'll trust the experiences of someone I know (and who by MUTGR's worst-case only way of thinking gained about $8k a year as a result of ACA), but I do take away from that article that there is change occurring in the health insurance system that benefits some and might increase costs for others. But again, I don't care about sensational anecdotes, just stats. We'll see the results in five years.

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

The Fed "stimulus" by its nature can't be directed toward any particular outcome, so unlike, say, a spending bill that specifies projects that will result in hires, all the Fed money plus low/no interest does is devalue currency and inflate import prices in hopes that those with the money to invest will pursue investments in the form if RnD, domestic production hiring, and other projects. It is such a blunt instrument that takes such a circuitous path to peoples' wallets that while better than nothing, it isn't much of a stimulus per se.

I was referring to the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" when I referred to the stimulus, not the Fed's "quantitative easing." Most people refer to that bill when they mention "stimulus." That bill certainly is a spending bill which was supposed to result directly in "shovel-ready jobs" as Obama put it. It certainly did not do so. The unemployment rate went far higher than Obama's administration ever estimated it would go even if the bill was not passed, let alone passed and signed into law like it was.

The Fed's "quantitative easing" certainly does as you describe- devalues currency and inflates prices. The only reasons to do it were to try to prop up the illusion of economic activity during the president's term in order to get himself and his cronies re-elected and also to try to deflate some of the real value of the federal government's grossly excessive borrowing. It really doesn't do much for anybody's wallets except to reward people who over-borrowed (like the feds do) by making their debt worth less and penalize people who try to save money by making their money worth less. That's the exact opposite of what we need to do as individuals and as a country.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

The Fed "stimulus" by its nature can't be directed toward any particular outcome, so unlike, say, a spending bill that specifies projects that will result in hires, all the Fed money plus low/no interest does is devalue currency and inflate import prices in hopes that those with the money to invest will pursue investments in the form if RnD, domestic production hiring, and other projects. It is such a blunt instrument that takes such a circuitous path to peoples' wallets that while better than nothing, it isn't much of a stimulus per se.

And my point about the engineer (or artists and writers) is that 1) it is not the "upper crust" of NYC nor is it clear that they are in fact feeling "pain." I'll trust the experiences of someone I know (and who by MUTGR's worst-case only way of thinking gained about $8k a year as a result of ACA), but I do take away from that article that there is change occurring in the health insurance system that benefits some and might increase costs for others. But again, I don't care about sensational anecdotes, just stats. We'll see the results in five years.

You can actually see the results right now and people aren't happy and they are blaming Obamacare:

AP-GfK poll: Health law seen as eroding coverage | Associated Press GfK Poll

I don't think you have the luxury of waiting 5 years. I predict significant changes to the ACA, perhaps even a full repeal is possible before 5 years.

[STLviaMSP]

So people are blaming the ACA for what has been happening to their policies for the past fifteen years? I never cease to be amazed by peoples' poor reasoning skills and weak memory. Again, the past two years, I have seen not only no increases, but a reduction in premium and net cost this year - and I still have excellent coverage and a very generous employer contribution. The year before that, I had the lowest increase I can remember - about 4% yoy. Prior to that, it was always 10-15% change every year, and once almost 30%.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

So people are blaming the ACA for what has been happening to their policies for the past fifteen years? I never cease to be amazed by peoples' poor reasoning skills and weak memory. Again, the past two years, I have seen not only no increases, but a reduction in premium and net cost this year - and I still have excellent coverage and a very generous employer contribution. The year before that, I had the lowest increase I can remember - about 4% yoy. Prior to that, it was always 10-15% change every year, and once almost 30%.

Live with the low information voter die with them I guess.