labyrinthworld.com Blog

March 12, 2008

Who benefits when the feds cut rates?

Filed under: Economy, Personal Finance — Administrator @ 10:42 pm

First it’s necessary to understand what it meant by rate cuts. Just like consumers, banks borrow money, except they borrow their money from federal banks. And like consumers, they pay interest rates on the money they borrow. When the feds cut rates, it means that the interest rates banks pay for borrowing money is less. The feds cut the rates hoping that the cheaper money will act as an incentive for banks to reduce the rate that they loan money.

During this recent crisis the feds have cut rates 5 times.  How have these cuts benefitted the average consumer?  As far as I can tell, the answer is there has been little to no benefit.  After a series of rate cutting, mortgage rates for consumers are pretty much where they were before they started.

The most direct beneficiaries are large institutional investors. As for consumers, experts agree that those with good credit and secure jobs will be the biggest beneficiaries.  Some consumers will adjustable rate mortgages may benefit because their rates may be lower. But those without good credit are not likely to benefit because bankers will be reluctant to loan money given the rising delinquency on home loans and credit card payments.

 

March 11, 2008

It is the American people who are suffering

Filed under: Economy, Personal Finance — Administrator @ 3:07 pm

This article by Bob Herbert from the NY Times expresses a view I’ve held for some time.  Americans are experiencing declining income and quality of life and have been for quite some time. Easy credit and the ability to use their homes as ATMs has only disguised the problem.

Sharing the Pain By BOB HERBERT

Published: March 11, 2008
Now that the economic crunch is reaching those near the top of the pyramid, there is finally a sense that the U.S. is facing a real crisis.  

Forget about a soft landing. The stock markets continue to tumble. The dollar has weakened. The subprime mortgage debacle has morphed into a full-fledged panic. And Joe Stiglitz is telling us the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion.

Maybe now we can stop listening to the geniuses who insisted that the way to nirvana was to ignore the broad national interest while catering to the desires of those who were already the wealthiest among us.

We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.

It is disgraceful that in a nation as wealthy as the United States, nearly a third of the people are poor or near-poor.

Former Senator John Edwards touched on the quality of the lives of those perched precariously above the abyss of poverty in his foreword to the book, “The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near-Poor in America,” by Katherine S. Newman and Victor Tan Chen. Mr. Edwards wrote:

“When we set about fixing welfare in the 1990s, we said we were going to encourage work. Near-poor Americans do work, usually in jobs that the rest of us do not want — jobs with stagnant wages, no retirement funds, and inadequate health insurance, if they have it at all. While their wages stay the same, the cost of everything else — energy, housing, transportation, tuition — goes up.”

The economic pain and anxiety felt for so long by the poor and the near-poor has been spreading like a stain in the middle class as well. It’s hardly been a secret. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have stepped up to this fundamental long-term challenge, and that includes the three remaining candidates for president.

No one will tackle the crucial issue of employment in a serious way. The cornerstone of a middle-class life in America (and that means the cornerstone of the American dream) is a good job. The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.

For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable. Wives and mothers have gone to work. People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.

And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.

As Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me some months ago: “Workers are incredibly, legitimately scared that the American dream, particularly the belief that their kids will do better, is ending.”

It is. The dream is in grave danger because the ruling elite stopped looking out for the collective interests of the society and all but stopped investing in the future. We are swimming in a vast sea of indebtedness, most of it bringing no worthwhile return.

Former Senator Bill Bradley, in a conversation the other day, described the amount of public and private indebtedness in the U.S. as “ominous.” In his book, “The New American Story,” Mr. Bradley said:

“For almost a generation, America has cheated our future and lived only in the here and now. Economic growth depends on the level of investment in both physical capital — machines, infrastructure, technology — and human capital, which consists of the combined skills and health of our work force.”

Instead of making those investments, we’ve neglected our physical and human infrastructure, squeezed the daylights out of the work force (now a fearful and demoralized lot) and tried to hide the resulting debacle behind the fool’s gold of debt and denial.

Americans save virtually nothing. They have looted the equity in their homes and driven their credit card balances to staggering heights. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has claimed colossal new standards of fiscal irresponsibility. At some point, to take just one example, someone will have to pay the $3 trillion for the war.

This craziness is not sustainable.

Without an educated and empowered work force, without sustained investment in the infrastructure and technologies that foster long-term employment, and without a system of taxation that can actually pay for the services provided by government, the American dream as we know it will expire.

March 9, 2008

The Medicare prescription plan – Medicare Part D

Filed under: Health Care — Administrator @ 6:03 pm

I thought now would be a good time to revisit the revised Medicare prescription plan. The largest change in Medicare’s history took place in 2003. Medicare Part D is part of that change. There has been confusion about just how Medicare Part D works.  In this and subsequent postings I will attempt to clear up that confusion.

Over the years as the price of medicines rose, seniors were finding it increasingly difficult to afford them. Medicare Part D was an attempt to address the issue of affordability.

Medicare Part D is a prescription drug benefit that was made available in 2006.  It requires significant out-of-pocket costs. Coverage is available only through insurance companies and is voluntary.

Under this plan enrollees pay a minimum monthly premium of $24.80, with an annual deductible that can range from $180 to $265.  Enrollees pay 25% of the full drug costs up to $2500.  After that limit is met, comes a period commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” During this period, enrollees may be responsible for up to the full amount of drug costs.  The donut hole ends when enrollees meet out of pocket amount of $3850.  After which enrollees pay 5% of all drug costs.

The problem is that people assume that the $2400 and $3850 are calculated in the same way. This is not the case. The $2400 is a total drug expense.  The amount the manufacturer charges for the medicine is applied to the $2400.  With the $3850 only what the enrollee has paid towards medicine counts.  For example, if the prescription without insurance costs $100, with insurance the enrollee may have a $25 co pay.  The full $100 goes towards $2400.  But only $25 goes towards the $3850.

March 8, 2008

Investors now profiting from the death of the elderly

Filed under: Personal Finance — Administrator @ 2:40 am

A growing practice is for investors to buy insurance policies for the elderly in return for their death benefits.  This practice require the elderly to sign over death benefits to investors and after an agreed upon time receive money compensation.  Since the elderly are guaranteed to die, the investment is guaranteed to pay off. 

Investors are beginning to pool these investments and sell them as a package. Face value for policies bought for the secondary market rose to $6.1 billion in 2006 up from $2 billion in 2002. Experts are predicting this figure could reach $20 billion this year.

Insurance companies don’t like it because it threatens their profits. Advocates for the elderly argue that it makes the elderly lives into commodities. The practice is being marketed just like any commodity. Flyers are being printed and distributed at places where the elderly gather.

There are other reasons for concern. Because the insured are only allowed a limited amount of insurance, if they’ve contracted out the full amount to investors, they may not be able to buy insurance for themselves. There is also the possibility that the elderly can become victimized by strangers who may not want to wait for a natural death in order to collect.

The article can be found at the L.A. Times.

Powered by WordPress