Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P Futures | 2475.8 | 4.3 |
| Eurostoxx Index | 387.3 | 1.8 |
| Oil (WTI) | 47.4 | 0.3 |
| US dollar index | 87.2 | 0.2 |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.26% | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 103.31 | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 104.375 | |
| 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.96 |
Stocks are up this morning as global central banks remain easy. Bonds and MBS are up small.
The Index of Leading Economic Indicators jumped 0.6% in June, which is forecasting an acceleration in the economy going forward.
Initial Jobless claims fell to 233k, which is a 9 week low. The last time we were at similar levels was the early 1970s, when the Vietnam War was still raging. I have plotted initial jobless claims (left axis) versus wage inflation (right axis). You can see the inverse correlation, and it also suggests that with claims this low, we should be seeing wage inflation. Of course inflation has an influence as well, and the late 60s / 70s were characterized by inflation. However, pressures seem to be building, and we are seeing wage inflation at the lowest end of the spectrum – low wage workers.
Bill Gross looks at the shape of the yield curve and warns investors not to read too much into it, since the curve is being manipulated by central bankers worldwide. The chart below shows the difference in yield between the 10 year bond and the 3 month T-bill. That difference has historically been somewhat predictive of recessions, especially when it has inverted. While the current spread is nowhere near zero, the trend is certainly heading that way. Does that mean a recession is imminent? His point is that we are really in an apples-to-oranges comparison with QE. Global central bank buying of sovereign debt is pushing that spread downward, and the relevant question is where would the yield curve be without the Fed’s (and other global central banks’) buying?
He does make the point that Corporate America is more leveraged than before, however with rates so low, the debt service (actual interest paid) is much less than it was historically. You see that in households too. Total debt has risen past the old highs, however the debt service (interest paid as a percent of disposable income) is close to the lows.
The NYC luxury real estate market is soft, and many luxury sellers in Greenwich, CT are pulling the plug on sales. Of the homes in this market ($4.5 million+) days on market was 319, up by over 100 days. Some sellers have had to cut their price by 60% to entice a buyer. FWIW, I see very little building in this area of the country – only a handful of spec homes have been built, and they haven’t sold yet.
Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Good article on the ultimate meaning of the Charlie Gard situation…single payer means state ownership of people.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/charlie_gard_is_the_face_of_singlepayer.html
BTW, late in the article the author says:
Right now, I have been forced into Medicare. I don’t like it, and I would happily take an alternative, but legally, I cannot. Further, if Medicare declares that I can’t have a particular treatment, I can’t even buy it for myself.
Can this be true? Can someone explain to me the mechanism by which people are compelled to use Medicare and prohibited from getting any health care outside of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
so, it’s not a prohibition on the patient, it’s a restriction on the providers from accepting a cash payment from a medicare patient.
it get complicated really fast, but essentially, the provider could get in trouble for billing a Medicare patient outside of the program.
http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/paying-a-visit-to-the-doctor-current-financial-protections-for-medicare-patients-when-receiving-physician-services/
basically, to pay for a service out of pocket and not have Medicare be involved in any way, shape, or form, you need to find an “opt-out” provider who does not have a participation agreement with Medicare. and those are very rare.
and, of course, these restrictions are all done in the name of patient protection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say it’s easier to find a solo practitioner who has opted-out. They tend to be in upper income areas.
LikeLike
true — but those providers also are unlike to provide a service that Medicare isn’t covering.
LikeLike
Fair point. Tend to be better doctors and provide more concierge service. Also, good luck finding a practitioner in a hospital who opts out of Medicare.
LikeLike
” finding a practitioner in a hospital who opts out of Medicare.”
no way the hospital gives you privileges if you opt out.
LikeLike
nova:
Thanks. On this:
it get complicated really fast, but essentially, the provider could get in trouble for billing a Medicare patient outside of the program.
Who is defined as a “medicare patient”? Is it simply anyone who is even eligible for Medicare, even if they are not actually using it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could it be paid for with supplemental Medicare insurance of some kind?
LikeLike
The Social Security Act 1802(5) (A) Medicare beneficiary.—The term “medicare beneficiary” means an individual who is entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled under part B.
practically speaking, it’s near impossible to get out. to get out of Part A, you need to severe ties with Social Security and pay back all the money you may have received from Social Security: https://www.elderlawanswers.com/you-cant-opt-out-of-medicare-without-losing-social-security-judge-rules-9017
you could opt out of Part B — but then any inpatient services (Part A) are still under Medicare.
don’t read that link unless you feel like being mad all day.
best bet — medical tourism. just go somewhere and pay for what you want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You were right…I’m going to be mad the rest of the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Experts know what’s best for you. Just lay back and take it.
LikeLike
And while (certain avian opinions aside 😜) I don’t think we have much in the way of hard partisan, my-party-right-or-wrong types here, the Republican party faithful should always keep in mind that this doesn’t happen without GOP cooperation and tacit approval, generally. The Republicans have had some varying degree of serious clout in DC since 1994. And could certainly be clear about what’s a problem, and how things that are supposed to help the voters are hurting them.
But they have other priorities, and prefer to speak in slogans and platitudes and do, ultimately, very little to advance an agenda that resembles their rhetoric.
LikeLike
http://www.nme.com/politics/dwayne-rock-johnson-president-2020-2112191
Why not? Why are journalists and pundits so certain that a life in politics somehow “technically” qualifies you to be president?
LikeLike
i think he’s misusing the word. he’s technically qualified, meaning meets the constitutional requirements.
LikeLike
I think he is, too. But what he means is “lacking the technical skills”, meaning: not a lifelong politician of some kind. Or former military general. I still don’t see why being a lifelong politician makes one so qualified. How qualified was Carter? Did the left see Dubya as qualified, technically? They argued out of the gate that Reagan was senile, his experience as the governor of California counting for nothing, apparently.
I think there’s this romantic notion that being in politics gives you some greater expertise in governing than being generally super successful in life, which I think is only barely true. Maybe. I’d rather have The Rock as president that most politicians I can think of. I don’t like Trump, but it’s not because he was never governor of New York or a senator before running for the Whitehouse.
LikeLike
It depends on the party in question. Oprah would be eminently qualified to the commentariat…
LikeLike
Er. . . no.
LikeLike
She also gets a citation in the article as a potential candidate who is not, technically, qualified.
I have a sense that Trump may have opened the door to future entertainment candidates.
LikeLike
wtf?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/senate-bill-would-make-it-a-federal-crime-to-boycott-israel.html
LikeLike
Brent:
wtf?
Sounds to me like something is missing from that story.
LikeLike
No, it’s true.
“U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel
Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Grim
July 19 2017, 12:30 p.m.”
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
They hadn’t actually read the bill.
See also:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56450/congress-boycott-israel-illegal/
LikeLiked by 1 person
jnc:
They hadn’t actually read the bill.
Seems almost like they got punked.
Not having read the bill is not without its own problems, but its somewhat better than actually having read it and thinking it is a good idea. Having said that, it wouldn’t be the first time the feds had criminalized thoughts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Seems almost like they got punked.”
No, they signed on to a lobbyist agenda bill to be “pro-Israel”.
This wasn’t about making them look stupid. It was about getting that agenda passed.
LikeLike
jnc:
No, they signed on to a lobbyist agenda bill to be “pro-Israel”.
I still think that if someone had deliberately set out to make them appear like idiot stooges, they couldn’t have done a better job. What kind of lobbyist thought it would be good for the pro-Israel movement to have such a bill brought up for a vote?
LikeLiked by 1 person
dumb question, but how can a ban on boycotts be remotely Constitutional?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not. But there’s a lot that’s unconstitutional that they get away with under the guise of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism.
The President has the power to order the assassination by drone of any American citizen at any time. Once that bridge was crossed, pretty much anything else can be justified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good read:
“John McCain Walks on Water
Is the Arizona senator a virtuous man or a man who uses virtue for his own ends? And in Washington these days, can anyone tell the difference?
By Charles P. Pierce
Jul 20, 2017”
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a56449/john-mccain-walks-on-water/
LikeLike
A virtuous man unless he is running against obama. Then he is Literally. Hitler.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Virtue is defined by agreeing with Democrats. 😉
LikeLike
That is a wild piece!
Everything Gershon complaigns about occurred under Obama’s Presidency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In the normal course of events, the revelation of attempted collusion with Russia to determine the outcome of a presidential election might cause an administration to overcorrect in the other direction.”
In the whole Trump/Russia narrative, the term “collusion” is doing all of the heavy lifting.
However, what it comes down to so far is Trump working to get true, if presumably damaging, information about Hillary Clinton into the public domain so that voters could factor it into their decision about who to vote for.
This quote from a NYT piece sums up the problem with viewing “collusion” as a somehow grave offense against democratic self government:
What’s the difference between Trump getting the info from the Russians and releasing it vs the media getting it one step removed and releasing it?
Ultimately, this is an argument that the electorate isn’t qualified to choose it’s leaders because they are too easily swayed by “tainted” leaks. I think the ultimate goal of progressives here is to have some sort of news blackout close to the elections as is done in France and also have some sort of gatekeeper who gets to decide what the public should be allowed to know before voting.
The threshold for me is still the Trump campaign actively soliciting for an illegal act i.e. hacking the E-mails in the first place, and/or coordinating a release schedule similar to illegal coordination between a campaign and an outside PAC.
Just saying that they want true information about HRC that damages her to be released to the public doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
As regards to Syria, if Trump is really disengaging from it and winding down US involvement there, then that will be one of the best things he’s done so far as President.
The Russians can have it. “Moderate” rebels was always a fantasy to begin with, and if removing Saddam was in hindsight a bad idea, then why should removing Assad be any better?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read that the CIA arms program was tiny compared with the DoD program, and that program is still ongoing.
LikeLike
DOD program ongoing? I want to know more. I would readily admit I was too hasty if not w-w-wrong if the DOD program is ongoing.
See this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-obama-spy-chiefs-upbraid-trump-over-his-remarks-about-his-intelligence-community/2017/07/21/01764e7e-6e82-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.66b7b5e10d05
LikeLike
Here’s a paragraph from The Hill:
The shuttering of the CIA program does not mark the end of U.S. involvement in Syria — Trump signed off in May on a plan to arm the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish rebel group, using Department of Defense funds.
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/342772-trump-shuts-down-cia-program-to-arm-syrian-rebels
Here’s the Military Times from May.
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/syrian-kurds-ypg-us-military-weapons
Also, consider who is arming and resupplying the Iraqi forces that retook Mosul and are now fighting in Raqqa? (Which we should have nuked instead.)
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
Good enough.
I can remove the Gerson column comment.
LikeLike
What is your opinion on the WaPo piece you linked?
I find them both to be a little compromised.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/
LikeLike
Glenn Greenwald does a more thorough job deconstructing the actual Russiagate claims:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails
LikeLiked by 1 person
So glad I lived in NYC under the Guiliani admin and not the current fuckstick running things…
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pet-lovers-rage-law-bans-dog-sitting-license-article-1.3339994
LikeLike
Jeebus! I fucked that joke up! I fixed it.
When New Yorkers elected De Blaiso, were they thinking like Jerry Jones was thinking when he hired Switzer, that even a monkey could coach the team?
LikeLike
I guess they were pining for the days of Dinkins…
LikeLike
The great thing about Uber, AirBnB and now this app is that in addition to their utility value, the confrontations that they set up with the government are perfect for showcasing libertarian ideology.
Great example:
““The laws are antiquated,” said Chad Bacon, 29, a dog sitter in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, with the app Rover. “If you’re qualified and able to provide a service, I don’t think you should be penalized.””
LikeLike
I wonder who he voted for for Mayor and city council? Does he say?
LikeLike
“It’s up to the owner to go and make sure that it’s safe,” she said. “The moment you hand the leash over to someone else, that’s a responsibility, that’s your choice as a pet owner.”
Holy shit! What a concept, Buyer Beware!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man, we need to get some government agencies in there to manage that stuff.
LikeLike