Half Of US Population Accounts For Only 2.9% Of Healthcare Spending; 1% Responsible For 21.4% Of Expenditures

With the topic of peak class polarization once again permeating the airwaves and clogging up NSA servers, and terms like 1% this or that being thrown around for political punchlines and other talking points, one aspect where social inequality has gotten less prominence, yet where the spread between the "1%" and everyone else is perhaps most substantial is in realm of healthcare spending: perhaps the biggest threat to the long-term sustainability of the US debt picture and economy in general. The numbers are stunning.
According to the latest data compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in 2010, just 1% of the population accounted for a whopping 21.4% of total health care expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. Just below them, 5% of the population accounted for nearly 50% of all healthcare spending. Just as stunning is the "other" side: the lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.8% of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Perhaps in addition to bashing the "1%" of wealth holders, a relatively straightforward and justified exercise in the current political climate, it is time for public attention to also turn to the chronic 1% (and 5%)-ers who are the primary issue when it comes to the debt-funding needed to preserve the US welfare state.
The spending distribution in chart format:

Broken down by age - While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by sex - While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by race and ethnicity - Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending:

More of the report's findings:

• In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures and 20.5 percent of the population in the top 1 percent retained this ranking in 2009. The bottom half of the expenditure distribution accounted for 2.9 percent of spending in 2009; about three out of four individuals in the bottom 50 percent retained this ranking in 2010.
• Those who were in the top decile of spenders in both 2009 and 2010 differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, health status, and insurance coverage (for those under 65) from those who were in the lower half in both years.
• Those in bottom half of health care spenders were more likely to report excellent health status, while those in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health relative to the overall population.
• While 15 percent of persons under age 65 were uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of those in the bottom half of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. Only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders in both years were uninsured for all of 2010.
• Relative to the overall population, those who remained in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health, elderly, female, non-Hispanic whites and those with public only coverage. Those who remained in the bottom half of spenders were more likely to be in excellent health, children and young adults, men, Hispanics, and the uninsured.

And the full report.
In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures, and in 2010, the top 1 percent accounted for 21.4 percent of total expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. The lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.9 percent and 2.8 percent of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Of those individuals ranked at the top 1 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $90,061), 20.5 percent maintained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures.
In both 2009 and 2010, the top 5 percent of the population accounted for nearly 50 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 5 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $40,682), approximately 34 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. Similarly, the top 10 percent of the population accounted for 65.2 percent of overall health care expenditures in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $26,767), and 39.7 percent of this subgroup retained this top decile ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. The data also indicate that a small percentage of the individuals in the top percentiles in 2009 and 2010 had expenditures for only one year because they died, were institutionalized, or were otherwise ineligible for the survey in the subsequent year.
In both 2009 and 2010, the top 30 percent of the population accounted for nearly 90 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 30 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009, 62.6 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures (figure 1). Furthermore, individuals ranked in the top half of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 accounted for 97 percent of all health care expenditures. Among this population subgroup, 74.9 percent maintained this ranking in 2010. Alternatively, individuals ranked in the bottom half of the health care expenditure distribution accounted for only 2.9 percent of medical expenditures (with a mean expenditure of $236 in 2009). Similar to the experience of the top half of the population based on their medical expenditure rankings, 73.9 percent of those in the lower half of the expenditure distribution retained this classification in 2010.
Given the high concentration of medical expenditures incurred by the top decile of the population ranked by health care spending (65.2 percent), identifying the characteristics of those individuals exhibiting significant reductions in health care spending in a subsequent year is also of interest. Among those ranked in the top decile in 2009 based on their high level of medical expenditures, 29 percent shifted to a ranking in the lower 75 percent of the expenditure distribution in 2010 (data not shown). Individuals ranked in the lower 75 percent of health care spending accounted for only 13.6 percent of all medical expenditures in 2010.
Individuals who were between the ages of 45 and 64 and the elderly (65 and older) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the top decile of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, the elderly represented only 3.1 percent of the population. Alternatively, children (0-17) and young adults (18-29) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (32.4 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively). In contrast, children and young adults represented only 2.1 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly between the ages of 30 and 64.
Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While Hispanics represented 16.3 percent of the overall population in 2010, they represented 24.8 percent of those individuals who remained in the bottom 50 percent of spenders (figure 3). For those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, Hispanics represented only 6.0 percent of the population. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and other races (74.9 percent) relative to their representation in the overall population (66.6 percent).
Individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders in 2009 and 2010 also differed significantly by sex, compared with those who remained in the lower half of the distribution ranked by medical care expenditures. While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders (figure 4). For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, women represented only 43.3 percent of the population. Alternatively, men were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (56.7 percent). In contrast, men represented only 38.4 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly female (58.3 percent).
Health status was a particularly salient factor that distinguished those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Overall, 2.8 percent of the population was reported to be in poor health in 2010, and another 7.8 percent was classified in fair health (figure 5). In contrast, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, 20.2 percent were in poor health and another 26.7 percent were in fair health. Furthermore, for those individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders, only 0.5 percent were reported to be in poor health and 4.1 percent in fair health. Individuals in excellent health were disproportionately represented among those who remained in the lower half of spenders both years (41.2 percent). Alternatively, for those individuals remaining in the top decile of spenders, only 5.2 percent were reported to be in excellent health and 14.5 percent in very good health. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the top quartile in 2010 were predominantly in excellent, very good, or good health (25.8, 34.8, and 23.2 percent, respectively).
Focusing on the under age 65 population, health insurance coverage status also distinguished individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders from their counterparts in the lower half of the distribution. Individuals who were uninsured for all of calendar year 2010 were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While 15 percent of the overall population under age 65 was uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of all individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders (figure 6). Alternatively, only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders were uninsured. In addition, while 17.9 percent of the overall population under age 65 had public-only coverage for all of 2009, 32.6 percent of those who remained in the top decile of spenders had public-only coverage.
With respect to poverty status classifications, 36.2 percent of the overall population resided in families or single-person households with high incomes in 2010 (figure 7) and 15.2 percent had incomes at or below the poverty threshold. A lower representation of high income individuals (26.6 percent) and a higher representation of the poor (19.3 percent) were observed among those who remained in the lower half of spenders in both 2009 to 2010.
Source: The Concentration and Persistence in the Level of Health Expenditures over Time: Estimates for the U.S. Population, 2009-2010


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-30/half-us-population-only-accounts-29-healthcare-spending-1-responsible-214-all-expend

Republicans’ Shutdown Fight Exposes Simmering Civil War

 By Heidi Przybyla and Julie Hirschfeld Davis - Sep 30, 2013

The Republican war with President Barack Obama over funding the government and the new health-care law will play out in the coming days and months. The conflict now exposed within the party may shape its future for years.
An intraparty tug-of-war, largely confined to campaign primaries during the past three years, is exposed on the national stage as Republicans challenge each other on tactics as a government shutdown looms, coming as early as tomorrow.
“The circus created the past few days isn’t reflective of mainstream Republicans -- it projects an image of not being reasonable. The vast majority of Republicans are pretty level-headed and are here to govern,” said Representative Michael Grimm, a New York Republican.
“This is a moment in history for our party to, once and for all, put everything on the table. But at some point we’re going to come together and unify,” Grimm said, adding that the “far-right faction” of the party “represents 15 percent of the country, but they’re trying to control the entire debate.”
It’s a civil war that has beset the party before, as base activists grow impatient with established leaders they claim have grown complacent in the anti-government fight. The results can be unpredictable, perhaps more so this time given that it’s taking place 13 months before the next election.

Goldwater ’64

The rise of Barry Goldwater in 1964 as the Republican presidential nominee ended in the landslide election of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. The revolt led by Newt Gingrich, then a Georgia congressman, culminated in the 1994 Republican House takeover after 40 years in the minority.
Gingrich, who became the House speaker, and his majority prompted the 1995-96 partial government shutdowns, which dimmed the party’s approval ratings and fueled the re-election of President Bill Clinton.
“This is a battle that has been under way slowly since 2010 and is now coming to a head,” said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “This is part of a bigger question about what that party is going to be. That may have major repercussions in another year.”
The fight in Congress today is between members who want to avoid that fate of Gingrich’s majority and those convinced conditions have changed to their advantage.

Health Law

“I’ve been elected to fight for the people back home, wherever that takes us,” said Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican. “We’re united in our efforts to do all we can to avert a shutdown. We’re trying to offer a compromise.” Meadows said health-care law “is not ready for prime time.”
Concern about the potential impact of the federal closure sent stocks lower in Asian trading. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index lost 1.4 percent as of 3 p.m. Tokyo time, and Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures sank 0.8 percent. U.S. government securities rallied, with yields on benchmark 10-year notes slipping to 2.60 percent, from 2.625 percent late last week.
The tactics of a group of Republicans are causing angst among some established party leaders and fundraisers who worry that the infighting is obscuring what could otherwise be a winning political moment.

Fundraiser’s Concern

“I fully understand where the Tea Party and like-minded people are coming from, that Obamacare is a tragically flawed law and it’s not good for the country, but I would also have to add that shutting down the government is not a good for the country,” said Fred Malek, a Republican fundraiser.
“At a time politically where Obama is in a very weak position resulting from his handling of the situation in Syria, the economic situation, and the implementation of a health-care law that is going to be really rocky, we’re basically going in and seizing defeat from the jaws of victory politically,” he said. “You’ve got a flawed law that’s bad for the country being met with a flawed approach that is also very bad for the country, and I don’t think it’s good politically or substantively.”
Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Sacramento, California-based Tea Party Express, a political action committee that advocates smaller government, said the episode in Washington is pleasing to movement activists.
“There was a lot of frustration that Republicans weren’t doing anything,” he said. “This is going to encourage them to do more.”

Intransigence Tag

It’s unfair to place all of the blame for the fight at the feet of Republicans who come of the party’s Tea Party wing, Russo said. If Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “look intransigent, they will be the losers,” he said. “There is plenty of room for compromise, but the Democrats and the president have shown no willingness to compromise.”
Russo said Tea Party Republicans will also want a fight over the nation’s borrowing limit, which the Treasury says will be exhausted no later than Oct. 17. If Congress doesn’t lift the cap, the nation will default on its debts.
“The American public understands you have to pay the bills you run up,” he said. “I also think it is worthy of a fight and I think there is going to be one.”
The congressional fight is providing new energy to the movement, Russo said. “People are fired up that some people are willing to stand up,” he said.

Strategist Outrage

Several Republican strategists have privately expressed outrage in recent weeks at the lengths to which some of their own party’s activists are willing to go to stoke shutdown fervor, complaining that they are spending more time and money targeting their party colleagues while giving Democrats a pass. The Republicans requested anonymity because they didn’t want to publicly disparage party allies.
Among the targets of their complaints are the Heritage Foundation, helmed by former Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, which has been leaning on Republicans to tie keeping the government open to defunding the health-care law, and the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee DeMint founded that backs Republican primary candidates.
The fund released a television advertisement Sept. 5 saying Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is “refusing to lead on defunding Obamacare,” and last week accused him and Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 leader, of “the ultimate betrayal” for allowing a government-funding bill to go forward.

Radio Ads

It’s also running radio ads against Republican senators in a handful of states pressuring them to oppose funding the health-care law. While the group has yet to endorse any Senate Republican primary candidates, both McConnell and Cornyn are facing re-election next year, and the Kentuckian has drawn a Tea Party-backed Republican rival, businessman Matt Bevin.
Avoiding such primary challenges is driving much of the strife, said Dan Schnur, the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics director at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles.
“There are 30 or 40 House rebels who all know there is no way they could ever lose a general-election campaign, no matter how hard they tried, and the only way they don’t get to stay in Congress is if they face a more conservative primary challenger,” Schnur, an aide in Republican Senator John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, said in an interview.
Of the 232 Republicans in the House, 215 represent districts that voted for Republican nominee Mitt Romney over Obama. The midterm election is likely to be more pro-Republican than the 2012 election, when Obama’s national campaign was driving turnout. That creates few political incentives for compromise, as most of their districts were anti-Obama in 2012 and probably will be again in 2014.

High Stakes

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio has less pressure to exert on members than outside groups urging confrontation, Schnur added. “Boehner can take away a committee assignment -- these groups can take away their jobs,” Schnur said.
Keith Appell, a consultant whose clients include Tea Party-aligned groups, said “if they cave again they’re looking at multiple primaries in the spring and their base sitting home in the fall, in a base election. Caving is not an option.”
Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said he’s frustrated that his party can’t advocate vigorously without being accused of “wanting to eviscerate and destroy all of government.” Still, the political risks prompted him to initially back a different strategy for fighting the health-care law and funding the government.
“Harry Reid will do everything he possibly can to precipitate a shutdown because, no matter what happens, Republicans will be blamed,” he said of the Senate majority leader, a Nevada Democrat. “Unfortunately, I think that’s partly of our own doing. We’ve allowed the Democrats to chase us with a government shutdown much like a little boy on the playground chases a little girl with a spider.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net; Julie Hirschfeld Davis in Washington at jdavis159@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-09-30/republicans-shutdown-fight-exposes-simmering-civil-war.html

Dallas County Now Has Its Very Own Bulletproof, "Mine-Protected" Military SUV

Now that the war in Iraq is officially over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the Department of Defense found itself facing a conundrum. It had just spent billions of dollars buying heavily armored personnel carriers designed to stand up to insurgent attacks only to find that it had run out of wars to use them in.
The initial plan was to shove the vehicles, called MRAPS (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) into a warehouse and let them collect dust. That changed when someone decided that, having served so admirably overseas, it would be only just to bring the MRAPs stateside and deploy them in the domestic war on crime.
And so, for the past couple of months, news reports have been popping up announcing that places like Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Ohio State University have been receiving their very own military-grade armored SUVs.
See also: District Attorney Craig Watkins' Epic Quest to Use a Former Drug Dealer's Porsche Boxter

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_county_now_has_its_very.php

Credit Markets Signal Bigger Fear Of Treasury Default Than In 2011

Earlier in the week we noted the spike [5] in the cost of protecting against a technical default on US Treasuries. While well below "record" wides of 2011, a very interesting event has occurred. The cost of 1Y protection has surged higher than the 5Y protection - something we have only seen in the summer of 2011. However, this time it's different as the inversion is even greater than in 2011 - although not the most liquid instrument in the world - implying a greater chance (albeit a small probability) of a postponed payment in US Treasuries. As we noted previously, there is a way to trade this away from CDS-land [5].

USA CDS curve inverted more than in 2011...
[6]

And the 1m1y Treasury bills flattener is working in our direction [5]...
[7]
Charts: Bloomberg

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/479502

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

As the United Nations discusses the prevention of nuclear proliferation, we look at which countries have nuclear weapons and how were they developed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24277021

US braces for possible government shutdown

The US government is bracing for a possible shutdown, as Republicans and Democrats in Congress remain deadlocked on a budget to continue its funding.

Agencies have begun making contingency plans ahead of the 1 October deadline to pass a new funding resolution.
The Senate has passed a bill to fund the government through 15 November.
But House Republicans have said they refuse to approve the bill absent a provision to strip funding from President Barack Obama's health law.
The Senate is controlled by Mr Obama's Democratic party, while the Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives.
As a result, lawmakers are at a stalemate as the deadline approaches.
Government agencies have been selecting workers considered essential should funds stop flowing.
Obama exhorts conservatives The looming shutdown is one of two fiscal crises facing the US government. On 17 October, the US treasury department's authority to borrow money to fund its debt obligations expires unless Congress approves a rise in the so-called debt ceiling.
On Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama urged House Republicans to pass the Senate's stopgap budget bill and to extend the debt limit, and demanded they not threaten to "burn the house down because you haven't gotten 100% of your way".
Mr Obama said if the nation were to default on its debt, it would have a "profound destabilising effect" on the world economy.
"Voting for the treasury to pay its bills is not a concession to me," he said. "No-one gets to hurt our economy... just because there are a couple of laws [they] don't like."
He described the healthcare law as "a done deal" and said the Republican-backed repeal effort was "not going to happen".
Mr Obama said the Senate had "acted responsibly" in passing the budget measure and that now it was up to Republicans in the House of Representatives "to do the same".
Civilian cuts

If the government does shut down on 1 October, as many as a third of its 2.1 million employees are expected to stop work - with no guarantee of back pay once the deadlock is resolved.

National parks and the Smithsonian museums in the nation's capital would close, pension and veterans' benefit cheques would be delayed, and visa and passport applications would be stymied.
Programmes deemed essential, such as air traffic control and food inspections, would continue.
The defence department has advised employees that uniformed members of the military will continue on "normal duty status", but "large numbers" of civilian workers will be told to stay home.
Last week, the US House of Representatives a bill that would maintain the US government's funding levels through 15 November but strip funding from Mr Obama's health law, known as Obamacare.
On Friday the Senate passed a version of the bill with the defunding provision removed 54-44, largely on party lines.
"The Senate has acted and we've done it with bipartisan co-operation. We've passed the only bill that can avert a government shutdown Monday night," Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid said.
"This is it, time is gone."
The House is now expected to take up that bill at the weekend. Unless the two chambers can come to a consensus and pass a bill for Mr Obama to sign, the federal government will close on 1 October.
Analysts say House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team are pushing for the chamber to approve the Senate-passed bill and move on to the debt limit fight next week.
But more conservative members of his restive Republican caucus object, hoping to use the threat of a shutdown as leverage to force a halt to Mr Obama's health law.
That law passed in 2010, was subsequently ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court, and was a central issue in the 2012 presidential election won by Mr Obama.
After the Senate vote on Friday, Republican Senator Ted Cruz and two other conservative senators denounced the result and vowed to press on with their effort to get rid of Obamacare.
"This will not end here," Senator Marco Rubio told reporters.
'A show' Meanwhile, wrangling over the debt limit extension continues, with the Republicans seeking to win a series of major policy concessions by tying them to an increase.
On Thursday, the number-two Republican in the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said the party would introduce a bill extending the debt ceiling for a year - but also delaying for a year major provisions of Mr Obama's health law.
While Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown in 2011, the high-stakes political wrangling has become especially chaotic.
Analysts point to infighting in the Republican Party caucuses in both the House and Senate.
Republican Senator John McCain told CBS News on Friday he had never seen such dysfunction in Congress in his three decades as a senator.
"We are dividing the Republican Party rather than attacking Democrats," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24306933?print=true 

Japan Pummeled By Soaring Food And Energy Prices, Plunging Wages And Ongoing Core Deflation

Last night Japan reported August CPI/inflation news that at least on the surface were astoundingly good: at 0.8%, the core CPI (excluding fresh irradiated food) was more than expected and higher than July's 0.7%. And yet, even the most absurdly clueless economist is silent this morning in their praise of Abenomics, which supposedly has succeeded in its one goal - bringing sexy inflation back. Why? Perhaps the reason is that whereas Keynesian inflation in which prices and wages are broadly if modestly rising as a result of a properly functioning monetary system, is indeed just what the Doctor of modern economics ordered, soaring input costs driven by FX differentials and current account flows, "offset" by plunging wages is precisely the opposite of what Abenomics was supposed to be. Which is exactly what is going on in Japan.
Because a more detailed look at the Japanese inflation number shows that the entire inflationary surge was due to a spike in food and mostly energy prices as gasoline prices rose to the highest since 2008: core core inflation, that which excludes food and energy) was down 0.1% from July, while September Tokyo core core CPI, a leading inflation indicator, was down a whopping -0.4% in August and -0.3% from a year ago. The reason: salaries in July extended the longest slide since 2010, with regular wages excluding overtime and bonuses falling 0.4 percent from a year earlier, a 14th straight drop.
[10]
In other words, all that Abenomics' cratering of the Yen has succeeded in doing is causing gas and energy prices, and to a lesser extent food, to surge, just as we warned would happen in February [11]. And of course, to make a few US-based hedge funds investing in the Nikkei that much richer. From BBG [12]:

The yen’s 20 percent slide against the dollar in the year through August pushed up fuel costs. While the data point to early success for Abe, a sales-tax increase scheduled for April will add to the burden on households and risk dragging on the nation’s economic rebound. Abe is set to announce a decision on the levy on Oct. 1.

Gasoline prices rose this month to the highest since 2008, according to the industry ministry. The nation’s last operating nuclear reactor was halted for maintenance on Sept. 15, leaving Japan without atomic power for the first time since July 2012, and more dependent on imported fuel.

The yen’s 20 percent slide against the dollar in the year through August pushed up fuel costs. While the data point to early success for Abe, a sales-tax increase scheduled for April will add to the burden on households and risk dragging on the nation’s economic rebound. Abe is set to announce a decision on the levy on Oct. 1.

“Without pay increases, households’ purchasing power will weaken gradually,” said Taro Saito, director of economic research at NLI Research Institute in Tokyo. “Abe will have to keep up his campaign on companies for wage growth.”

Abe last week began meetings with business and trade union leaders to press his case for wage increases, key to the success of his effort to spur growth under his economic policies dubbed Abenomics.

Salaries in July extended the longest slide since 2010, with regular wages excluding overtime and bonuses falling 0.4 percent from a year earlier, a 14th straight drop.

Rising prices in the absence of higher incomes have dented consumer sentiment, which could undermine consumption.

Consumer confidence fell in August for a third consecutive month, and sentiment among merchants declined for a fifth month.

So let's see here: a consumption crippling sales tax increase in five days, soaring input prices which are cratering corporate profit margins just as Abe is really begging firms to hike wages, sliding confidence (which in Japan usually is a leading indicator to government change) as consumers can no longer even afford gfasoline, and oh, we almost forget, core deflation. But, hey, look over there, just like in Caracas, the Nikkei is exploding.
Where does one sign up to sing the praises of Abenomics again?

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/479468 

Government Shutdown Odds: 40%, Nomura Estimates

In a world in which everyone has become an ultra-short term pathological gambler, and every outcome is a zero-sum prop bet, it was only a matter of time before someone tried to quantify the probability of the event that the market (for some inexplicable reason) is so transfixed on: the government shutdown (inexplicable, because anything more than a few day shutdown risks a full blown mutiny by the tens of millions of government workers). So without further ado, here is Nomura, with its "estimate" of a government shutdown on October 1: 40%.
From Bloomberg, citing the Japanese bank:

• Not obvious how gap between House, Senate proposals will be closed, and time for negotiations is short, Nomura strategists led by Lewis Alexander wrote in note.
• Shutdown for a couple of weeks won’t have much of an impact on economy; impact of failure to extend debt ceiling "unknown, potentially very large and long lasting"
• Contentious and potentially chaotic fiscal negotiations over next few weeks likely to generate volatility, biggest threat to economy
• If govt shuts down for one week, assuming 36% of non-postal federal employees furloughed, temporary loss of wages, benefits would reduce annualized real GDP by ~0.1ppt
• If shutdown lasts longer, decision on back pay for federal employees likely decisive for consumption
• Week-long shutdown would delay Oct. 4 jobs report
• If debt ceiling becomes binding, Treasury may have to pay debts in order of due date, may not be able to prioritize debt payments

The good news, and we use the term loosely, is the flip-side: the government has a 60% chance of continuing to serve on behalf of the 1% oligarchy on October 1 and well beyond.

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/479494

Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media

Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.
It doesn't take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.
Don't even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends "so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would" – or the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.
Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by an "independent" Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny. "The Pakistanis put out a report, don't get me going on it. Let's put it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It's a bullshit report," he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.
The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
"It's pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama]," he declares in an interview with the Guardian.
"It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn't happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.
He isn't even sure if the recent revelations about the depth and breadth of surveillance by the National Security Agency will have a lasting effect.

Snowden changed the debate on surveillance

He is certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden "changed the whole nature of the debate" about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence – although he is sceptical about whether the revelations will change the US government's policy.
"Duncan Campbell [the British investigative journalist who broke the Zircon cover-up story], James Bamford [US journalist] and Julian Assange and me and the New Yorker, we've all written the notion there's constant surveillance, but he [Snowden] produced a document and that changed the whole nature of the debate, it's real now," Hersh says.
"Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn't touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game," he adds, before qualifying his remarks.
"But I don't know if it's going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America – the president can still say to voters 'al-Qaida, al-Qaida' and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic," he says.
Holding court to a packed audience at City University in London's summer school on investigative journalism, 76-year-old Hersh is on full throttle, a whirlwind of amazing stories of how journalism used to be; how he exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, how he got the Abu Ghraib pictures of American soldiers brutalising Iraqi prisoners, and what he thinks of Edward Snowden.

Hope of redemption

Despite his concern about the timidity of journalism he believes the trade still offers hope of redemption.
"I have this sort of heuristic view that journalism, we possibly offer hope because the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever … Not that journalism is always wonderful, it's not, but at least we offer some way out, some integrity."
His story of how he uncovered the My Lai atrocity is one of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and doggedness. Back in 1969, he got a tip about a 26-year-old platoon leader, William Calley, who had been charged by the army with alleged mass murder.
Instead of picking up the phone to a press officer, he got into his car and started looking for him in the army camp of Fort Benning in Georgia, where he heard he had been detained. From door to door he searched the vast compound, sometimes blagging his way, marching up to the reception, slamming his fist on the table and shouting: "Sergeant, I want Calley out now."
Eventually his efforts paid off with his first story appearing in the St Louis Post-Despatch, which was then syndicated across America and eventually earned him the Pulitzer Prize. "I did five stories. I charged $100 for the first, by the end the [New York] Times were paying $5,000."
He was hired by the New York Times to follow up the Watergate scandal and ended up hounding Nixon over Cambodia. Almost 30 years later, Hersh made global headlines all over again with his exposure of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Put in the hours

For students of journalism his message is put the miles and the hours in. He knew about Abu Ghraib five months before he could write about it, having been tipped off by a senior Iraqi army officer who risked his own life by coming out of Baghdad to Damascus to tell him how prisoners had been writing to their families asking them to come and kill them because they had been "despoiled".
"I went five months looking for a document, because without a document, there's nothing there, it doesn't go anywhere."
Hersh returns to US president Barack Obama. He has said before that the confidence of the US press to challenge the US government collapsed post 9/11, but he is adamant that Obama is worse than Bush.
"Do you think Obama's been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What's going on [with journalists]?" he asks.
He says investigative journalism in the US is being killed by the crisis of confidence, lack of resources and a misguided notion of what the job entails.
"Too much of it seems to me is looking for prizes. It's journalism looking for the Pulitzer Prize," he adds. "It's a packaged journalism, so you pick a target like – I don't mean to diminish because anyone who does it works hard – but are railway crossings safe and stuff like that, that's a serious issue but there are other issues too.
"Like killing people, how does [Obama] get away with the drone programme, why aren't we doing more? How does he justify it? What's the intelligence? Why don't we find out how good or bad this policy is? Why do newspapers constantly cite the two or three groups that monitor drone killings. Why don't we do our own work?
"Our job is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say – here's a debate' our job is to go beyond the debate and find out who's right and who's wrong about issues. That doesn't happen enough. It costs money, it costs time, it jeopardises, it raises risks. There are some people – the New York Times still has investigative journalists but they do much more of carrying water for the president than I ever thought they would … it's like you don't dare be an outsider any more."
He says in some ways President George Bush's administration was easier to write about. "The Bush era, I felt it was much easier to be critical than it is [of] Obama. Much more difficult in the Obama era," he said.
Asked what the solution is Hersh warms to his theme that most editors are pusillanimous and should be fired.
"I'll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can't control," he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don't get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say 'I don't care what you say'.
Nor does he understand why the Washington Post held back on the Snowden files until it learned the Guardian was about to publish.
If Hersh was in charge of US Media Inc, his scorched earth policy wouldn't stop with newspapers.
"I would close down the news bureaus of the networks and let's start all over, tabula rasa. The majors, NBCs, ABCs, they won't like this – just do something different, do something that gets people mad at you, that's what we're supposed to be doing," he says.
Hersh is currently on a break from reporting, working on a book which undoubtedly will make for uncomfortable reading for both Bush and Obama.
"The republic's in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple." And he implores journalists to do something about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media/print

Why are Americans giving up their citizenship?

The number of Americans giving up their citizenship has rocketed this year - partly, it's thought, because of a new tax law that is frustrating many expats.

Goodbye, US passport.
That's not a concept that Americans contemplate lightly. But it's one that many of them seem to be considering - and acting on.
The number of expatriates renouncing their US citizenship surged in the second quarter of 2013, compared with the same period the year before - 1,131 cases to 189 in 2012. It's still a small proportion of the estimated six million Americans abroad, but it's a significant rise.
The list is compiled by the Federal Register and while no reasons are given, the big looming factor seems to be tax.
A new law called the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) will, from 1 July next year, require all financial institutions around the world to report directly to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) all the assets and incomes of any US citizens with $50,000 (£31,000) on their books. The US could withhold 30% of dividends and interest payments due to the banks that don't comply.

Continue reading the main story

Are you an ex?

• Have you given up the citizenship of any country?
• Tell us why, using the form at the bottom of the story
• We will publish a selection

It's an attempt by the US authorities to recover an estimated $100bn a year in unpaid taxes on US citizens' assets overseas. Unlike other countries, Americans are taxed not only as residents of the US but also as citizens, wherever they live.

Suddenly, some expats are waking up in a cold sweat. They have always had to file tax returns and disclose foreign accounts on a form called the FBAR, although in practice many didn't. But now Fatca means they have to be more rigorous or face huge fines, in the knowledge that the US authorities could know a lot more than they have in the past.
Many would say the IRS is only trying to get what it is owed, but critics say that in trying to track down the wealthy tax-dodgers, ordinary people are being dragged into an expensive and time-consuming form-filling nightmare. And for some, it's become too much.

Continue reading the main story

Bridget, who asked the BBC not to use her real name, gave up her US citizenship in 2011, 32 years after leaving for a new life in Scandinavia.

"This has nothing to do with avoiding taxes. I was never in danger of having to pay taxes in the US since I pay more here. The issue for me was that it was becoming harder and harder to follow the tax code and comply. It was difficult already but when I knew Fatca was coming, I thought, 'Do I want to go through with it anymore?'"
She felt threatened even if she did everything to fulfil her responsibilities, she says. A simple loyalty card at the local grocery store caused her anxiety when she realised it was linked to a bank account she never knew she had.
It became so complicated to do her tax return that she turned to professionals, at an annual cost of nearly $2,000 (£1,250), with the prospect of Fatca raising the price to $5,000. Also, fewer tax lawyers were taking on American clients, she says, and some banks were even turning away American money.
"In the end, I sleep better now knowing that I no longer have to worry about the US requirements. I will never be able to live or own property in the US but I can visit and that's enough for me."

Continue reading the main story

Notable ex-Americans

• Novelist Henry James
• Director Terry Gilliam
• Violinist Yehudi Menuhin
• Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin
• Socialite Denise Rich

Bridget, who runs an editing and translation company, says her strong emotional bond with the US has been frayed.

"I've enjoyed being an American even though I haven't lived there since I was young. I identified with America so I felt angry that I had to get to this point where it wasn't viable to keep my citizenship anymore.
"When you're an American living in America, it's one thing but when you live abroad in another country, in certain ways that feeling becomes even stronger because you realise that things that you think are individual characteristics are actually national ones so you identify even more strongly with your nationality.
"I used to always introduce myself as American but not now, although I will always be American in my heart even though I won't carry the passport. I will still celebrate Thanksgiving and 4 July."
She says the tax issue is the biggest topic of conversation among the expat Americans she knows. And tax lawyers in the US who deal with people living abroad say it has become a huge issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021

The Smell of Financial and Economic Collapse is in the Air

Stock-Markets / Financial Crash Sep 25, 2013 - 12:38 PM GMT

By: DeviantInvestor

This is a continuation from part 1 - read it here.
CAUTION! Before you continue...

• If you believe that total government debt can grow FOREVER and more rapidly than the underlying economy, this article is NOT for you.
  
• If you believe that governmental deficit spending, QE, and bond monetization can continue FOREVER without major consequences, this article is NOT for you.

But if you are sane enough to know that our current economic policies will produce a "train wreck," read on...

The U.S. economy is being overwhelmed by a loss of faith and trust in politicians, government, and bankers, excessive debts, artificially low interest rates, unsustainable deficit spending, expensive wars, QE (money printing) to infinity, "Inflate or Die" monetary policy, potential derivatives implosion, Obamacare and so much more. A slow-motion collapse is occurring and most of us do not see it. Consider these thoughts from insightful writers:

Collapse Indicated by Stalling Growth in Global Financial Reserves:

Hugo Salinas Price: (link)
"As it is, the US can only continue to monetize government debt. Higher dollar interest rates are inevitable and will cause further government deficits; the debt overhang in both the US and Euro Zone is so great that a rise of a few points in interest rates will explode the deficits, and so on and so forth.
Bottom line: Stalling growth in International Reserves tells me that a world financial collapse is in the offing."

Collapse Indicated by Loss of Trust in Western Economic Systems:

David Stockman: (link)
"There is no honest pricing left at all anywhere in the world because central banks everywhere manipulate and rig the price of all financial assets. We can't even analyze the economy in the traditional sense anymore because so much of it depends not on market forces, but on the whims of people at the Fed."
"The Blackberry Panic of September 2008, in which Washington policy makers led by former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, panicked as they saw Wall Street stock prices plummet on their mobile devices, had very little to do with the Main Street economy in the United States. The panic and bailouts that followed were really about protecting the bonuses and incomes of very wealthy and politically well-connected managers at banks and other heavily leveraged businesses that were eventually deemed too big to fail. What followed was a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers and middle-class savers, in the form of bailouts and zero interest rates on bank deposits imposed by the Fed, to the so-called One Percent."
"I think the political realities of the situation make the most likely scenario one in which there will be some kind of real financial collapse and disorder that will require a total reconstruction of the system."
The Burning Platform: (link)
"Despite the frantic efforts of the financial elite, their politician puppets, and their media propaganda outlets, collapse of this aristocracy of the moneyed is a mathematical certainty. Faith in the system is rapidly diminishing, as the issuance of debt to create the appearance of growth has reached the point of diminishing returns."
"We are witnessing the beginning stages of political collapse. The government and its leaders are being discredited on a daily basis. The mismanagement of fiscal policy, foreign policy and domestic policy, along with the revelations of the NSA conducting mass surveillance against all Americans has led critical thinking Americans to question the legitimacy of the politicians running the show on behalf of the bankers, corporations and arms dealers."
"We are supposedly five years past the great crisis. Magazine covers proclaimed Bernanke a hero. If we are well past the crisis, why are the extreme emergency measures still in effect? If the economy is growing and jobs are being created, why do we need $85 Billion of government debt to be monetized each and every month?"
"Just the slowing of debt creation will lead to collapse. Bernanke needs a Syrian crisis to postpone the taper talk. Those in control need an endless number of real or false flag crises to provide cover for their printing presses to keep rolling."
Bill Fleckenstein: link
"Since April, the 10-Year has gone from about 1.6% to as high as 3% recently. Now we have to see when this rally in bonds stops. The bond market will then roll over and then the Fed won't have the tapering as an excuse. It means the bond market has ceased to price in the scenario that the Fed wants, and the bond market is not responding to the Fed's moves in the short-run. In the old days we would call that 'losing control of the bond market.' And if that starts to happen, all hell is going to break loose."
Michael Pento: link
"The 10-Year went from 1.4% to 3%, and that made Mr. Bernanke panic. The average on that (10-Year) yield is 7% in the modern era since 1971 when we closed the 'gold window.' So, if the average is 7%, and the United States of America, this once great land, can't (even) tolerate a 3% yield on the 10-Year Note, that means the Fed can never unwind QE.
That's enough to cuff Mr. Bernanke's hands. So the Fed is indeed trapped as you indicated. They cannot significantly bring down QE. That means a perpetual increase in the Fed's balance sheet. That (also) means an inexorable rise in asset bubbles like stocks, bonds, and real estate, and it's going to end (very) badly."
Hank Paulson Interview: link
"Paulson believes there will be another financial crisis."
"It's a certainty. As long as we have markets, as long as we have banks, no matter what the regulatory system is, there will be flawed government policies. Those policies will create bubbles."

Alternate Interpretation: As long as we have Treasury Secretaries who represent the interests of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street bankers instead of the US economy, then we can be certain of another financial crisis.

Collapse in Retirement Income:

Dennis Miller: link
"While the Federal Reserve holds down interest rates and floods the banking system with money, it's destroying the retirement dreams of several generations. The Employee Benefit Research Organization reports that 25 - 27% of baby boomers and Generation Xers who would have had adequate retirement income - under return assumptions based on historical averages - will run out of money if today's low interest rates are permanent."

In addition to the problem of low yielding investments caused by the historically low interest rates created by the Fed, even more retirees will run out of money, much sooner, when the inevitable inflation in food and energy prices smacks the U.S. economy, and especially retirees.

Discussion:

• It seems clear that we are losing faith in our politicians, our leaders, and our financial systems. Approval levels for congress and the President of the United States are low. Too-Big-To-Fail banks and "banksters" are despised and openly criticized.
  
• The Federal Reserve is losing credibility; more and more people are realizing that QE is good for the bankers and the wealthy, but that it does little for "Main Street" people except drive up the prices they pay for food and energy.
  
• The American public is generally opposed to war in the Middle East but that seems to matter little to the political and financial elite who will profit from the war.
  
• Most people, so it appears, know that inflation is much higher than officially stated, and that inflation will become far worse than it is today. (When was the last time you saw a cup of premium coffee or a gallon of gasoline for less than $1.00?)
  

Consider this verse from "Desolation Row" - by Bob Dylan (in the 1960s). Does it describe our currently collapsing financial and political systems?

"They're selling postcards of the hanging They're painting the passports brown The beauty parlor is filled with sailors The circus is in town Here comes the blind commissioner They've got him in a trance One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker The other is in his pants And the riot squad they're restless They need somewhere to go As Lady and I look out tonight From Desolation Row"

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42430.html 

The Stunning Truth About Inequality In America

Talk about inequality has been in the news recently, but you won’t believe what’s really happening in America today:

• Americans consistently underestimate the amount of inequality [4] in our country.  They would be shocked [5] to learn the truth

• It’s a myth [6] that conservatives accept runaway inequality.  Conservatives are as concerned as liberals regarding the stunning collapse of upward mobility [7]

• Inequality in America today is twice as bad as in ancient Rome [8], worse than it was in in Tsarist Russia [9], Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America [8]

• It’s worse in America than in any other developed nation [10]

• Staggering inequality in America has become permanent [11]

• There are 2 economies: one for the rich, and the other for everyone else [12]

• The economy has only recovered for the 1% … the rest of the country [13] is more or less stuck in a depression [14]

• The super-rich [15] are raking in more than ever

• On the other end, more and more people are sliding into poverty [16]

• 1 out of every 5 [17] households in the United States is on food stamps

• The middle class has more or less been destroyed [18]

• A who’s who of prominent economists and investors [19] say that inequality causes crashes and hurts the economy

• Extreme inequality helped cause the Great Depression, the current financial crisis [20] … and the fall of the Roman Empire [21]

• Inequality isn’t happening for mysterious or uncontrollable reasons. Bad government policy is responsible [22] for runaway inequality

• Bush was horrible, but income inequality has increased even more under Obama than under Bush [23]

Wal-Mart Nails The "Consumer Recovery" Coffin Shut

UPDATE: CNBC Damage Control - Story was "misunderstood" and "misleading"...but not denied... CNBC is to Wal-mart as Hilsenrath to the Fed

[4]

Bloomberg's Joe Brusuelas has some thoughts...



and... more generally...



Welcome to the new normal recovery... if ever there was a headline that summed up the idiocy of the mal-invested distorted new normal, Wal-Mart just managed it:

• *WAL-MART CUTTING ORDERS (In Q3 & Q4) AS UNSOLD MERCHANDISE PILES UP IN U.S.

So, it seems the "if we build it (or stock it), they will come (and buy)" mentaility has failed yet again... As we noted before, as goes Wal-Mart, so goes America... [9]


[10]
Via Bloomberg,

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is cutting orders it places with suppliers this quarter and next to address rising inventories the company flagged in last month’s earnings report.

...

U.S. inventory growth at Wal-Mart outstripped sales gains in the second quarter at a faster rate than at the retailer’s biggest rivals. Merchandise has been piling up because consumers have been spending less freely than Wal-Mart projected...

The Fed's 'hidden agenda' behind money-printing

The markets were surprised when the Federal Reserve did not announce a tapering of the quantitative easing bond buying program at its September meeting. Indeed, its signal to the market that it was keeping interest rates low was welcome, but there may be a hidden agenda.
Since it began in late 2008, QE has spurred a vigorous debate about its merits, both positive and negative.
On the positive side, the easy money and low interest rates resulting from quantitative easing have been a shot in the arm to the economy, fueling the stock market and helping the housing recovery. On the negative side, The Fed accomplished QE by "printing money" to buy Treasurys, and through the massive power of its purchases drove interest rates to record lows.
But in the process, the Fed accumulated an unprecedented balance sheet of more than $3.6 trillion which needs to go somewhere, someday.
But we know all this.
I believe that one of the most important reasons the Fed is determined to keep interest rates low is one that is rarely talked about, and which comprises a dark economic foreboding that should frighten us all.

Gartman: Leave tapering to next Fed group

The economy is stronger than it looks, said Dennis Gartman, The Gartman Letter, sharing his outlook on gold, the next Fed chairman and the fate of Treasury rates.

(Read more: Fed assertion of 'tight' conditions looks shaky)
Let me start with a question: How would you feel if you knew that almost all of the money you pay in personal income tax went to pay just one bill, the interest on the debt? Chances are, you and millions of Americans would find that completely unacceptable and indeed they should.
But that is where we may be heading.

Thanks to the Fed, the interest rate paid on our national debt is at an historic low of 2.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Given the U.S.'s huge accumulated deficit, this low interest rate is important to keep debt servicing costs down.
But isn't it fair to ask what the interest cost of our debt would be if interest rates returned to a more normal level? What's a normal level? How about the average interest rate the Treasury paid on U.S. debt over the last 20 years?
(Read more: Fed in 'monetary roach motel,' won't taper: Schiff)
That rate is 5.7percent, not extravagantly high at all by historic standards.
So here's where it gets scary: U.S. debt held by the public today is about $12 trillion. The budget deficit projections are going down, true, but the United States is still incurring an annual budget deficit by spending more than we take in in taxes and revenue.
The CBO estimates that by 2020 total debt held by the public will be $16.6 trillion as a result of the rising accumulated debt.
Do the math: If we were to pay an average interest rate on our debt of 5.7 percent, rather than the 2.4 percent we pay today, in 2020 our debt service cost will be about $930 billion.
Now compare that to the amount the Internal Revenue Service collects from us in personal income taxes.
In 2012, that amount was $1.1 trillion, meaning that if interest rates went back to a more normal level of, say, 5.7 percent, 85 percent of all personal income taxes collected would go to servicing the debt. No wonder the Fed is worried.
Some economists will also suggest that interest rates may go much higher than 5.7 percent largely as a result of the massive QE exercise of printing money at an unprecedented rate. We just don't know what the effect of all this will be but many economists warn that it can only result in inflation down the road.

(Read more: Did the Fed just pop the stock market bubble?)
As of today, interest rates are rising, and if this is a turning point, it is a major one.
Rates in the U.S. peaked in 1980 (remember the 14 percent Treasury bonds?) so if we are at the point of reversing a 33-year downward trend, who wants to predict how this will affect the economy?
One thing is clear: Based on CBO projections, if interest rates just rise to their 20-year average, we will have an untenable, unacceptable interest rate bill whose beneficiaries are China, Japan, and others who own our bonds.
And if Americans find out that the lion's share of their income tax payments are going to service the debt, prepare for a new American revolution.

Peter J. Tanous is president of Lepercq Lynx Investment Advisory in Washington D.C. He is the co-author (with Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore) of The End of Prosperity (2008), and co-author (with CNBC.com's Jeff Cox) of Debt, Deficits, and the Demise of the American Economy (2011).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101062461 

Edward Snowden NSA Scandal: EU to Suspend US Data Sharing After Swift's Interbank Messaging System Breach

The European Union has threatened to suspend or even terminate the crucial EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, after allegations that the US National Security Agency (NSA) spied on bank-to-bank messaging via the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift) network.
More than 10,000 banking organisations, securities institutions, and corporate customers in 212 countries use Swift every day to exchange millions of standardised financial messages.
The NSA has been widely criticised over its surveillance programme that spied on politicians, bureaucrats, and businesses across the world via phone calls and internet activity.
The revelations about the NSA surveillance came from top-secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden, a former contractor at the agency, who is currently in exile in Russia.

http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/edward-snowden-nsa-scandal-swift-tftp-eu-508882.html

Open a Forex Account

Open a Forex Trading Account

The foreign exchange market (forex, FX, or currency market) is a form of exchange for the global decentralized trading of international currencies. Financial centers around the world function as anchors of trading between a wide range of different types of buyers and sellers around the clock, with the exception of weekends. The foreign exchange market determines the relative values of different currencies. Non-US Citizens have the ability to use non-US brokers. Click here to open a Forex account - Non-US Citizens only.

Credit Suisse Closing "Non-Super Rich", "Risky" Client Accounts

In a move that clearly seeks to distance the second largest Swiss bank from potentially "risky" or just not that profitable (read "rich or super rich") accounts, Credit Suisse announced today that it plans to close some clients' accounts as it focuses on high-value customers in some countries and pulls out of others altogether. The development is somewhat ironic: while banks around the world scramble to obtain ultra cheap funding, of which deposits are currently the cheapest alternative, Credit Suisse is saying to people, thanks but no thanks, we don't want your money. Then again, perhaps this is an admirable stance by the bank. It certainly is preferable to CS eagerly accepting every last Swiss Franc only to pull a Cyprus in a few months (indicatively speaking) and "bailing in" said money. It does however pose the question: has CS found an alternative method of funding its assets now that it is actively deleveraging, and if so what, and who is the source?
More from AFP:

"We've decided to focus on certain segments and markets and exit some countries that are too small," said a spokeswoman for the Swiss banking giant.

Switzerland's Tages-Anzeiger newspaper reported that the accounts involved would be closed by the end of the year, affecting clients in nearly 50 countries.

The Credit Suisse spokeswoman said the bank would exit some countries entirely, including Congo, Angola and Turkmenistan. In others, such as Denmark and Israel, it will close small accounts to focus on the top segment of the market, she said.

Tages-Anzeiger said the bank considered the risk to its reputation in countries such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus to be too high, and elsewhere wanted to focus on "rich and super-rich clients" with balances of at least one million Swiss francs (800,000 euros, $1.1 million).

In Israel, where many clients have dual US citizenship, the bank also wanted to reduce the regulatory burden of complying with American tax law, the report said.

The bank had said in July it planned to exit smaller markets, as it announced second-quarter profits of 1.04 billion francs, a 32-percent increase from the year before.

...

Pressure has increased on banks in recent years to help identify accounts linked to organised crime, high-level corruption or other wrongdoing, causing the cost of complying with regulatory procedures to rise sharply.

Taking this to its next logical step, assuming the disposed capital is indeed illegally acquired, it would be unable to bypass US, and western, Anti-Money Laundering checks for securities accounts, which would leave it only one option: US real estate, where as we have been reporting over the past 18 months, the NAR is explicitly exempt from AML provisions. In fact, the NAR would welcome all illegally procured foreign capital, especially if in a few months the US District Attorney earns some cheap brownie points announcing said real estate has been confiscated (as we saw recently in New York not once but twice).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-24/credit-suisse-closing-non-super-rich-risky-client-accounts

Bakken - Hype Versus Reality

As Wall Street, CNBC, and feckless politicians tout American energy independence from the miracle of shale oil, reality is already rearing its ugly head. Production grew by 24% over the first six months of 2012. Production has grown by only 7% over the first six months of 2013. That is a dramatic slowdown. The fact is that these wells deplete at an extremely rapid rate. Oil companies will always seek out the easiest to access oil first. They have already accessed the easy stuff. This explains the dramatic slowdown. Peak Bakken oil production will be below 1 million barrels per day. The last time I checked, we consumed 18 million barrels per day. I wonder when that energy independence will be achieved? Reality is a bitch.
Bakken Oil Production Growth Has Slowed Significantly In 2013

By: Devon Shire

http://seekingalpha.com/author/devon-shire [9]

The headlines ring of “booming” American oil production and “gluts” of oil (USO [10]). I’m here to tell you that while the boom is real, there is no glut of oil and we need to be aware that the huge production growth of the past eighteen months is going to slow.

It already is slowing.

I’ve been watching what is going on in the Bakken pretty closely because I think it is going to be an excellent proxy for what will happen across the country.

Let’s take a look at what happened to production in North Dakota during the first six months of last year (2012). Here is the raw data [11] detailing barrels of oil production per day:

December 2011 – 535,000 boe/day

January 2012 – 547,000 boe/day

February 2012 – 559,000 boe/day

March 2012 – 580,000 boe/day

April 2012 – 611,000 boe/day

May 2012 – 644,000 boe/day

June 2012 – 664,000 boe/day

Daily production in North Dakota increased by 129,000 barrels per day from December 2011 to June 2012.

Now let’s look at the same period for this year (2013):

December 2012 – 768,000 boe/day

January 2013 – 739,000 boe/day

February 2013 – 780,000 boe/day

March 2013 – 785,000 boe/day

April 2013 – 793,000 boe/day

May 2013 – 811,000 boe/day

June 2013 – 821,000 boe/day

Where last year production increased by 129,000 barrels per day in the first six months of the year, this year production is up by only 53,000 barrels per day.

Yes, the rate of growth in the Bakken has slowed considerably in 2013.

To understand why, a person needs to look at the production profile for these horizontal oil wells.

By the end of the first year of production, a new well is producing at a rate that is 30% of where it was the year before. That means a huge amount of drilling each year has to be done just to offset the production lost due to these steep decline rates.
Without a continuous step change each year in the number of wells being drilled and the capital available to do so, production in the Bakken is going to flatten.
Good things are still happening, but we can’t repeat every year the hyperbolic growth that we saw in 2012.
What this means for investors is that we shouldn’t expect oil prices to fall much from where we have seen them over the past three years.

For the past three years WTI oil prices have ranged from $85 per barrel to $105 per barrel. I think $85 is about as low as we can go for an extended period of time because that is likely just about the marginal cost of production for oil in the world today.
Production growth in the Bakken is slowing and so too will production growth in the Eagle Ford. That is the nature of these horizontal oil fields. We get an initial surge in production as capital comes into the play. Then that growth rate slows steadily until it flattens and enters a decline.
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/479286

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton

The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.

As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.

The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.

Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.

The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”

The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.

Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/339t-quantitative-explosion-fed-owns-more-treasuries-and-mbss#sthash.lMYAYAJU.toT70JK9.dpuf

The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.
Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.
As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.
The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.
As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.
The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.
Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.
The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”
The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.
The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.
Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/339t-quantitative-explosion-fed-owns-more-treasuries-and-mbss#sthash.lMYAYAJU.toT70JK9.dpuf

The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.
Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.
As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.
The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.
As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.
The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.
Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.
The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”
The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.
The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.
Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/339t-quantitative-explosion-fed-owns-more-treasuries-and-mbss#sthash.lMYAYAJU.toT70JK9.dpuf

(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.
Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.
As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.
The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.
As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.
The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.
Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.
The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”
The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.
The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.
Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/339t-quantitative-explosion-fed-owns-more-treasuries-and-mbss#sthash.lMYAYAJU.toT70JK9.dpuf

(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.
Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.
As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.
The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.
As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.
The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.
Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.
The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”
The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.
The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.
Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/339t-quantitative-explosion-fed-owns-more-treasuries-and-mbss#sthash.lMYAYAJU.toT70JK9.dpuf