Kamis, 10 Oktober 2013

How Much Would a Federal Default Affect the U.S. Economy?

Since the single topic of the press conference that President Obama staged with his party's media collaborators on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 revolved around the topic of what could happen if the U.S. government chooses to default on its debt obligations, or as will more likely be the case, doesn't default on those obligations and instead doesn't spend as much as U.S. politicians would like it to spend, we thought we would go straight to the bottom line and find out how much the U.S. economy would be affected.

But first, we'll need some numbers, which CNBC tracked down for us:

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is about to face the very same choices confronted by any financially struggling American household: Which bills to pay and when to pay them.

If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by around Oct. 17, Lew, who has been in the job less than a year, will have to sit at his desk and figure out how to make due on roughly one-third less in the way of government funds for the bills he has to pay. Because he can no longer borrow, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, government spending will fall by about 32 percent, or $108 billion in the first month.

On a side note, to put that situation in context, this is no different from what could very well happen just 20 years from now when Social Security's trust fund has been fully depleted, as expected. At that time, the federal government will reduce all payments to Social Security beneficiaries by roughly 26%, unless it significantly increases the amount it borrows. And that's if everything goes as U.S. politicians have promised without any spending reform - this is one reason why the political fight over the debt ceiling and government spending levels is taking place now, because waiting will make needed reforms so much more painful. Not to mention, more necessary.

Back now to the question at hand: how much would a government spending cut of that magnitude affect GDP?

The good news is that we can answer that question with just back-of-the-envelope math! And we can do it on a "daily" basis.

The Multiplier Effect - Source: Lion Investing That $108 billion reduction in federal government spending works out to be $3.6 billion per day. We know that the GDP multiplier for all government spending in the U.S. is 0.6, which we know from research published by the U.S. Federal Reserve applies when the nation's official unemployment rate is over 7.5%. Which is the case at present, thanks to the furloughing of federal government employees! If it were under 7.5%, we would need to use a GDP multiplier of 0.5 to account for the shock of a sudden change in government spending, as government spending is considered to deliver even less of an impact to GDP when the economy is in a healthier state.

Taking our potential government spending reduction of $3.6 billion per day, and multiplying it by our GDP multiplier for government spending of 0.6, we find that the U.S. economy will lose out the equivalent of $2.16 billion worth of GDP per each day that Uncle Sam doesn't have his credit limit reset to a higher level.

Now, to measure the impact upon GDP, just multiply that number by the number of days the U.S. federal government operates in that situation!

If played out through the remaining 78 days of 2013, assuming we stick with President Obama's planned schedule for putting the U.S. federal government into default, that would reduce the nation's GDP for the fourth quarter of 2013 by $168.48 billion.

To put that number into perspective, the fiscal drag produced by the $56.3 billion by which U.S. federal taxes will be higher in the fourth quarter of 2013 than they were in the fourth quarter of 2012 thanks to President Obama's tax hikes that took effect back in January 2013, GDP in the U.S. will be nearly $168.92 billion smaller in 2013-Q4 than it would otherwise have been given the GDP multiplier for taxes.

Why, that's almost exactly the same amount! Perhaps that explains why President Obama has been so intent on doubling down on his "no negotiation with the duly elected representatives of American citizens" strategy - he'll produce twice the negative fiscal drag on the U.S. economy in 2013-Q4 if only he and his supporters can stick with it!

And yes, numbers like those mean a recession, as the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programs won't produce enough juice for the economy to offset that kind of fiscal drag, offsetting only somewhere between $250 billion and $290 billion of the hit if the debt ceiling isn't increased by 31 December 2013.

Of course, if the debt ceiling situation is resolved sooner than than, it is very much possible that the U.S. will have positive economic growth in 2013-Q4 - only seeing slower growth than it would have had instead. Which is pretty much the story for every quarter during President Obama's entire tenure in office.



Rabu, 09 Oktober 2013

The Sebelius Solution

On Monday, 7 October 2013, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and Obama administration cabinet member endorsed the idea of Americans skipping out on buying health insurance in 2014 in favor of paying the "penalty" tax instead in an interview with the nation's most-trusted news anchor, Jon Stewart:

Real Clear Politics describes the interview:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius defended Obamacare in a very contentious interview with Daily Show host Jon Stewart on Monday night.

Stewart pressed Sebelius on why businesses get a one-year delay on Obamacare but individuals do not. After several attempts for an answer, Sebelius eventually said individuals could delay Obamacare for a year -- by paying the penalty.

JON STEWART: So this is what some would consider the first mall that's been created [for purchasing health care insurance].

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: You bet. The first -- new rules for companies.

STEWART: So why is it that individuals, though, couldn't say that they didn't want to do it just for a year, like business?

SEBELIUS: Well, they can.

STEWART: Oh, they --

SEBELIUS: They'd pay a fine. They'd pay a fine at the end of the year, but they don't have to -- I mean, they can say I didn't want to do it. The theory is they can't pick and choose if they're going to get hit by a bus or diagnosed with a illness. For a lot of young folks, there is one fall on the basketball court, one auto accident from a lifetime of hospital bills they can't pay.

Now, unlike the nation's politically-connected businesses, who won't have to pay the penalty tax they otherwise would have to pay thanks to President Obama's arbitrary choice to disregard the legal provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for one year on their behalf, the Obama administration wants individual Americans to choose between paying hundreds, if not thousands for health insurance, or lose the subsidy tax credit for buying health insurance when they file their income taxes, which would mean a slightly higher income tax bill.

But, maybe that's something that's worth doing. It all depends on how much extra taxes you would have to pay if you chose to delay your personal implementation of the Obamacare law compared to how much you would have to pay for health insurance coverage. Fortunately for you, we have an app to help you decide if you should pursue the Sebelius solution!

You'll need to go to the government's health insurance marketplace portal to track down the relevant data that you'll need to enter in the tool below, which is needed to either determine how much your health insurance subsidy tax credit would be or your tax (good luck with that!), or you can take advantage of the plan premium data for 34 states that Hugh Chou extracted from that site while it actually worked during a brief portion of its existence.











Your Household Data
Input Data Values
Your Total Household Income, or Modified Adjusted Gross Income (If Known)
Number of Household Members
Number of Children in Household
Your State's Health Insurance Exchange Data
Select Your State (Select "United States" If Your Territory Isn't Listed)
Monthly Premium for the Second Lowest-Cost "Silver" Plan Available To You
Monthly Premium for the Lowest-Cost "Bronze" Plan Available To You
Monthly Premium for the Health Insurance Plan You're Considering Purchasing












Your Annual Health Insurance Results
Calculated Results Values
Annual Premium (Full Price) of the Health Insurance Plan You're Considering Purchasing
Annual Subsidy Tax Credit You'll Receive For Buying This Health Insurance
Your Annual Out-of-Pocket Costs
For Health Insurance (Premium Only, No Co-Pays or Deductibles)
For the Alternative Tax If You Don't Purchase Health Insurance (And Not Provided by Your Employer)
Potential Savings or Costs If You Choose to Pay the Tax Instead of the Premium
Your Potential Savings (or Costs, if Negative)
The Bottom Line

The default data in our tool above is designed to consider the case of a single mother who is a part-time Trader Joe's employee in California, and who is being forced out of their equivalent "Gold"-level employer-provided plan into a more "affordable", but lower quality "Silver"-level plan through Obamacare.

Oh, and while we're at it, the table below shows the odds of either a man or woman of the indicated ages requiring the kind of hospital care that Kathleen Sebelius described in her interview with Stewart:












Chance of Going to Hospital
Age Group Female Male
Less than 1 1 in 3 1 in 2
1 - 10 1 in 10 1 in 8
10 - 20 1 in 9 1 in 10
20 - 30 1 in 4 1 in 8
30 - 40 1 in 3 1 in 6
40 - 50 1 in 4 1 in 4
50 - 60 1 in 3 1 in 3
60 - 70 1 in 2 1 in 2
70 and Older 4 in 5 (1 in 1.25) 4 in 5 (1 in 1.25)

In case you're wondering why the odds of a woman being admitted to a hospital is double that for a man between the ages of 20 and 40, it largely has to do with a medical condition called "pregnancy", which is something that most people can very easily plan around. Speaking of which, if one plans their due date properly, they could hold out until the next enrollment period to get covered, paying the tax instead, if much cheaper, until their new coverage kicks in to cover the medical expenses associated with having a child. Then perhaps dropping it again after their and their child's odds of needing medical care drops to much lower levels.

Let's call that the family plan version of the Sebelius Solution!

But then, what if getting low income people to accept their income tax increase is the whole point of Obamacare? In that light, since it would cost the federal government more in subsidies to actually support people buying health insurance through its exchanges, and since it stands to gain higher tax revenue if it can get them to choose not to, or as it is working out, because they can't because the exchanges are dysfunctional (perhaps because they were never intended to work), it would make sense for the tax hungry members of the Obama administration to push this very reasonable alternative....



Selasa, 08 Oktober 2013

The Noisy Irritant Strikes Again!

Take a look at the following chart, a snapshot of the trading activity on 8 October 2013 through 2:02 PM EDT:

Snapshot of S&P 500 Index Value, 8 October 2013, through 2:02 PM EDT - Source: Google Finance

Now, looking at that chart, we can identify 10:46 AM EDT as the approximate point in time, give or take a minute, at which the investors suddenly reacted negatively to some event. Since it typically takes investors just two to four minutes to react to an event they weren't expecting, that actually market the end of the period of time in which we would need to look for a market moving event. Want to guess what major market moving news hit the wires within that window of time?

We won't keep you in suspense. The noisy irritant in the White House is behaving as we expected. USA Today's David Jackson reports:

President Obama called House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday, again telling the Ohio Republican he will not negotiate on budget items until the GOP-run House ends the shutdown and raises the debt ceiling.

Obama also scheduled a White House statement on the budget shutdown for 2 p.m.; he will also take questions from reporters.

"The president is willing to negotiate with Republicans -- after the threat of government shutdown and default have been removed -- over policies that Republicans think would strengthen the country," said a White House readout of the 10:45 a.m. phone call to the House speaker.

The readout noted that Obama "repeated what he told (Boehner) when they met at the White House last week."

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck confirmed the conversation, saying that "the president called the speaker again today to reiterate that he won't negotiate on a government funding bill or debt limit increase."

Now, that's what we would describe as a presidential-class tantrum, especially because the President had to go out of his way to deliver it.

7 Ways to Form A "Pack" So You Can Hunt Bigger Game


We've talked before about what each of us can learn from the lion, the king of the jungle. I've got a particular fondness to lions because of a couple of things the scriptures teach us about the nature of these big cats and how we're to emulate them.  We also know that too many of us spend too much time and too much effort for too little result because we try to fight alone. .Here are some things you can do to start forming your own pack and going after bigger game.

#1 - Make a list of all the people who care about the issue. Really care about it.

#2 - Identify two of them to talk to. Set up a breakfast or lunch meeting. Lay out my aspirations to see if they are interested. My goal is to get another meeting with them.

#3 - Brainstorm with the first supporter about a list of (mostly unempowered) targets who might like to get involved. Put together a tight schedule for contacting 5-10 people from that list.

#4 - Start a master file listing all the people that I want involved in the project.

#5 - Never let a chance to brief a co-conspirator or potential co-conspirator pass.  In other words, never pass up a chance to tell your story!

#6 - Find an enthusiast to use the product/service.

#7 - Put this first enthusiast in charge of finding others.

It's as simple as that.  We have to stop trying to do so much alone.  And, for my friends reading this... Yes. I am looking in the mirror right now!









Mark Anthony McCray helps people live on PURPOSE, achieve higher PERFORMANCE and experience true PROSPERITY. Be sure to subscribe to this blog so you don't miss a thing and forward this to a friend if you found it helpful. All material © Copyright, Mark Anthony McCray unless otherwise noted!

He can be reached in the following ways:

Mark@LiveBIGDieEmpty.com
Phone: 281-846-5720
Twitter: @LiveBIGDieEmpty
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/LiveBIGDieEmpty
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/markanthonymccray/
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/103149858138414160703/posts
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/markanthonymccray
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/markmccray/

Click HERE for information on Mark as a speaker or presenter and HERE to learn about coaching programs to help you realize your potential and live more prosperously!

A Microrecession Dead Cat Bounce?

We may have been too optimistic last month in noting the end of a year-long period of microrecession in the U.S. economy.

Here, we've been tracking the number of public U.S. companies that have been announcing decreases in their dividends each month. August 2013 had seen the number of U.S. companies acting to cut their dividends drop below the key level of 10 per month, which we've previously observed marks the boundary between a growing U.S. economy and a U.S. economy that is experiencing recessionary conditions.

The data for September 2013 is now out, and the early suggestion is that the U.S. economy is not yet out of the woods.

Monthly Number of Public U.S. Companies Posting Dividend Decreases, January 2004 through September 2013

As we ask in the chart, is this a proverbial dead cat bounce (a one-time event as the number of companies acting to cut their dividends bounces back into recessionary territory) or is the U.S. economy experiencing the same kind of recessionary conditions that characterized the entire year from July 2012 through July 2013?

Dead Cat Bounce - Source: InvestmentPath.com

There are two things of which we can be sure. Neither the impact of the partial U.S. government shutdown, which didn't even begin until 1 October 2013, nor the potential impact of a U.S. Treasury default on the U.S. national debt that President Obama has planned for 17 October 2013 are responsible for this outcome.

Instead, since the number of public U.S. companies announcing dividend cuts each month is perhaps the single best indicator of the real-time health of the private sector of the U.S. economy, what the data for September 2013 really suggests is that the U.S. economy is quite not as strong as the previous data indicated.

And that could be a more significant factor in driving today's stock prices than the increasing level of political noise emanating from Washington D.C.

Image Credit: InvestmentPaths.com.

Senin, 07 Oktober 2013

Nice Market You Have There. Shame If Something Should Happen To It.

We're not going to update our favorite chart this week, as we're still busy modifying it to cover the activity we anticipate into 2014. So instead, we thought we'd analyze the biggest market action, or non-action as the case really was, from last week!

Our story all begins with President Obama's interview with CNBC at market close on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 (transcript available):

By the next morning, the market had reacted in such a way to the President's comments that CNBC was compelled to report how investors were interpreting them, which is reflected in our original headline for this post. CNBC's Finance Editor Jeff Cox writes in Wall Street wonders if Obama wants a selloff:

In an exclusive interview with CNBC, the president warned Wall Street that this shutdown could be different. Previous halts in nonessential government activities have caused little market reaction, with major averages actually rising most of the time in the month after the shutdowns are settled.

Obama's remarks indicated to some observers that he is trying to push investors out of the relative complacency they have shown so far. Futures were broadly lower Thursday, indicating markets may be taking heed.

"They feel that a severe market selloff would be helpful to break the logjam," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group in Washington. "It would be helpful in making the Republicans sue for peace. Obama and [Senate minority leader] Harry Reid believe that."

If President Obama was looking to trigger a selloff for Thursday, he succeeded. The chart below shows the trajectory of the S&P 500 from Monday, 30 September 2013 through Friday, 4 October 2013. Note the movement on Thursday, 3 October 2013:

S&P 500 from 30 September 2013 through 4 October 2013 - Source: Google Finance

In the first hour after opening, the S&P 500 index fell 10 points in the first hour before stabilizing, holding at a level of about 1678 until 11:26 AM EDT. That was the point in time at which the news broke that Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, who shares political connections with President Obama in Chicago, was warning of the potential impact that a debt default by the Obama administration would have on the world economy (the linked article was originally posted at 11:26 AM EDT).

That news was sufficient to take the S&P to its low of 1671 for the day, hitting bottom just after noon had keeping near that level until 12:26 PM EDT.

What happened next was perhaps the most remarkable event of the day. At 12:19 PM EDT, he New York Times reported that the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, had told colleagues that he was "determined to avoid a federal default and is willing to pass a measure through a combination of Republican and Democratic votes", which investors apparently took several minutes to absorb before reacting.

Their reaction was sufficient to wipe out the effect of IMF head Christine Lagarde's comments, and the market bounced back up to the 1680 level before trading in a narrow range between 1678 and 1682 for the rest of the day, closing at the low end of that range. By the end of trading on Friday, 4 October 2013, the market had wiped out the negative impact of President Obama's threatened default altogether, as it recovered to its pre-Obama threatening warning level.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf Record - Source: Wikipedia

What we find interesting in all this is that there was so little effect on the market from the noise contributed by each of these political actors. The current President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, in seeking to create a market selloff to exploit for his own political advantage, couldn't huff and puff enough to make the S&P 500 blow down by much more than 10 points. Meanwhile, the comments of the head of he International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, who owes her position to President Obama's patronage, only succeeded in pushing it down another seven points.

By contrast, the Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner's comments reassured the markets enough to recover by anywhere from 7 to 12 points. Put another way, his calming influence cancelled out the negative influence of head of the IMF and, for good portion of that Thursday afternoon, periodically exceeded the negative influence of the President in terms of total point movement.

Perhaps things will change and President Obama's negative influence will grow as we get closer to the President's planned default date. For now though, it's pretty plain that the market isn't reacting the way that President Obama wants, as the market's action on Thursday, 3 October 2013 indicates that it largely views him as a noisy irritant. That's not something that the President can long afford to continue if he wants avoid an early lame duck status, so we think it's likely that he'll instead increase his level of apparent irrationality in refusing to compromise on implementing his increasingly-troubled "affordable" health insurance initiative and his desire to sustain excessive levels of government spending.

Consequently, we expect the political noise affecting the markets to continue and grow louder. We're pretty sure that the markets would really rather get back to real business and not have to continue paying attention to irrational and ineffective executive leadership in Washington D.C. But then, that's the kind of leadership that emanates from the nation's capitol these days.

Jumat, 04 Oktober 2013

How To Brush Your Teeth in 6 Seconds

Invention often involves solving problems that many people might not think are problems until they see what a free-market developed solution for it might be.

A great example of that is flavored toothpaste. In the old Soviet Union, with its centralized economic planning, there was only one flavor of toothpaste, as the communists who ran the country saw no need for the government's toothpaste factories to produce any more than one flavor of toothpaste, viewing the idea of having more than one flavor as being extremely wasteful. That view is shared by many of today's college campus Marxists and many of Washington D.C.'s bureaucrats and elected officials who believe "one size fits all":

In the workshop "The Meaning of Marxism," Socialist Worker journalist Eric Ruder explained basic Marxist theory to a filled classroom.

He addressed the conundrum that most people today seem relatively well-off under capitalism.

"We're so much more productive as a society, literally thousands of times more so, except we let huge proportions [of people] actually die of starvation and material want, for no particular reason," he said. "It's a social problem, not one of material wealth."

Towards the end of the lecture, Ruder used toothpaste as an example of capitalism's inefficiencies.

"If you no longer have one section competing against another, you start to eliminate all kinds of waste," he said, referencing toothpaste brands Colgate and Crest.

Ruder then described the "wastefulness" of toothpaste's price: "About 90% of the price you pay for toothpaste goes into packaging, advertising, and profit, and 10% is the actual contents of the toothpaste."

"If you look into our economy as a whole, there is waste of that sort everywhere that you look," he said.

That's exactly the kind of progressive thinking they had in the Soviet Union, which they put into real world action. The Soviet Union's central economic planners made sure that just one kind of toothpaste would be manufactured waste-free in their government-owned toothpaste factories, which would all be done without profit.

The results were about what anybody with any real common sense would think. There were massive and chronic shortages of toothpaste, because there was no incentive for the government's toothpaste makers to produce enough toothpaste to meet their captive peoples' needs for it. As a result, their teeth suffered mightily.

And then it got even worse, because when don't have to ever improve a product or develop a new one to try to win consumers to earn a profit and continue doing business in a competitive market, you don't develop new and better technologies to meet the needs of the people whose needs you claim to satisfy, but aren't satisfying because you view the kind of marketing research and development it takes to do that as wasteful activity. Here's what that meant in the one-party-fits-all communist dictatorship:

Toothpaste meant whatever was available. Toothbrushes had hard bristles that cut the gums, sometimes doing more harm than good. Dental technologies were years behind those of the West; the 17-year-old who was crowned Miss USSR in 1990 flew to Philadelphia the same year to have the gap in her teeth closed and a few cavities filled.

Now, imagine yourself in that environment. Suppose that when you had the one glorious socialist toothpaste, you didn't like how it tasted, as you ripped your gums while brushing. How much incentive would you have to continue brushing your teeth?

As a result, in striving to prevent "wasteful" activity, the "know-it-alls" of the Soviet Union created an even worse level of waste. One measured by wasted teeth and health and lives. If only the Soviet socialists really cared more about people, but then, their answer to that was that the people wouldn't have to pay to go to the dentist to fix their teeth. Guess what else was in very short supply in the old Soviet Union, where the incentive to provide good dental health care just wasn't there....

Like the Soviet Union's central planners, today's progressives miss the fundamental lesson about toothpaste - it only works to fight the worse waste of tooth decay and other oral diseases when it's used. Having more than one flavor to choose from many means it's more likely that you'll find a toothpaste you are willing to use often. And for the trivial cost associated with the packaging of toothpaste to differentiate it from others so consumers can identify it on store shelves, consumers can have as much of the kind of toothpaste they want to have thanks to the incentive of profit for its producers and the marketing and advertising they did to help you to find the toothpaste solution that worked best for you.

And that brings us to what we really wanted to share with you today. Imagine a new kind of toothbrush that's so individualized for you that you can brush your teeth with it in just six seconds. It's called the "Blizzadent" (HT: Core77, who also provides a neat visual history of the technology of toothbrushes):

You can read more about how it works here, but basically, they take a 3-D scan of your teeth from your dentist to custom build a unique toothbrush for you, which optimizes the toothbrushing process by brushing all your teeth, and your gums, at the same time, using the optimal techniques for doing so - providing far better oral hygiene than you might ever be able to achieve using a regular toothbrush. You put some liquid toothpaste (oh no, another kind!) on your tongue to coat your upper teeth, then put Blizzadent toothbrush it in your mouth, then bite and grind your teeth on it 10-15 times, rinse it out, and you're done, having perhaps done the best job in brushing your teeth that you ever hope to do (at least, until a new invention comes along), all in about six seconds. What's more, Blizzadent claims their toothbrush can last an entire year.

We'll let you be the judge if it's worth the asking price, which you'll have to balance against the cost of regular toothbrushes, dental floss and potential dentistry expenses that you might now be able to avoid because you're using a tool that does a better job in promoting your dental health.

It's exactly the sort of capitalist-invented device that today's progressives and Marxists would view as wasteful. But then, they've already proven they don't really care about you, much less the condition of your health, so why should you listen to them or do what they tell you to do?