Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Let's Not Forget Voluntarism



The Minneapolis Star Ledger passed on this, which is submitted BEFORE the IRS scandal broke. A  substantially different version appeared on Bloomberg Echoes last week.

Washington's budget impasse could be ameliorated if the government would allow the ancient  American tradition of voluntarism to again thrive.

Voluntarism means relying on voluntary action to achieve goals. It can be evoked and coordinated by non-profit organizations, mutual businesses, or for-profit stock corporations. When early Americans faced a problem requiring coordinated action they did not automatically run to Washington for aid. Instead, they studied the problem and attempted to solve it rationally.

Early Americans occasionally concluded that some level of government (rarely federal, sometimes state, usually local) was best suited to combat the problem. Typically, however, they believed that voluntarism was a better option. That sometimes meant forming a for-profit corporation but in specific areas of concern, especially insurance and banking, they sometimes found mutualism more conducive to solving their problems. Surprisingly often, they formed non-profit organizations (NGOs) ranging from charities to fraternal orders to health clinics to “encouragement” associations.

The overwhelming preference for voluntary over government problem solving is why early America has been called a corporation nation and a nation of joiners. By relying heavily on non-profit voluntarism, Americans essentially taxed themselves to combat social problems. They did so at a relatively high level because they closely controlled their own efforts and could focus on outcomes rather than inputs. If an initiative fell short of its goal, they had strong incentives to discern why and respond accordingly.

Beginning with the New Deal, however, voluntarism began to wane, shrinking to the point that Americans even started to bowl alone. It survives in pockets, of course, but today many Americans confronting challenges automatically turn to Washington for solutions.

I didn't understand why Americans today largely neglect voluntarism until I joined an innovative start up NGO called Historians Against Slavery (HAS). The organization exists to help the public to understand that although the Civil War and Thirteenth Amendment ended chattel slavery, they did not end labor coercion, which persists to this day in the form of trafficked sex workers, under or even unpaid immigrant domestic and farm workers and prison laborers, and other forms.

Given the importance of its cause, HAS found it easy to attract pledges sufficient to revamp its website, establish a scholarly book series, hold board meetings, and even plan a large conference for K-12 teachers, antislavery activists, and slavery scholars in Cincinnati this fall. But all that effort may go for naught because the Internal Revenue Service could take up to a year to grant it non-profit tax status and it has proven difficult to turn pledges into actual donations without assurances of tax deductibility.

An attorney we contacted about the matter said that such delays are commonplace. Such a long delay is of course unjustifiable technologically: a competent graduate student could create a program that would be sufficiently astute to grant immediate non-profit status for simple organizations like HAS. It is also unjustifiable on policy grounds: the government should encourage voluntarism, not squelch start up NGOs by denying them tax exempt status in their first, crucial year.

Whether the delay is a function of general government incompetence, a la the Veterans Affairs  disability claims backlog, or a sinister attempt to prevent a revival of voluntarism I cannot pretend to know. I do know, however, that the nation's budget situation would look much better if the government would allow voluntary efforts to crowd it out instead of the other way around.

Solving the Gun Control and Budget Impasses



Washington today faces two major domestic policy issues, gun control and the federal budget. Interestingly, reforming the former could help to ameliorate the latter.

Early in the twenty-first century, the text of the Second Amendment can seem inscrutable: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founders were intelligent people. The parts about the militia and security were intentional, not make weight or window dressing. What in the world could the Founders have meant?

After years of studying the issue, I’ve concluded that the Founders believed that America would always have state militias. State governments, they believed, would always require males of military age to own a serviceable military firearm and to train with it on muster days. They would always modestly fine those who did not, would not, or could not train at specified intervals.

In addition to raising revenues from those fines, militia muster provided an opportunity to monitor men on an ongoing basis. Those who neither mustered nor paid their fines were outlaws with no Constitutional right to own military grade weapons: muskets, bayonets, and cannons then, and presumably assault weapons today. (They retained, however, the natural right to bear less lethal firearms for sport and self-defense.)

The notion of a civilian militia is neither silly nor antiquated: several nations, including Switzerland and Israel, maintain one to this day. To the Founders, state militias were the last awful way to check tyrannical government, hence the phrase about the security of a free state.

The notion that individual citizens acting in small, uncoordinated units could thwart a tyrannical federal government is of course preposterous. A well-regulated state militia, by contrast, would prove a formidable foe, especially if the Army was disbanded, as the Founders advised. There was no greater threat to Americans’ liberties, they believed, than a standing army (i.e., one that remained large in peacetime, like we have had since World War II).

Militias are not free but they cost far less than a standing army and would not appear on the federal budget. Spending on the Marines, Air Force, and Navy would still be substantial but the overall military budget would be far less than projected and the American people would arguably be safer, even from foreign invasions, remote as that threat appears. And a particularly well-regulated militia would also allow cuts to FEMA and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security. (It might even cut down on the obesity problem too!)

But aye, there is the problem. Few have incentives to switch back to a militia system and many interests would be threatened by it. So instead of rationally debating a policy change that could scotch two snakes with a single stick, the status quo will prevail once again … until it can’t anymore.

What Is California Attempting to Hide?

An interesting article on a recently passed law in California came my way today regarding Obamacare secrecy in California.

Please consider California exchange granted secrecy.
A California law that created an agency to oversee national health care reforms granted it broad authority to conceal spending on the contractors that will perform most of its functions, potentially shielding the public from seeing how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent.

The degree of secrecy afforded Covered California appears unique among states attempting to establish their own health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama's signature health law.

An Associated Press review of the 16 other states that have opted for state-run marketplaces shows the California agency was given powers that are the most restrictive in what information is required to be made public.

It's routine in government to keep bids secret until contracts are awarded, so one vendor does not get an unfair advantage over others. After a bid is awarded, contracts generally become fully public.

In setting up the California exchange, lawmakers gave it the authority to keep all contracts private for a year and the amounts paid secret indefinitely. "Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to this title shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates," reads the code specifying what exchange records are exempt from public disclosure.

According to agency documents, Covered California plans to spend nearly $458 million on outside vendors by the end of 2014, covering lawyers, consultants, public relations advisers and other functions.

Other exchange records that are allowed to be kept secret include those that reveal recommendations, research, strategy of the board or its staff, or those that provide instructions, advice or training to employees. Minutes of the board meetings also are exempt from disclosure.
So what does California have to hide? More specifically what do the legislators (especially California Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles) have to hide? Contracts awarded to the non-low bidder? Contracts awarded to friends and family of legislators? Kickbacks?

With $458 million on outside vendors by the end of 2014, there are plenty of non-legitimate reasons for wanting to keep everything a secret.

With all the secrecy it's hard to say precisely who is covering up for whom, or why, but one thing is crystal clear: This secrecy is good for someone on the take and bad for taxpayers.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Gold ETF Liquidates 300 Tons of Gold This Year; Reflections on Momentum Trading

Investors in the Gold ETF - GLD liquidated 300 tons of the metal this year.

The reason? People are tired of losing money watching gold sink while the S&P soars.

Tom Lydon, the editor of ETF Trends, says the disposal of over 600,000 pounds of gold so far this year "amazing" and "incredible." Click on above link for a video interview with Lydon.

Gold vs. S&P 500

GLD Chart
GLD data by YCharts


Reflections on Momentum Trading

Since late 2012 the S&P 500 has been on a nonstop rise, while gold has gone the other way. People have thrown in the towel on gold in favor of momentum trading in stocks.

It seems nearly everyone is a momentum trader now, one of the consequences of inept central bank bubble-blowing policy.

Louise Yamada says it's Time for Gold Bulls to Abandon Hope.  See my response in Wild Swings in Gold and Silver; Time to Give Up Hope?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com 

Monday, May 20, 2013

Merkel Pins Cameron in Corner; Will Cameron Bury His Head in the Sand, Pretending to Not Notice?

UK prime minister, David Cameron, promised to hold a referendum on whether Great Britain should remain in the EU, but only on two conditions. The first condition, that Cameron be re-elected as prime minister is iffy enough.

The second condition, that Cameron renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty, I said would never happen. And it won't.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel sealed the fate on that score as Berlin plans to streamline EU but avoid wholesale treaty change.
Berlin is drawing up plans for treaty changes to streamline decision-making in the eurozone, while stopping short of any wholesale renegotiation that would allow the UK to repatriate powers from Brussels.

Although Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has expressed her desire to keep the UK inside the EU, the move being discussed in Berlin would thwart a plan by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to piggyback on eurozone reforms to renegotiate the British relationship with Brussels.

Mr Cameron had hoped to exploit renewed interest in Berlin for wholesale EU treaty changes as a way to renegotiate the UK’s membership terms. But Berlin’s strategy for a new, narrowly focused treaty could force the UK premier into a repeat of the dilemma he faced in December 2011, when Mr Cameron rejected the fiscal compact treaty but most other EU countries went along without him.

Senior German officials acknowledged that they were isolated on treaty change, which is fraught with political landmines in several countries – particularly France, which would probably require a national referendum if major changes were made to EU law.

The timing of treaty changes remains a matter of debate but it could come as early as next year, after elections to the European parliament in May. The way ahead is due to be discussed at a summit next month.
Pinned in the Corner

The sooner Merkel proceeds with her strategy, the better for everyone involved, especially UK citizens. Merkel has effectively preempted Cameron's strategy in a way he cannot realistically deny.

Since there is now no possible hope of wholesale renegotiation (not that there ever really was in the first place), there is no reason for the UK to avoid a referendum now.

Will Cameron bury his head in the sand like an ostrich once again? We will find out shortly.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Obamacare Premiums 47% Higher But Deductibles 27% Lower Than Grandfathered Health Plans; Obamacare Lies

Here's the question of the day: If you have a choice (and you many not for long because companies are abandoning grandfathered plans) Should you skip Obamacare and keep your old plan?
Any policy in place on March 23, 2010, the day health reform was enacted, falls under the grandfather exemption. As the Obama administration put it, if you like your plan, your doctor or both, you can keep them. Last year some 60 percent of employers, large and small, offered at least one grandfathered plan during open enrollment, according to the Kaiser survey. New employees can also join a grandfathered plan so long as the company has maintained consecutive enrollment in it.

For old plans as well as new ones, premiums are likely to rise next year - though the old plans still could be considerably more affordable than the newer ones.

Technically, a plan can stay grandfathered indefinitely, but few, if any, will. Most grandfathered plans have gone away already, according to the human-resources consultancy Mercer, which estimates only about a third of employers are expected to offer one in 2013.

Across the board, it is costs that will lead to the disappearance of most grandfathered plans. If employers or individual plans want to keep grandfathered status, they will have little leeway to pass higher costs along to policyholders. Any policy that increases co-payments, deductibles or co-insurance forfeits its grandfathered status.

Comparison Points

  • Grandfathered plans don't have to provide full, co-payment-free coverage of preventive services, such as flu shots, mammograms and cholesterol screenings.
  • Grandfathered plans don't have to cover a government-designated "essential benefits package" of procedures and treatments.
  • Grandfathered plans may require prior authorization for out-of-network emergency care, unlike with new plans.
  • Grandfathered policies bought by individuals carry their own exclusions, like a $750,000 annual cap on reimbursement for the aforementioned essential benefits, including hospitalization, emergency services or pediatric care.
  • The online insurance broker eHealthInsurance found that premiums were 47 percent higher and deductibles were 27 percent lower than for individual plans that will incorporate all of PPACA's new rules.
  • Average monthly premiums for individuals in plans without the newly required benefits — the closest equivalent to grandfathered plans — were $190 versus $279. Average deductibles for individuals were $2,257 versus $3,079.

Obamacare Lie:  "You Can Keep Your Existing Plan"

That difference in monthly premiums of $190 vs. $279 will entice many to keep their existing plan, assuming it is still offered. However, that setup won't last very long because companies cannot raise premiums on grandfathered plans.

Simply put, Obama lied when he said "you can keep your existing plan", knowing full well the law was purposely written to make sure that would not happen over time.

Eventually you will be stuck with a new Obamacare plan and higher premiums whether you like your existing plan or not.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Wild Swings in Gold and Silver; Time to Give Up Hope?

Overnight action in gold and silver was interesting to say the least. Silver plunged 10% and was halted four times in a flash crash, of sorts, yet is now in the green.

Silver 10-Minute Chart


click on chart for sharper image

Silver hit as low as $20.25 and as high as $23.24. The maximum rally from the low was 14.8%

Gold 10-Minute Chart



click on chart for sharper image

Action in gold was also pronounced, but not quite as wild as silver. Gold fell $25 from the open but is now up $22 and and in the second-to-last 1--minute candle (about 10 minutes ago from this posting) was up another $10.

Time to Give Up Hope?

Louise Yamada says it's Time for Gold Bulls to Abandon Hope. Is it? I think most already have. There is amazing pessimism in the sector already, and abandonment of hope is what it takes to set a bottom.

Are We There Yet?

I don't know if we have reached the point of extreme pessimism yet, but nor does anyone else.

Are we close? I believe so.

Large Specs Trim Gold, Silver Net Longs

Please consider Large Specs Trim Gold, Silver Net Longs.
Large speculators continued to pare their net bullish positioning for gold and silver futures and options but increased it for platinum and palladium during the most recent reporting period for data compiled by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Money managers in the CFTC’s “disaggregated” report were net long by 39,216 contracts for futures and options combined, but this is down from 49,260 the prior week and is the lowest tally since this reporting format began in 2009. In the longer-running “legacy” report, the non-commercials – commonly referred to as the funds – cut their net long to 68,942 lots from 78,871 the prior week. This now stands at the lowest level since late 2008.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch pointed out that large speculators continued to unwind long positions. The number of total longs in the disaggregated report fell by 2,986, while the number in the legacy report fell by 5,284.

Further, speculators continue to add short positions, pointed out UBS and TD Securities. TDS said this is occurring amid concerns the Federal Reserve may taper its monetary stimulus, thereby weighing on sentiment. Money managers added 7,057 fresh shorts, while non-commercials added 4,645. UBS reported that total speculative gross short positions in gold are at a record high and double the level from the start of the year.

Meanwhile, net speculative length rose for the platinum group metals. Standard Bank described these metals as “experiencing supply-side distress” that means more potential for increased investor demand.

Money managers bumped up their platinum net length to 23,703 lots from 21,819 the previous week, while non-commercials increased this to 32,734 from 30,641. In both cases, this was largely due to fresh buying. Money managers added 1,421 new long positions, while non-commercials added 1,247.
In percentage terms, the decline from just over 1900 to the $1325 area is just a normal looking correction. Yet, fund speculation is at the lowest level since 2008.

While not a timing mechanism, pessimism seems rather extreme for such a normal looking correction.

Nothing has changed fundamentally as irrational exuberance abounds in nearly all the equity and bond markets, all running on nothing but momentum and unwarranted faith in the Fed to keep the bubbles expanding.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com