Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[yernamehear]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

bush sr. ran an oil corp but his boy couldn't run a lemonade stand. bush sr. was a way better pres than bush jr.

i like my plumber... but he'd last 37 seconds as president like all the other armchair quarterbacks out there.

Remember that the POTUS is just a person, even though we want to believe they are all above average. In my lifetime I think there have only been mediocre to poor except maybe Eisenhower and Reagan. BushI vs. BushII? Not much to differentiate-country club repubs.

Most history is an "accident"= right place/right time. Reagan comes to mind. He was a pretty mediocre governor, but a very good president (far from perfect). FDR= excellent prosecution of the war, pretty mediocre domestically (active, but caused as much damage as benefit).

As I said, the pols are just the tip of the iceberg. The businessmen, who used to help keep the pols in line, have gone brain dead too. I think that has more to do with our economic problems that some dopey pol/consultant.

[vinoveri]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

There is no doubt that I am going to upset a lot of Americans here; but my reaction to the Fox News report is that it represents the most serious example of flagrant Treason, I have ever seen, or heard described.

The United States is supposed to be a free nation led by people that recognise the duties imposed by the ideals set into stone by their constitution; but what we see is a desperate group of unworthy criminals prepared to do anything they can to undermine the purpose of that freedom.

Here in the UK, I would expect that the smiling individual that headed up the report AND the fellow followers in the background .... running right to the top of the tree of responsibility; would have been summarily shown the door, never to find such employment anywhere again.

Considering that there are millions of Arabs putting their lives on the line for the same freedoms denied to them under dictatorships liberally propped up by CIA money for many decades; perhaps this is only to be expected.

I call that broadcast Treason.

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Thomas More .... the most noted authors of dystopian fiction .... and not coincidently all British!

Sometimes I fear we americans like our gilded cages a bit too much.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

CI: As they did in the case of the health care debate?
EJ: Yes, as they did in the case of the so-called health care so-called “debate.” That debate was framed by health insurance companies. The key principle is this: whoever frames the debate wins the debate. The objective for a group of interests is to narrow the debate to two positions, the average of which is a positive outcome for the interested parties. The health care “debate” was framed between death panels versus free enterprise. The health care plan we got as a result was a compromise between two absurd extremes. Imagine if the debate was instead about which approach achieves the lowest economic rents and management overhead, helps the most citizens, best promotes sickness prevention, encourages medical technology innovation, and motivates bright young people to enter the medical industry? Instead, in the end the health insurers gave up the immoral privilege of denying coverage to those who most need it, a privilege they should never of had in the first place, in exchange for 40 million new customers at taxpayer expense. Good deal for the health insurers, bad deal for the American people. And it will happen again and again and again as long as the system persists. My friends in Europe and Asia watch slack jawed at the way public policy issues are debated in the US. But most Americans have no idea how broken our media is, yet wonder why nothing gets fixed.

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Thomas More .... the most noted authors of dystopian fiction .... and not coincidently all British!

Sometimes I fear we americans like our gilded cages a bit too much.

Blimey! Dystopian..... And, surely, your gilded cage has got very tarnished lately; has all the Gold turned out to be "Fools Gold"?

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

Maybe that's because you're overly enamored with your own libertarian mindset.

The reality is that no health care insurance company should be allowed to deny coverage.

The entire business of insurance is intended for arbitrage. Those who actually use health care less still pay their equalized share according to actuarial averages.

To increase profit by excluding those who experience the unfortunate low probability events - why even bother with insurance at all then? This is worse than pay as you go.

With Pay-as-you-go, at least the damned health insurance company overhead is removed. Or does your libertarian brain not understand the fiscal impact of 500,000+ health care insurance company employees? This number doesn't include Medicare or other government related payment system jobs.

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

about 25% of all healthcare dollars are spent on ins co overheads, and most of that is spent figuring out ways NOT to pay for care: to deny coverage to prospective participants with a history of illness, to retract coverage already paid for by finding a technical problem in the original application so as to avoid responsibility for care already delivered, to refuse payment for medically indicated treatment by declaring it experimental, to refuse payment for prescribed medications because there is something else, cheaper, they'd rather you use [sometimes reasonably] or by saying that the dose is beyond what they want to cover [i've had insurers say they will only pay for 1 of each pill, even if the recommended doses are higher]. what they spend on actual care is called the medical LOSS ratio, and if they can keep that low enough, the c-level execs get big bonuses.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

Not saying this is EJ' view, but some people reach this conclusion by starting with the premise that healthcare is a "right". If you start by saying "anyone who is born has a claim to the services and money of everyone else in order to extend or enhance their life beyond what nature would allow" it's not a stretch to say that companies should be forced to "insure" against known risks even if it means going out of business. Absurd premises yield absurd conclusions.

Hopefully something else was meant. Either way the end point is still true. The goal of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" had very little to do with either protecting patients or making care more affordable.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Maybe that's because you're overly enamored with your own libertarian mindset.

Just out of curiosity, how would you describe your own political views? You seem very intent on bashing libertarians.

The reality is that no health care insurance company should be allowed to deny coverage.

Is this "reality" based on anything other than your authoritative assertion?

Does this reality apply to all insurance companies or simply health care?

about 25% of all healthcare dollars are spent on ins co overheads, and most of that is spent figuring out ways NOT to pay for care: to deny coverage to prospective participants with a history of illness, to retract coverage already paid for by finding a technical problem in the original application so as to avoid responsibility for care already delivered, to refuse payment for medically indicated treatment by declaring it experimental, to refuse payment for prescribed medications because there is something else, cheaper, they'd rather you use [sometimes reasonably] or by saying that the dose is beyond what they want to cover [i've had insurers say they will only pay for 1 of each pill, even if the recommended doses are higher]. what they spend on actual care is called the medical LOSS ratio, and if they can keep that low enough, the c-level execs get big bonuses.

Yes, they are crooks, no doubt about it. They have rigged legislative/judicial system to protect themselves, for example McCarran–Ferguson Act. Most of what you mention are deceptive or fraudulent practices. I spend a good deal of my time dealing with these issues. I also would benefit from more sick people having insurance. Nonetheless, I still don't understand why not providing insurance to people who you know in advance will cost more than they will pay in premiums is somehow illegal or immoral.

[EJ]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

I understand the confusion that my assertion may produce in the minds of some readers.

First let me say that I came to this conclusion after interviewing a half dozen former health insurance industry claim managers. They told me that not paying customers for the insurance product they purchased was the whole point of their role as administrators, and a major source of profits for health insurance companies. They were selected for the job for their unique quality of insensitivity to the suffering that this practice caused the customers they worked with, who were often very ill.

Second, I'll note that most Americans don't know this about their health insurance industry for the same reason most did not know from the early 1920s until the 1980s that cigarette smoking will kill you. Health insurance as a product has been sold by health insurance companies much as consumer and mortgage debt was sold the banking industry since the late 1970s, and exactly as cigarette smoking was sold by the tobacco industry since the 1920 until the federal government finally started to crack down in the 1970s.

How to successfully sell a dangerous product that kills millions of people.

1. Employ trusted public icons to sell the message.

And respected authorities to sell the message.

And famous movie actors in cross-publicity programs, exchanging free cigarette product placements for free movie advertising.

2. Use false messaging, such as by associating smoking with health.

Such as claiming scientific evidence that smoking is safe.

Such as planting false information about the safety of smoking in the press.

3. Profit.

It's tough to execute a libertarian ideal of a society founded on individual responsibility when we have a mass media system of product sales and marketing that can convince millions of American adults that smoking is cool and sophisticated and safe, or that racking up $100,000 on your credit cards and taking out a mortgage that consumes 66% of your income makes you a responsible, successful, and accomplished person, or that voting to take rent seekers out of the health care loop is an affront to the American free enterprise system -- and 99% of the population doesn't even know the system exists.

I've long been fascinated by how consumer rights protection generally, whether tobacco or credit products, has become framed as a conservative versus liberal issue, as if some group doesn't want the consumer debt issue discussed for what it is, the successful sales and marketing of credit products by credit product manufactures.

There are two challenges facing anyone who attempts to educate the public on this topic: one, to convince the reader that 90% of human behavior is driven by unconscious impulses not by free will; and two, that our unconscious has been consciously shaped by others, that many of our own most treasured beliefs were constructed by forces beyond our own will, including the belief in free will itself.

This book that I have in mind is thus a very difficult project from the start. It begins by asking readers to set aside, to suspend, the core belief that their beliefs are their own.

The object of the book will be to allow anyone to deconstruct the sources of their own beliefs so that they can they reconstruct them but consciously, so that they are truly their own, and they are in the end truly free.

Finally, readers can be forgiven for wondering what any of this has to do with economics, markets, and investing. I can make the case that if we understand how beliefs were shaped in the collective mind of the American people in the past, we can determine the beliefs that are being shaped in our minds now, by whom, and why, and use that information for forecasting purposes. Consider the idea of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. There is no conclusive science to back the theory, but many of us believe in it passionately. How did that come about? Who benefits? If we can answer that question we know everything we need to know about how to invest in energy in the future, because AGW isn't about pollution, the output of energy consumption, it's an indirect tool for managing the input, the carbon-based fuels themselves, at a time when a direct approach may produce the crisis that the AGW approach is attempting to diffuse: Peak Cheap Oil.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Consider the idea of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. There is no conclusive science to back the theory, but many of us believe in it passionately. How did that come about? Who benefits? If we can answer that question we know everything we need to know about how to invest in energy in the future, because AGW isn't about pollution, the output of energy consumption, it's an indirect tool for managing the input, the carbon-based fuels themselves, at a time when a direct approach may produce the crisis that the AGW approach is attempting to diffuse: Peak Cheap Oil.

How very, very sad to see you make this incorrect statement.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

How very, very sad to see you make this incorrect statement.

You make EJ's point for him; his brief tells us that all of our opinions are manipulated to one degree or another by outside influences beyond our control. So? So EJ suffers like everyone else.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

You make EJ's point for him; his brief tells us that all of our opinions are manipulated to one degree or another by outside influences beyond our control. So? So EJ suffers like everyone else.

Well put!

But who then is qualified to write the book EJ proposes to write?

[vinoveri]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

.

I've long been fascinated by how consumer rights protection generally, whether tobacco or credit products, has become framed as a conservative versus liberal issue, as if some group doesn't want the consumer debt issue discussed for what it is, the successful sales and marketing of credit products by credit product manufactures.

To overcome this, there are two challenges facing anyone who attempts to educate the public on this topic: one, that 90% of human behavior is driven by unconscious impulses not by free will; and two, that our unconscious has been consciously shaped by others, that many of our own most treasured beliefs were constructed by forces beyond our own will, including the belief in free will itself.

This book that I have in mind is thus a very difficult project from the start. It begins by asking readers to set aside, to suspend, the core belief that their beliefs are their own.

The object of the book will be to allow anyone to deconstruct the sources of their own beliefs so that they can they reconstruct them but consciously, so that they are truly their own, and they are in the end truly free.

Finally, readers can be forgiven for wondering what any of this has to do with economics, markets, and investing. I can make the case that if we understand how beliefs were shaped in the collective mind of the American people in the past, we can determine the beliefs that are being shaped in our minds now, by whom, and why, and use that information for forecasting purposes. Consider the idea of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. There is no conclusive science to back the theory, but many of us believe in it passionately. How did that come about? Who benefits? If we can answer that question we know everything we need to know about how to invest in energy in the future, because AGW isn't about pollution, the output of energy consumption, it's an indirect tool for managing the input, the carbon-based fuels themselves, at a time when a direct approach may produce the crisis that the AGW approach is attempting to diffuse: Peak Cheap Oil.

Granted that propaganda and marketing are deliberately used, from an early age on, to form and reinforce belief systems. Recognizing this with the end of mitigating/combatting it is important, I agree. Critical and scientific thinking and analysis are not taught nor held in the highest esteem in our culture as you know. Sentiment and sound bites carry the day.

I believe though what you are really pointing to can be handled by always asking the question "Cui Bono?" (in whatever language suits), and keep asking that question until you arrive at the one or multitude of causes. People act in their self interest, and by golly one man's interest may be to another man's detriment, unfortunate, but true nonetheless.

Your further points however, with respect, smell of modern doubt and it consequence: relativism.

Things do have causes, always (even if they are not readily identifiable completely). The Principle of Causality. I choose to belief that axiomatically, call it a priori knowledge, common sense, a sine qua non, for rational inquiry, what have you. I don't need to "deconstruct" this belief as I remember how I constructed it.

Skepticism is different than doubt. Skepticism in good faith can lead to truth. Doubt, i.e., of Truth, leads to belief in the loudest bullhorn (as you describe) and to the political and ecnomic tyranny and individual despair.

Question? Absolutely, but don't Doubt (that there is Truth that can be apprehended by reason).

Perhaps "There's no Market for Truth" would be an appropriate title.


Great Pics by the way!

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Well put!

But who then is qualified to write the book EJ proposes to write?

EJ, for the very simple reason that he can see beyond his own shortcomings; and, moreover, has clearly demonstrated that skill to us for some years now. I will trust someone that knows his shortcomings and can have the strength to be able to allude to them. None of us is perfect; so who would trust the perfect man?

[EJ]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

How very, very sad to see you make this incorrect statement.

The most interesting thing I learned in my several years of research into the AWG issue is that the strongest adherents to AGW theory hold liberal views generally while opposition to the theory is largely conservative, as if the question was political rather than scientific.

My position is that there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove or disprove AGW. Mind you, as a recipient of a BS in Resource Economics I have since college believed intuitively that dumping tons of carbon emissions into our tiny atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels cannot possibly be a good thing for the environment, and intuitively I still believe that it is bad. But intuition is not science. Everywhere I looked as I studied the AWG issue I found the telltale signs of a Bullhorn sales and marketing operation, from the co-opting of the scientific community with research funding to the selection of TV producers with AGW sympathies. One source I spoke with who is also agnostic on the question said his research shows that beliefs are even more emotionally driven than by inclination toward liberal or conservative views. Polls show that a large percentage of Americans change their view on AGW based on the weather: when it's hot they believe and when it's cold they don't.

But why? Who is using the threat of rising oceans to sell AGW in 2011 like the dream of home ownership to sell the securitized debt that financed the housing bubble in 2002? To what end? Who gains and who loses from policies to reduce carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels?

The reason I haven't made any previous statements about AGW is that I'm certain holding a rational debate on a topic as charged with religious fervor is as futile as the gold bubble versus no gold bubble debate, the inflation versus deflation debate, or any of the other nonsense debates that the US media frames that I've wasted umpteen hours on over the years that divert us from the issue.

It's time to get to the bottom of things.

Ever wonder why there isn't a "peak oil versus no peak oil" debate in the media? I believe the answer is in the AGW misdirection.