I'm still short. Took more profits yesterday and added on a small bounce. Overall, not much different all week other than the few pips locked in.
Not a bad week for bears, I wanted to short from 1.2535 but we never got back over it to get in, since then I am worried we could get one of those mad up spikes. So far pretty much a wasted week.
Does anyone now when and if a statement will be published?
Nobody knows. There isn't even a defined time for the meeting to end: there is talk of continuing it over the weekend. Expect leaks in dribs and drabs, with the market over-interpreting every bland bit of boilerplate rhetoric as if it meant something momentous.
Originally Posted by EuroTraderApp
Supreme court rules Obamacare health law.
Rob can you please give a bit of color on what impact this would have on the U.S, its deficit and potentially the dollar?
Thanks,
M
Originally Posted by NoGrn4grnhorn
OH MY???!!!!!!.................Just keep spending money we don't have.....where will it end?????
Originally Posted by biggari
i thought all your supreme court judges were republicans
The court is 5 Republican-nominated, 4 Democratic-nominated, and 5-4 is a common outcome; but only 3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) are nakedly political, discovering a belief in whichever legal doctrine will reach the desired conclusion (voting based on "whose Al is Gored" the joke goes); the other 2 (Chief Justice Roberts, and Kennedy) joined to make this a 6-3 ruling upholding most of the law, on a "judicial restraint" argument, a principle that gets a lot of lip service but little actual application. On the main point, whether the "mandate" payment that citizens will have to come up with if they do not arrange private insurance is like a criminal fine for the "offense" of not buying a product (unconstitutional) or a "tax" to cover public costs from which there is an exemption if other arrangements are made (no problem), Roberts writes that his job is to find a way to interpret the statute as constitutional if he can, not to search for ways to strike down what the legislature did.
My own belief is that this will end up saving the US economy a considerable amount of money, although Greenhorn is far from alone in believing the opposite. The bill is a Frankenstein Monster cobbled together from bits and pieces of various proposals, so no-one really knows (most of the provisions have not even taken effect yet); the simple sloganistic way of putting it is that "Congress did not read the bill" (dirty secret: they never do) but the truth behind that is that there was insufficient time to make realistic estimates of how it would all play out. The Congressional Budget Office (generally perceived as neutral and non-partisan) thinks it will be a net positive, but we will have to wait and see.
The current situation is that the US has the worst health-care system of any industrialized nation (unless you are a millionaire), paying twice as much per capita as anybody else for dismal results. Simple objective measures like life span and infant mortality (subtler measures like chronic disease rates give similar results, but are more difficult to get apples-to-apples comparative data on) put us between "Second World" and "Third World" (worse than Cuba though better than Guatemala), not remotely "First World". The system is dominated by private insurance companies who make no profits by covering health care, of course, rather by denying health care; usually there would be free-market incentives for a company to develop a reputation for paying claims fairly and promptly (as in the auto-insurance market, for example) but this does not happen at all in this market, because the insured is practically never the decision-maker about which company's services to purchase. Most insured get coverage through their employer, or the employer of a family member (there are legal battles in several states about whether same---- couples are allowed to get coverage for each other or any children they might be raising, which is illegal in my state of Michigan for example). Anyone who tries to buy insurance individually will face high rates as the companies wonder what is wrong with you. I have not had insurance for over ten years, so as far as I am concerned the US might as well not even have any hospitals; I needed surgery in 2006, but no hospital would take me without a deposit of several thousand dollars I did not have; I looked into going to Canada or Mexico, but after some years was finally treated in California by a clinic heavily subsidized by the local and state governments: my payment was nominal; of course this meant the cost passed on to the public was far higher than if I had been treated early. Such delays in treatment until the situation has worsened is a major cause for the poor outcomes of the system: the condition called "diabetic foot" is common in the US (because we subsidize huge amounts of sugar and syrup in the general diet, but that is a whole other issue), and proceeds to gangrene and amputation at rates higher than in any other major country.
The insurers were, until this bill, allowed to deny coverage for a variety of reasons falling under the general term "pre-existing condition": if your problem could be traced back to something in your medical history from before you had your present insurer (as randomly triggered by a change of job for you or someone in your family), you were out of luck. Doctors therefore had to carefully document everything in absurd detail to get paid for anything, in accord with the requirements of numerous incompatible bureaucratic systems ("Medical Billing Specialist" is one of the top job openings lately), so that the administrative overhead is considerably larger than the actual amount spent on health care. This counts in the GDP, but actually should count negative: since people who work for insurance companies or as billing specialists deliver no services but actually obstruct services, we would better off putting them all on unemployment (paying them to sit home and watch TV would be less of a drag on the economy than paying them to throw bricks through windows). A "single payer" system like the UK or Canada would substitute tax payments of less than half the size of the average insurance premiums, to abolish all this noise for better outcomes at lower costs; naturally it is impossible in the US, where Republicans believe that socialized medicine is the first step to Stalinism. I am old enough to remember the Republicans getting similarly alarmist about the "Medicare" proposal in the 60's (single payer system that applies to those over 65), which has since become so popular as to be politically untouchable.
But during this campaign, Republicans were setting their hair on fire about how the Supreme Court was our last chance to avoid the gulags that would inevitably result if Obamacare was allowed to continue. So we can expect to hear a great deal of political upset about this decision, which unfortunately will obstruct any attempts to rewrite the ad-hockery of the current bill into something more coherent. The court did strike down some of the provisions, forcing Congress to revisit the question, but the current partisan deadlock makes it impossible to expect anything to get down before January (after the new President and Congress take office). I'm sure that whichever country any particular reader here lives in, you have your own stories about how exceptionally useless politicians are this year (even by the usual standards for politicians). In our Congress, both parties agreed over a month ago that it was absolutely vital to fix a glitch in the student-loans bill which will cause interest rates on the crushing debt carried by many of our young people to double at the start of July; despite this universal agreement, nothing has passed and apparently nothing will. Appropriations to fix the roads used to be a yearly routine, though the amounts have lately gone down as the needs have gone up (and the jobs would really help right now): Republicans stymied the roads bill with a thoroughly irrelevant (as well as repugnant) proposal to allow employers to determine on their own religious grounds whether female employees can get insurance that covers birth control or any hormonal treatments for medical conditions if those treatments could also have a contraceptive effect. Today the Congress is debating whether to hold the Attorney General in contempt for not giving them more and more documents about inept handling of gun-running to the Mexican drug cartels (the agents involved plead that they can't stop it because our lax gun laws don't let them do anything but watch), a tempest in a teapot which has generated some insane conspiracy theories.
Upshot: economic effects will only be long-term, and at present are uncertain. Short-term effects will be political, increasing the anger and perhaps the motivation to vote of Republican die-hards, but probably mostly a boost to Obama's standing. Obama remains a favorite (but hardly a shoo-in) to win re-election despite the poor economy, as long as the economy does not significantly worsen.
yet another of the great things about living at the center of the universe is our health care system - it could be run a thousand times better but the principle of essential health care being free at the point of use makes for one of the few taxes worth paying
[/QUOTE]
The current situation is that the US has the worst health-care system of any industrialized nation (unless you are a millionaire), paying twice as much per capita as anybody else for dismal results. Simple objective measures like life span and infant mortality (subtler measures like chronic disease rates give similar results, but are more difficult to get apples-to-apples comparative data on) put us between "Second World" and "Third World" (worse than Cuba though better than Guatemala), not remotely "First World". The system is dominated by private insurance companies who make no profits by covering health care, of course, rather by denying health care; usually there would be free-market incentives for a company to develop a reputation for paying claims fairly and promptly (as in the auto-insurance market, for example) but this does not happen at all in this market, because the insured is practically never the decision-maker about which company's services to purchase. Most insured get coverage through their employer, or the employer of a family member (there are legal battles in several states about whether same---- couples are allowed to get coverage for each other or any children they might be raising, which is illegal in my state of Michigan for example). Anyone who tries to buy insurance individually will face high rates as the companies wonder what is wrong with you. I have not had insurance for over ten years, so as far as I am concerned the US might as well not even have any hospitals; I needed surgery in 2006, but no hospital would take me without a deposit of several thousand dollars I did not have; I looked into going to Canada or Mexico, but after some years was finally treated in California by a clinic heavily subsidized by the local and state governments: my payment was nominal; of course this meant the cost passed on to the public was far higher than if I had been treated early. Such delays in treatment until the situation has worsened is a major cause for the poor outcomes of the system: the condition called "diabetic foot" is common in the US (because we subsidize huge amounts of sugar and syrup in the general diet, but that is a whole other issue), and proceeds to gangrene and amputation at rates higher than in any other major country.
The insurers were, until this bill, allowed to deny coverage for a variety of reasons falling under the general term "pre-existing condition": if your problem could be traced back to something in your medical history from before you had your present insurer (as randomly triggered by a change of job for you or someone in your family), you were out of luck. Doctors therefore had to carefully document everything in absurd detail to get paid for anything, in accord with the requirements of numerous incompatible bureaucratic systems ("Medical Billing Specialist" is one of the top job openings lately), so that the administrative overhead is considerably larger than the actual amount spent on health care. This counts in the GDP, but actually should count negative: since people who work for insurance companies or as billing specialists deliver no services but actually obstruct services, we would better off putting them all on unemployment (paying them to sit home and watch TV would be less of a drag on the economy than paying them to throw bricks through windows). A "single payer" system like the UK or Canada would substitute tax payments of less than half the size of the average insurance premiums, to abolish all this noise for better outcomes at lower costs; naturally it is impossible in the US, where Republicans believe that socialized medicine is the first step to Stalinism. I am old enough to remember the Republicans getting similarly alarmist about the "Medicare" proposal in the 60's (single payer system that applies to those over 65), which has since become so popular as to be politically untouchable.
But during this campaign, Republicans were setting their hair on fire about how the Supreme Court was our last chance to avoid the gulags that would inevitably result if Obamacare was allowed to continue. So we can expect to hear a great deal of political upset about this decision, which unfortunately will obstruct any attempts to rewrite the ad-hockery of the current bill into something more coherent. The court did strike down some of the provisions, forcing Congress to revisit the question, but the current partisan deadlock makes it impossible to expect anything to get down before January (after the new President and Congress take office). I'm sure that whichever country any particular reader here lives in, you have your own stories about how exceptionally useless politicians are this year (even by the usual standards for politicians). In our Congress, both parties agreed over a month ago that it was absolutely vital to fix a glitch in the student-loans bill which will cause interest rates on the crushing debt carried by many of our young people to double at the start of July; despite this universal agreement, nothing has passed and apparently nothing will. Appropriations to fix the roads used to be a yearly routine, though the amounts have lately gone down as the needs have gone up (and the jobs would really help right now): Republicans stymied the roads bill with a thoroughly irrelevant (as well as repugnant) proposal to allow employers to determine on their own religious grounds whether female employees can get insurance that covers birth control or any hormonal treatments for medical conditions if those treatments could also have a contraceptive effect. Today the Congress is debating whether to hold the Attorney General in contempt for not giving them more and more documents about inept handling of gun-running to the Mexican drug cartels (the agents involved plead that they can't stop it because our lax gun laws don't let them do anything but watch), a tempest in a teapot which has generated some insane conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
good analysis is easy
making money from your analysis is a whole new ball game
[QUOTE=biggari;1217712]yet another of the great things about living at the center of the universe is our health care system - it could be run a thousand times better but the principle of essential health care being free at the point of use makes for one of the few taxes worth paying..........
Is this forum about political rantings or the EUR/USD currency pair? Does this post impact the currency value of the EUR vs the USD or what? I don't know about you but I have tons of other outlets to discuss policy issues and I don't really want this great forum degenerating into that! If you are happy with the Court or Not, jump for joy or plan your next attack but unless this impacts the overall currency pair we are discussing, please don't rant here! I'm not interested. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! I just don't feel like discussing this kind of stuff on this forum. I thought it was exclusively for the EUR/USD currency pair! Am I wrong here?
yet another of the great things about living at the center of the universe is our health care system - it could be run a thousand times better but the principle of essential health care being free at the point of use makes for one of the few taxes worth paying..........
Is this forum about political rantings or the EUR/USD currency pair? Does this post impact the currency value of the EUR vs the USD or what? I don't know about you but I have tons of other outlets to discuss policy issues and I don't really want this great forum degenerating into that! If you are happy with the Court or Not, jump for joy or plan your next attack but unless this impacts the overall currency pair we are discussing, please don't rant here! I'm not interested. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! I just don't feel like discussing this kind of stuff on this forum. I thought it was exclusively for the EUR/USD currency pair! Am I wrong here?
Over the longer term (years and decades) any legislation which brings health care costs down could lower the US deficit and have a beneficial impact on the dollar. The Affordable Care Act is designed to bring costs down, yet its successful implementation depends on many factors, and health care is not the only expense impacting the US budget deficit. On a day to day basis the eur/usd pair responds more to the "risk-on/off" scenario as well as expectations for rate cuts/hikes from the ECB and the US Fed. Right now the pair appears to be most impacted by news or lack of news from the EU summit
yet another of the great things about living at the center of the universe is our health care system - it could be run a thousand times better but the principle of essential health care being free at the point of use makes for one of the few taxes worth paying..........
Is this forum about political rantings or the EUR/USD currency pair? Does this post impact the currency value of the EUR vs the USD or what? I don't know about you but I have tons of other outlets to discuss policy issues and I don't really want this great forum degenerating into that! If you are happy with the Court or Not, jump for joy or plan your next attack but unless this impacts the overall currency pair we are discussing, please don't rant here! I'm not interested. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! I just don't feel like discussing this kind of stuff on this forum. I thought it was exclusively for the EUR/USD currency pair! Am I wrong here?
This was why the 'purely technical' thread got started Robert..........
Disclaimer: Trading foreign exchange on margin carries a high level of risk, and may not be suitable for all investors. The high degree of leverage can work against you as well as for you. Before deciding to trade foreign exchange you should carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite. The possibility exists that you could sustain a loss of some or all of your initial investment and therefore you should not invest money that you cannot afford to lose. You should be aware of all the risks associated with foreign exchange trading, and seek advice from an independent financial advisor if you have any doubts. Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, or other information contained on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. Forex Capital Markets LLC. will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to, any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information.
English
Español
Français
中文
Deutsch
Italiano
العربية
Sverige
Ελληνικά
Originally Posted by NoGrn4grnhorn
Posting Permissions 
Reply With Quote
Wait & See Time
........Just keep spending money we don't have.....where will it end?????
