The U.S. economy

[geerussell]

Raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached. Repeal the debt ceiling. Two good alternatives without even breaking a sweat.

[geerussell]

Debt ceiling: 10 lessons beyond that crisis

(or 10 reasons watching our government's limp response to the crisis makes me want to punch myself in the junk)

[geerussell]

Bend over Michigan, here it comes again. Hot on the heels of cutting maximum benefit time from 26 weeks to 20:

Wednesday, June 22 -- Earlier today, the House Commerce Committee passed House Bills 4781-82, legislation to implement the major reform proposals recommended by the Michigan Chamber Foundation’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reform Study commissioned earlier this year.

• Revising the formula for determining weekly benefit amounts. This change would move Michigan from computing weekly benefit amounts by using a high quarter formula to an annual income formula.
• Expanding the seasonal employer designation. This change would allow employers with peak periods of employment to hire seasonal workers without the usual higher unemployment costs associated in so far as they are able to provide assurance that the position will be available the next season.

Allow benefits for workers with seasonal swings in income to be cut... and allow more businesses to qualify as seasonal to avoid paying unemployment insurance. Win-win!

• Revising suitable work requirements. This change lowers the “suitable work” threshold as an unemployment claim ages so to incentivize the unemployed to become reemployed in a reasonable time. The revised definition of suitable work is more realistic for Michigan’s modern labor market. It requires individuals to accept work outside their prior training and experience and/or usual pay as their unemployment claim ages, thereby prohibiting individuals from refusing jobs because they can “make the same amount on unemployment” or because they want to “hold out” for a higher paying job.

No more of you layabouts collecting unemployment while you search for a job that might pay your bills. Walk away from your mortgage and embrace your new life as a flophouse dwelling wal-mart greeter.

• Revising disqualification standards. This change clarifies that unemployment benefits are meant to cover individuals who are unemployed due to “no fault of their own”. Current law allows for benefits when a worker was fired by an employer for “cause”, such as chronic tardiness or absences and failure or inability to perform the work correctly or meet production quotas. These circumstances put employers in a lose-lose position: pay wages to a worker who isn’t performing to expectations or showing up for work vs. pay unemployment benefits to that worker through the employer-financed UI system. The revised language would begin to specify additional circumstances whereby an individual discharged (fired) from a job would be disqualified from receiving benefits.

There are a lot of reasons people can get fired for "cause" and there are often two sides to those stories. Without a safety net while looking for new employment they'll just... um, well... the chamber of commerce members don't seem too concerned with filling in this blank in a way that benefits anything but their immediate bottom line.

[geerussell]

lol@s&p

[geerussell]

Just sayin...

[the] thirteen (13) countries that have a AAA credit rating from S&P:

Switzerland
Hong Kong
Sweden
Germany
Canada
Denmark
Britain
Netherlands
Finland
Norway
Austria
France
Australia

The thing all thirteen have in common? All provide National Health Care.

[Uncle Mxy]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60852.html

[geerussell]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60852.html

Maybe the S&P really is just a bunch of hacks

Look, I know these S&P guys. Not these particular guys — I don’t know John Chambers or David Beers personally. But I know the rating agencies intimately. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement.

Naturally, before meeting with a rating agency, we would plan out our arguments — you want to make sure you’re making your strongest arguments, that everyone is on the same page about the deal’s positive attributes, etc. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-constraint in our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence.

[Tahoe]

Libs...always attacking the messenger.

[Uncle Mxy]

If S&P's credibility is so great, why did U.S. bonds go up today?

[Vinny]

I so love the irony of all that.