To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by CCH Trade Regulation staff.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz welcomed Joshua D. Wright as an FTC Commissioner at a swearing-in ceremony January 11. President Obama named Wright, a Republican, to a term that ends on September 25, 2019. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 1, 2013, and will replace J. Thomas Rosch, who served as a Commissioner beginning in January 2006.
Before joining the FTC, Wright was a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. Wright previously served as the inaugural Scholar in Residence at the FTC Bureau of Competition, from January 2007 to July 2008. Prior to GMU, Wright taught at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and clerked for Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
He received a B.A. in Economics at the University of California, San Diego and a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where he was Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review. According to Truth on the Market blog, Wright would be the first J.D./Ph.D. to serve as an FTC Commissioner and only the fourth economist.
25 Şubat 2013 Pazartesi
UPS Drops Planned Acquisition of TNT Express in Light of EC Concerns
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) announced on January 14 that it is dropping its plans to acquire competing delivery company TNT Express N.V. in response to European Commission (EC) antitrust concerns over the deal. UPS said that the EC had informed the companies that it was working on a decision to prohibit the transaction. Upon prohibition by the EC, UPS will withdraw its offer and pay the Dutch firm € 200 million.
According to a statement from TNT released today, the EC case team investigating the proposed acquisition informed the companies that on the basis of UPS’s current remedy proposal it was working towards proposing a prohibition decision. TNT went on to say that it was informed that UPS “sees no realistic prospect that EC clearance can be obtained and that UPS will not pursue the transaction on any other basis.”
In March 2012, the parties announced the proposed transaction to “create a global leader in the logistics industry.” The parties had initially hoped to complete the acquisition by the end of 2012.
The EC disclosed in July 2012 that it had opened an in-depth investigation into the combination. At that time, the EC said that its preliminary investigation indicated potential competition concerns in the markets for small parcel delivery services, in particular international express services, in numerous member states, where the parties would have very high combined market shares.
The parties announced in October that they had received a statement of objections from the EC. The parties offered proposed remedies to resolve the EC's concerns regarding the competitive effects of the proposed merger on the international express small package market in Europe. Obviously, the commitments were not enough to resolve the antitrust concerns. The EC has until early February to issue its decision.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) announced on January 14 that it is dropping its plans to acquire competing delivery company TNT Express N.V. in response to European Commission (EC) antitrust concerns over the deal. UPS said that the EC had informed the companies that it was working on a decision to prohibit the transaction. Upon prohibition by the EC, UPS will withdraw its offer and pay the Dutch firm € 200 million.
According to a statement from TNT released today, the EC case team investigating the proposed acquisition informed the companies that on the basis of UPS’s current remedy proposal it was working towards proposing a prohibition decision. TNT went on to say that it was informed that UPS “sees no realistic prospect that EC clearance can be obtained and that UPS will not pursue the transaction on any other basis.”
In March 2012, the parties announced the proposed transaction to “create a global leader in the logistics industry.” The parties had initially hoped to complete the acquisition by the end of 2012.
The EC disclosed in July 2012 that it had opened an in-depth investigation into the combination. At that time, the EC said that its preliminary investigation indicated potential competition concerns in the markets for small parcel delivery services, in particular international express services, in numerous member states, where the parties would have very high combined market shares.
The parties announced in October that they had received a statement of objections from the EC. The parties offered proposed remedies to resolve the EC's concerns regarding the competitive effects of the proposed merger on the international express small package market in Europe. Obviously, the commitments were not enough to resolve the antitrust concerns. The EC has until early February to issue its decision.
Subway Sued For Misrepresenting Length of “Footlong” Sandwiches
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Jody Coultas, Editor of CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.
A Subway customer filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Chicago, alleging that Subway violated the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, after measuring a “Footlong” sandwich purchased from Subway and realizing it was less than 11 inches long (Buren v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00498, January 22, 2013).
Subway advertises and sells submarine sandwiches labeled as “Footlong” subs. The complaint alleges that, because the actual length of the sandwiches falls short of 12 inches, customers pay more than they should have in reliance on Subway’s advertising. Advertising on television, in print, on the radio, and on the Internet allegedly misleads consumers into believing that they are receiving a 12-inch sandwich when they actually receive less.
In marketing and advertising materials, Subway references the length of the “Footlong” subs by having actors or artists’ renderings hold their hands approximately one foot apart, and includes a graphic between the actors’ hands indicating that the hands are one foot apart.
The customer, Nguyen Buren, alleged a class action on behalf of “All persons in the United States who purchased SUBWAY® ‘Footlong’ submarine sandwiches that were less than 12 inches long.”
The complaint sought to enjoin Subway from using the allegedly deceptive advertising and requested restitution, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs of suit.
Other Lawsuits
Similar lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County and in New Jersey Superior Court, Burlington County.
The Pennsylvania complaint alleges a state-wide class action brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) “over identical, false, affirmative misstatements of material fact and knowing material omissions made by Subway regarding its trademarked ‘Footlong’ sandwich” starting in January 2007 and continuing to the present (Roseman v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., No. 130102647, January 24, 2013).
“The discrepancy in size between the uniform statements in Subway’s signs, menus and advertising regarding the size of this sandwich and the actual size of this sandwich is not an accident nor is it the result of any variation in size among such sandwiches,” the complaint charged. “Rather, Subway has admitted in communications with the press that this sandwich is made according to exacting, uniform procedures and specifications imposed by Subway upon its franchisees and stores, all of whom are required by Subway to use specified ingredients in specified amounts.”
The action “aims at obtaining redress under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL for those persons in Pennsylvania who received less than what they were promised when they purchased a ‘Footlong’ sandwich in Pennsylvania between January 24, 2007 and the present.” It asks the court to certify the class, enter an order for injunctive and declaratory relief, assess damages and trebled damages, and award attorney fees and costs.
A Subway customer filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Chicago, alleging that Subway violated the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, after measuring a “Footlong” sandwich purchased from Subway and realizing it was less than 11 inches long (Buren v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00498, January 22, 2013).
Subway advertises and sells submarine sandwiches labeled as “Footlong” subs. The complaint alleges that, because the actual length of the sandwiches falls short of 12 inches, customers pay more than they should have in reliance on Subway’s advertising. Advertising on television, in print, on the radio, and on the Internet allegedly misleads consumers into believing that they are receiving a 12-inch sandwich when they actually receive less.
In marketing and advertising materials, Subway references the length of the “Footlong” subs by having actors or artists’ renderings hold their hands approximately one foot apart, and includes a graphic between the actors’ hands indicating that the hands are one foot apart.
The customer, Nguyen Buren, alleged a class action on behalf of “All persons in the United States who purchased SUBWAY® ‘Footlong’ submarine sandwiches that were less than 12 inches long.”
The complaint sought to enjoin Subway from using the allegedly deceptive advertising and requested restitution, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs of suit.
Other Lawsuits
Similar lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County and in New Jersey Superior Court, Burlington County.
The Pennsylvania complaint alleges a state-wide class action brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) “over identical, false, affirmative misstatements of material fact and knowing material omissions made by Subway regarding its trademarked ‘Footlong’ sandwich” starting in January 2007 and continuing to the present (Roseman v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., No. 130102647, January 24, 2013).
“The discrepancy in size between the uniform statements in Subway’s signs, menus and advertising regarding the size of this sandwich and the actual size of this sandwich is not an accident nor is it the result of any variation in size among such sandwiches,” the complaint charged. “Rather, Subway has admitted in communications with the press that this sandwich is made according to exacting, uniform procedures and specifications imposed by Subway upon its franchisees and stores, all of whom are required by Subway to use specified ingredients in specified amounts.”
The action “aims at obtaining redress under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL for those persons in Pennsylvania who received less than what they were promised when they purchased a ‘Footlong’ sandwich in Pennsylvania between January 24, 2007 and the present.” It asks the court to certify the class, enter an order for injunctive and declaratory relief, assess damages and trebled damages, and award attorney fees and costs.
Michigan Motor Dealers Act Amendments Do Not Apply Retroactively to Require Prior Notice of Opening New Dealership
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LLM, contributor to Antitrust Law Daily.
Kia Motors may open an automobile dealer within nine miles of an existing Michigan dealership without providing notice to the dealer, despite a 2010 amendment to Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act requiring manufacturers to provide notice and an opportunity to bring a declaratory judgment action to dealers within nine miles of the new dealer, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled (Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., February 7, 2013, McKeague, D.).
Kia and the Michigan dealer entered into their dealer agreement in 1998, when the statute specified a six-mile zone requiring notice rather than a nine-mile zone, and the amendment did not apply retroactively.
Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc. is a Southfield, Michigan automobile dealer. In 1998, Kia and Glassman entered into a nonexclusive Dealer Sales and Service Agreement appointing Glassman as an authorized Kia dealer. The agreement stated that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to, relocate dealers into or remove dealers from the [Area of Primary Responsibility] assigned to [Glassman].”
In 1998, Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act required manufacturers to provide written notice to existing dealers within six miles of a proposed new dealer before establishing the dealer, and permitted the existing dealer to bring a declaratory judgment action within thirty days of receiving notice “to determine whether good cause exists for the establishing or relocating of” the proposed new dealer. In 2010, the Michigan legislature amended the Act to extend this zone to nine miles from existing dealers.
Shortly after the amendment became effective, Kia informed Glassman that it intended to establish a new dealer in Troy, Michigan, about seven miles from Glassman. Glassman protested the lack of written notice from Kia, and Kia filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the 2010 amendment did not require it to give notice to Glassman.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kia, concluding that the amendment did not operate retroactively to require Kia to give notice. Glassman appealed.
Contract Argument
On appeal, Glassman contended that the parties had intended to incorporate changes to the law, such as the 2010 amendment, by including the “as permitted by applicable law” language. The appeals court initially noted that the language might not apply to this case, since the language limited Kia’s ability to establish new dealers within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility,” a term distinct from the “relevant market area” term in the Act. Kia had stated that the new dealer would not be established within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility.”
Even if it did apply, however, the court observed that changes to the law are generally not incorporated into an agreement unless the language of the agreement clearly indicates the intent of the parties to include such changes. Since “as permitted by applicable law” could refer to the provision of the Act in effect when the contract was signed as easily as it could refer to the current provision, the language did not clearly indicate the intent of the parties to incorporate changes in the law.
Glassman also argued that the 2010 amendment should apply, since other provisions in the agreement required Glassman to comply with applicable consumer-protection, safety, and emission-control laws, and since Kia agreed that those provisions required Glassman to comply with current laws as well as those in effect when the agreement was signed. However, the court of appeals observed that those provisions referred to Glassman’s responsibilities to the general public, and did not “significantly change the parties’ bargain.” Since the dealer establishment provision “directly concern[ed] the relationship between Kia and Glassman,” it differed fundamentally from the other provisions, in the court’s view.
Statutory Argument
Having determined that the agreement did not include the 2010 amendment, the court proceeded to address whether the Michigan legislature intended the 2010 amendment to apply retroactively. The court noted that Michigan statutes are generally presumed to operate only prospectively “unless the contrary intent is clearly manifested.” However, procedural statutes that “neither create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing rights are generally held to operate retrospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifested.”
Since the legislature had not manifested a clear intent for the amendment to apply retrospectively, the only issue was whether the amendment was substantive or procedural. Glassman had argued that the amendment was procedural “because it constituted a minor change to the definition of relevant market area,” and did not “create new substantive rights.” However, the court concluded that the amendment, by requiring Kia to provide notice if it established a dealer more than six miles from an existing dealer, did impose a new duty on Kia, and “provide[d] a new substantive right that did not previously exist.”
The court also rejected an argument that, since Kia was intending to establish a new dealer after the 2010 amendment, the amendment would not have to be applied retrospectively, finding that the amendment would “affect[] Kia’s rights under a contract that predates the amendment.”
In addition, the court noted that its decision would permit it to avoid the constitutional question whether applying the 2010 amendment retroactively would violate the Contracts Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The court therefore concluded that the 2010 amendment should not be applied retroactively to the agreement, and affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to Kia.
Kia Motors may open an automobile dealer within nine miles of an existing Michigan dealership without providing notice to the dealer, despite a 2010 amendment to Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act requiring manufacturers to provide notice and an opportunity to bring a declaratory judgment action to dealers within nine miles of the new dealer, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled (Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., February 7, 2013, McKeague, D.).
Kia and the Michigan dealer entered into their dealer agreement in 1998, when the statute specified a six-mile zone requiring notice rather than a nine-mile zone, and the amendment did not apply retroactively.
Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc. is a Southfield, Michigan automobile dealer. In 1998, Kia and Glassman entered into a nonexclusive Dealer Sales and Service Agreement appointing Glassman as an authorized Kia dealer. The agreement stated that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to, relocate dealers into or remove dealers from the [Area of Primary Responsibility] assigned to [Glassman].”
In 1998, Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act required manufacturers to provide written notice to existing dealers within six miles of a proposed new dealer before establishing the dealer, and permitted the existing dealer to bring a declaratory judgment action within thirty days of receiving notice “to determine whether good cause exists for the establishing or relocating of” the proposed new dealer. In 2010, the Michigan legislature amended the Act to extend this zone to nine miles from existing dealers.
Shortly after the amendment became effective, Kia informed Glassman that it intended to establish a new dealer in Troy, Michigan, about seven miles from Glassman. Glassman protested the lack of written notice from Kia, and Kia filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the 2010 amendment did not require it to give notice to Glassman.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kia, concluding that the amendment did not operate retroactively to require Kia to give notice. Glassman appealed.
Contract Argument
On appeal, Glassman contended that the parties had intended to incorporate changes to the law, such as the 2010 amendment, by including the “as permitted by applicable law” language. The appeals court initially noted that the language might not apply to this case, since the language limited Kia’s ability to establish new dealers within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility,” a term distinct from the “relevant market area” term in the Act. Kia had stated that the new dealer would not be established within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility.”
Even if it did apply, however, the court observed that changes to the law are generally not incorporated into an agreement unless the language of the agreement clearly indicates the intent of the parties to include such changes. Since “as permitted by applicable law” could refer to the provision of the Act in effect when the contract was signed as easily as it could refer to the current provision, the language did not clearly indicate the intent of the parties to incorporate changes in the law.
Glassman also argued that the 2010 amendment should apply, since other provisions in the agreement required Glassman to comply with applicable consumer-protection, safety, and emission-control laws, and since Kia agreed that those provisions required Glassman to comply with current laws as well as those in effect when the agreement was signed. However, the court of appeals observed that those provisions referred to Glassman’s responsibilities to the general public, and did not “significantly change the parties’ bargain.” Since the dealer establishment provision “directly concern[ed] the relationship between Kia and Glassman,” it differed fundamentally from the other provisions, in the court’s view.
Statutory Argument
Having determined that the agreement did not include the 2010 amendment, the court proceeded to address whether the Michigan legislature intended the 2010 amendment to apply retroactively. The court noted that Michigan statutes are generally presumed to operate only prospectively “unless the contrary intent is clearly manifested.” However, procedural statutes that “neither create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing rights are generally held to operate retrospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifested.”
Since the legislature had not manifested a clear intent for the amendment to apply retrospectively, the only issue was whether the amendment was substantive or procedural. Glassman had argued that the amendment was procedural “because it constituted a minor change to the definition of relevant market area,” and did not “create new substantive rights.” However, the court concluded that the amendment, by requiring Kia to provide notice if it established a dealer more than six miles from an existing dealer, did impose a new duty on Kia, and “provide[d] a new substantive right that did not previously exist.”
The court also rejected an argument that, since Kia was intending to establish a new dealer after the 2010 amendment, the amendment would not have to be applied retrospectively, finding that the amendment would “affect[] Kia’s rights under a contract that predates the amendment.”
In addition, the court noted that its decision would permit it to avoid the constitutional question whether applying the 2010 amendment retroactively would violate the Contracts Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The court therefore concluded that the 2010 amendment should not be applied retroactively to the agreement, and affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to Kia.
Insurer States RICO Claim Against Personal Injury Scammers; Counterclaim Too Bare to Survive
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by E. Darius Sturmer, contributor to Antitrust Law Daily.
A physician and a pair of physical therapy clinics, along with their principals, could have violated the federal RICO Act by orchestrating an alleged scheme to defraud State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. through the filing of claims for physical therapy services that were medically unnecessary or not actually performed, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has decided (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., February 12, 2013, O’Meara, J.).
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied, while motions by State Farm and two of its employees to dismiss the defendants’ RICO counterclaims was granted. Michigan’s Commissioner of Insurance, Kevin Clinton, and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson were also entitled to dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendants, seeking to force them to order State Farm to cease its allegedly illegal conduct and suspend, revoke, or limit the insurer’s authority to act in Michigan.
In the suit, State Farm alleged that the defendant physician provided fraudulent diagnoses and prescriptions to patients who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents and were eligible for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under State Farm policies. These allowed them to obtain unnecessary physical therapy treatment at the defending clinics. The defendants’ counterclaims asserted that State Farm and two of its employees had violated their civil rights and federal RICO by fraudulently issuing blanket denials of legitimate PIP claims.
McCarran-Ferguson Act Preemption
At the outset, the court rejected an argument by the defendants that State Farm’s RICO claims were reverse preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Act provides that “[t]he business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” There was no need to undertake an analysis of whether the conduct constituted the business of insurance, the court said, because the application of RICO would not impair Michigan’s No-Fault Act.
There was no legal authority suggesting that the insurance code had abrogated a common law action for fraud. State Farm did not have an “exclusive remedy” under the Michigan Insurance Code for fraud that would conflict with the application of RICO, and there was no evidence that the application of RICO would impair the state’s regulatory scheme. To the contrary, RICO augmented Michigan’s regulatory scheme.
Adequacy of plaintiff’s RICO Claim. State Farm adequately pleaded a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) of the RICO Act, the court ruled. The insurance company sufficiently alleged the existence of a RICO enterprise and the defendants’ participation in it. It described the purpose of the conspiracy, the relationships between those associated with the enterprise, and sufficient longevity (from 2007 to the present) to permit the enterprise’s purpose. Addressing the claims specifically in the context of the defending physician’s motion, the court noted State Farm’s further allegation that the physician’s role was essential to the success of the scheme, given state laws requiring prescriptions for physical therapy services.
In addition, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that State Farm failed to plead mail fraud with particularity. The insurer’s providing of attachments to the complaint listing the claims at issue, examples of the physicians’ allegedly fraudulent disability certificates, and his initial examination findings, together with its specification of the overall fraudulent scheme in the complaint, sufficed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Defendants’ RICO Counterclaim
The defendants’ RICO counterclaim against State Farm and its employees—which contended that the insurer, its employees, and purported “independent” medical examiners conspired to wrongfully issue automatic claim denials—could not similarly survive dismissal, in the court’s view. The claim, which was essentially that State Farm did not remit payment as required under its insurance policies sounded in contract, not fraud, the court noted.
The countercomplaint alleged that in 2011, the insurer and its co-conspirators commenced their predetermined pattern of activity to wrongfully deny each and every claim submitted through the two physical therapy clinics. This consisted of issuing, through the United States Mail, form ‘investigation letters’ at various stages of the claim process and then predetermined explanation-of-benefit letters, all of which contained false and misleading information and statements as to the propriety of the charges sought to be paid to the clinics.
The clinics alleged that the information contained in the investigation letters implying a basis to deny claims and the information denying such claims “was false, was false when made, and was known by the author of such letters to be false when made.” They did not specify, however, what “information” in the investigation letters or explanation of benefit letters was false. Nor did they specify the claims that State Farm had allegedly fraudulently denied. Such bare allegations of fraud did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement and did not sufficiently allege predicate acts of racketeering to state a claim under RICO, the court concluded.
Further details will appear in RICO Business Disputes Guide. Further information regarding the Guide appears here.
A physician and a pair of physical therapy clinics, along with their principals, could have violated the federal RICO Act by orchestrating an alleged scheme to defraud State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. through the filing of claims for physical therapy services that were medically unnecessary or not actually performed, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has decided (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., February 12, 2013, O’Meara, J.).
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied, while motions by State Farm and two of its employees to dismiss the defendants’ RICO counterclaims was granted. Michigan’s Commissioner of Insurance, Kevin Clinton, and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson were also entitled to dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendants, seeking to force them to order State Farm to cease its allegedly illegal conduct and suspend, revoke, or limit the insurer’s authority to act in Michigan.
In the suit, State Farm alleged that the defendant physician provided fraudulent diagnoses and prescriptions to patients who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents and were eligible for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under State Farm policies. These allowed them to obtain unnecessary physical therapy treatment at the defending clinics. The defendants’ counterclaims asserted that State Farm and two of its employees had violated their civil rights and federal RICO by fraudulently issuing blanket denials of legitimate PIP claims.
McCarran-Ferguson Act Preemption
At the outset, the court rejected an argument by the defendants that State Farm’s RICO claims were reverse preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Act provides that “[t]he business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” There was no need to undertake an analysis of whether the conduct constituted the business of insurance, the court said, because the application of RICO would not impair Michigan’s No-Fault Act.
There was no legal authority suggesting that the insurance code had abrogated a common law action for fraud. State Farm did not have an “exclusive remedy” under the Michigan Insurance Code for fraud that would conflict with the application of RICO, and there was no evidence that the application of RICO would impair the state’s regulatory scheme. To the contrary, RICO augmented Michigan’s regulatory scheme.
Adequacy of plaintiff’s RICO Claim. State Farm adequately pleaded a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) of the RICO Act, the court ruled. The insurance company sufficiently alleged the existence of a RICO enterprise and the defendants’ participation in it. It described the purpose of the conspiracy, the relationships between those associated with the enterprise, and sufficient longevity (from 2007 to the present) to permit the enterprise’s purpose. Addressing the claims specifically in the context of the defending physician’s motion, the court noted State Farm’s further allegation that the physician’s role was essential to the success of the scheme, given state laws requiring prescriptions for physical therapy services.
In addition, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that State Farm failed to plead mail fraud with particularity. The insurer’s providing of attachments to the complaint listing the claims at issue, examples of the physicians’ allegedly fraudulent disability certificates, and his initial examination findings, together with its specification of the overall fraudulent scheme in the complaint, sufficed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Defendants’ RICO Counterclaim
The defendants’ RICO counterclaim against State Farm and its employees—which contended that the insurer, its employees, and purported “independent” medical examiners conspired to wrongfully issue automatic claim denials—could not similarly survive dismissal, in the court’s view. The claim, which was essentially that State Farm did not remit payment as required under its insurance policies sounded in contract, not fraud, the court noted.
The countercomplaint alleged that in 2011, the insurer and its co-conspirators commenced their predetermined pattern of activity to wrongfully deny each and every claim submitted through the two physical therapy clinics. This consisted of issuing, through the United States Mail, form ‘investigation letters’ at various stages of the claim process and then predetermined explanation-of-benefit letters, all of which contained false and misleading information and statements as to the propriety of the charges sought to be paid to the clinics.
The clinics alleged that the information contained in the investigation letters implying a basis to deny claims and the information denying such claims “was false, was false when made, and was known by the author of such letters to be false when made.” They did not specify, however, what “information” in the investigation letters or explanation of benefit letters was false. Nor did they specify the claims that State Farm had allegedly fraudulently denied. Such bare allegations of fraud did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement and did not sufficiently allege predicate acts of racketeering to state a claim under RICO, the court concluded.
Further details will appear in RICO Business Disputes Guide. Further information regarding the Guide appears here.
24 Şubat 2013 Pazar
Small Spaces etc. - Trying On Tiny
To contact us Click HERE
This week's Small Spaces is an introduction to one couples' blog called Trying On Tiny wherein they chronicle their experience of living in a tiny home. They introduce themselves in this way:
From the beginning this past fall, Audrey writes candidly about the stress, struggles and disappointment with the contractor and the mismatch of what they got compared with what they thought they would be getting for a tiny home. Tomas' illustrates this in his own way.
At the beginning of January the couple details the things they love. Tomas begins:
Encinitas would be the perfect community to build an eco-living village that could include tiny homes on wheels, among other alternatives for small space living, as an eco-tourist experience. Special rates for Encinitas residents to try on this kind of lifestyle for size? Above all we have the perfect setting for a lifestyle that encourages living outside as the preferred pattern, a pattern that can't be enjoyed in the colder climates.
This week's Small Spaces is an introduction to one couples' blog called Trying On Tiny wherein they chronicle their experience of living in a tiny home. They introduce themselves in this way:Audrey Addison:
She moved to Portland, OR 7 years ago and has recently decided to ‘try on’ a tiny home and to embrace a simpler way to live in the world. She feels lucky to have the support of family and friends and feels even luckier to have a partner who shares her dream. She’s a lover of nature, learning, and bikes.
Tomas Quinones:
Recently turned freelance illustrator with a focus on children’s literature, Tomas became interested in tiny houses and simplifying his life after leaving an unfulfilling IT job in 2008. Since then he started ditching the unimportant stuff in his life and focusing more on experiences rather than collecting.
From the beginning this past fall, Audrey writes candidly about the stress, struggles and disappointment with the contractor and the mismatch of what they got compared with what they thought they would be getting for a tiny home. Tomas' illustrates this in his own way.
At the beginning of January the couple details the things they love. Tomas begins:What do I love most about living in my Tiny House? Audrey may share many of these sentiments, but I thought I’d share my own opinion.
- Simple & Cozy
- Owning Less Stuff
- We Own It
- We Can Modify It
- It’s Brought Out My Inner Bob Vila
- Using Fewer Resources
- Peace & Quiet
- Frugal Living
- Clean-up is Quick
- It’s Everything I Need, Nothing More
Things I love Part IIThey both delve deeper into what they mean here with the kind of detail they've laid out their entire experience. It is an entertaining read.
Great idea, Tomas! Here are the top things that I LOVE about living in our tiny home.
- In-line With My Beliefs, Values, and Ideals
- Tomas’s Inner Bob Villa
- Community Support
- Mindfulness
- Home Ownership
- Closeness to Nature
- Cozy, Quiet, and Quick to Clean
- Changeable
- Helpful to Others
- A Good Start
Encinitas would be the perfect community to build an eco-living village that could include tiny homes on wheels, among other alternatives for small space living, as an eco-tourist experience. Special rates for Encinitas residents to try on this kind of lifestyle for size? Above all we have the perfect setting for a lifestyle that encourages living outside as the preferred pattern, a pattern that can't be enjoyed in the colder climates.
So God made a banker
To contact us Click HERE
To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. (source: Market Watch)
And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”
God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”
God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
Brett Arends is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @BrettArends.
To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. (source: Market Watch)
And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”
God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”
God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
Brett Arends is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @BrettArends.
Women Dancing All Day Today
To contact us Click HERE
Update: Live coverage from the Guardian.
Last week the announcement for 1 Billion Rising proclaimed February 14 as a global demonstration. This one-day event will be held today, a call for one billion women around the world to walk away from their homes, businesses, and jobs, and join together to dance in a show of collective strength. The word "billion" refers to the one billion women who are survivors of abuse.
Trigger Warning: Artists from around the world have interpreted rising up against violence in many different ways. If you are triggered by viewing violence, be aware.
Cape Town contribution:
Infographic on Rape (click to enlarge)
Update: Live coverage from the Guardian.
Last week the announcement for 1 Billion Rising proclaimed February 14 as a global demonstration. This one-day event will be held today, a call for one billion women around the world to walk away from their homes, businesses, and jobs, and join together to dance in a show of collective strength. The word "billion" refers to the one billion women who are survivors of abuse.
Trigger Warning: Artists from around the world have interpreted rising up against violence in many different ways. If you are triggered by viewing violence, be aware.
Cape Town contribution:
Infographic on Rape (click to enlarge)
Haters Don't Lie, They Multiply (Return of the Little Hater)
To contact us Click HERE
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.
From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
Why I Call Myself a Commoner
To contact us Click HERE
A day in the life
Each day I walk out of my Minneapolis house into an atmosphere protected from pollution by the Clean Air Act. As I step onto a sidewalk that was built with tax dollars for everyone, my spirits are lifted by the beauty of my neighbors’ boulevard gardens. Trees planted by people who would never sit under them shade my walk. I listen to public radio, a nonprofit service broadcast over airwaves belonging to us all, as I stroll around a lake
in the park, which was protected from shoreline development by civic-minded citizens in the nineteenth century.
The park, like everything else I have mentioned so far, is a commons for which each of us is responsible.
Frequently I visit the public library, where the intellectual, cultural, scientific, and informational storehouse of the world is opened to me for free—and to anyone who walks through the door. My work requires me to constantly keep up with new knowledge. My best tool is the Internet. The library and Internet, too, are commons.
Returning home I stop at the farmer’s market, a public institution created by local producers who want to share their fare. The same spirit prevails at our local food co-op, of which I am the owner (along with thousands of others), and at community-run theaters and civic events. These commons-based institutions provide us with essential services, the most important of which is fun. Living in the commons isn’t only about cultural and economic wealth; it’s also about joy.
Candido Grzybowski, the Brazilian sociologist who co-founded the World Social Forum, advises, “If we want to work for justice, we should work for the commons.” Protecting and restoring precious gifts from nature and from our foreparents for future generations is one the greatest privileges of a being a commoner.
—HARRIET BARLOW CO-FOUNDER OF ON THE COMMONS
AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN CENTER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.
 |
| Harriet Barlow (Photo by David Morris) |
Each day I walk out of my Minneapolis house into an atmosphere protected from pollution by the Clean Air Act. As I step onto a sidewalk that was built with tax dollars for everyone, my spirits are lifted by the beauty of my neighbors’ boulevard gardens. Trees planted by people who would never sit under them shade my walk. I listen to public radio, a nonprofit service broadcast over airwaves belonging to us all, as I stroll around a lake
in the park, which was protected from shoreline development by civic-minded citizens in the nineteenth century.
The park, like everything else I have mentioned so far, is a commons for which each of us is responsible.
Frequently I visit the public library, where the intellectual, cultural, scientific, and informational storehouse of the world is opened to me for free—and to anyone who walks through the door. My work requires me to constantly keep up with new knowledge. My best tool is the Internet. The library and Internet, too, are commons.
Returning home I stop at the farmer’s market, a public institution created by local producers who want to share their fare. The same spirit prevails at our local food co-op, of which I am the owner (along with thousands of others), and at community-run theaters and civic events. These commons-based institutions provide us with essential services, the most important of which is fun. Living in the commons isn’t only about cultural and economic wealth; it’s also about joy.
Candido Grzybowski, the Brazilian sociologist who co-founded the World Social Forum, advises, “If we want to work for justice, we should work for the commons.” Protecting and restoring precious gifts from nature and from our foreparents for future generations is one the greatest privileges of a being a commoner.
—HARRIET BARLOW CO-FOUNDER OF ON THE COMMONS
AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN CENTER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.23 Şubat 2013 Cumartesi
Anouska Shankar to Encinitas and the World
To contact us Click HERE
Anouska Shankar tells of sexual abuse as a child in Encinitas on Democracy Now today. She also spells out why she is a part of one billion rising along with millions of others around the world.
Also a guest,
Eve Ensler, award-winning playwright and creator of “The Vagina Monologues” and of V-Day, a global movement to stop violence against women and girls. Today marks the movement’s 15th anniversary, and the culmination of the "One Billion Rising" campaign that was started months ago.
Anouska Shankar tells of sexual abuse as a child in Encinitas on Democracy Now today. She also spells out why she is a part of one billion rising along with millions of others around the world.Also a guest,
Eve Ensler, award-winning playwright and creator of “The Vagina Monologues” and of V-Day, a global movement to stop violence against women and girls. Today marks the movement’s 15th anniversary, and the culmination of the "One Billion Rising" campaign that was started months ago.
Were You There 10 Years Ago Today?
To contact us Click HERE
The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world, with millions of people expressing opposition to the then-imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place.
To quote Noam Chomsky,
The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world, with millions of people expressing opposition to the then-imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place.Sources vary in their estimations of the number of participants involved. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.
Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1½ million people protesting the invasion of Iraq, whereas Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests, but small demonstrations attended mainly by foreign students were seen later.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To quote Noam Chomsky,
Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.The greatest superpower, the world's people, remains the only hope for change.
The Trouble with Stuff
To contact us Click HERE
COMMONER
Filmmaker Annie Leonard finds people want to be liberated from overconsumption
Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book.
Drawing on her experience investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues in more than 40 countries, Leonard says she’s “made it her life’s calling to blow the whistle on important issues plaguing our world.” On the Commons recently asked Leonard a few questions about the commons.
How did you first learn about the commons?
I first learned about the commons as a kid using parks and libraries. I didn’t assign the label “commons” to them, but I understood early on that some things belong to all of us and these shared assets enhance our lives and rely on our care.
Like many other college students, my first introduction to the word “commons” was sadly in conjunction with the word “sheep” and “tragedy.” That lousy resource management class tainted the word for me for years, until I heard Ralph Nader address a group of college students. He asked them to yell out a list of everything they own. This being the pre-i-gadget 1980’s, the list included “Sony Walkman...boombox... books...bicycle...clothes...bank account.” When the lists started to peter out, Ralph asked about National Parks and public airwaves. A light went off in each of our heads, and a whole new list was shouted out: rivers, libraries, the Smithsonian, monuments. That’s when I realized that the commons isn’t an overgrazed pasture; it really is all that we share.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society right now?
There are so many interrelated aspects of our current economic and social systems which undermine the commons. Some obstacles are structural, like government spending priorities that elevate military spending and oil company subsidies over maintenance of parks and libraries. Others are social, including the erosion in social fabric and community-based lifestyles. Actually, even those have structural drivers; for example, land use planning which eliminates sidewalks and requires long commutes to work contribute to breakdown of social commons by impeding social interactions. It’s all so interconnected!
A huge obstacle is the shift toward greater privatization and commodification of physical and social assets. Many things that used to be shared—from open spaces for recreation to support systems to help a neighbor in need—have been privatized and commodified; they’ve been moved out of the community into the market place. This triggers a downward spiral. Once things become privatized, or un-commoned, we no longer have access to them without paying a fee. We then have to work longer hours to pay for all these things which used to be freely available—everything from safe afterschool recreation for kids to clean water to swim in to someone to talk to when you’re feeling blue. And since we’re working longer hours and spending more time alone, we have less time to contribute to the commons to rebuild these assets: less volunteer hours, less beach-clean-up days, less time for civic engagement to advocate for policies that protect the commons, less time to invite a neighbor over for tea. And on it goes.
What is the greatest opportunity to strengthen and expand the commons right now?
In spite of real obstacles, we have a lot on our side as we advance a commons-based agenda. First, we have no choice. There’s a very real ecological imperative weighing down on us. Even if we wanted to continue this overconsumptive, hyper individualistic and vastly unequal way of living, we simply can’t. We have to learn to share more and waste less, to find joy and meaning in shared assets and experiences rather than in private accumulation, to work together for a better world, rather than to build bigger walls around those who can. And the good news is that these changes not only will enable us to continue to live on this planet, but they will result in a happier, healthier society overall.
There’s another shift emerging which offers some real opportunities for building support for the commons. People in the overconsuming parts of the world are getting fed up with the burden of trying to own everything individually. We used to own our stuff and increasingly our stuff owns us. We work extra hours to buy more stuff, we spend our weekends sorting our stuff. We’re constantly needing to upgrade, repair, untangle, recharge, even pay to store our stuff. It’s exhausting.
The shift I see emerging is from an acquisition focused relationship to stuff, to an access- focused relationship. In the acquisition framework, the more stuff we had, the better, as captured in the 1990s bumpersticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins.” Having spent a couple decades being slaves to our stuff, we are rethinking. Now it is “He Who dies with the Most Toys Wasted His Life Working to Buy Them and Lived in a Cluttered House When He Could have been Investing in Community with which to Share Toys.”
Increasingly people want access to stuff, not all the burden that comes with ownership. Instead of owning a car and dealing with all that comes with it, we get one just when we want through city car share programs. Instead of hiring a plumber, we swap music lessons with one through skillsharing networks. Why buy something to own alone, when we can share it with others? Why signup for an even more crushing mortgage for a house with a big back yard, when we can instead share public parks? From coast to coast, there’s a resurgence of sharing, so much that it even has a fancy new name: collaborative consumption. I’m really excited about this. A whole new generation of people is realizing that access to shared stuff is easier on one’s budget and on the planet, then individual ownership. Now, that’s liberating.
—JAY WALLJASPER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.
COMMONER
Filmmaker Annie Leonard finds people want to be liberated from overconsumption
Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book.
Drawing on her experience investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues in more than 40 countries, Leonard says she’s “made it her life’s calling to blow the whistle on important issues plaguing our world.” On the Commons recently asked Leonard a few questions about the commons.
How did you first learn about the commons?
I first learned about the commons as a kid using parks and libraries. I didn’t assign the label “commons” to them, but I understood early on that some things belong to all of us and these shared assets enhance our lives and rely on our care.
Like many other college students, my first introduction to the word “commons” was sadly in conjunction with the word “sheep” and “tragedy.” That lousy resource management class tainted the word for me for years, until I heard Ralph Nader address a group of college students. He asked them to yell out a list of everything they own. This being the pre-i-gadget 1980’s, the list included “Sony Walkman...boombox... books...bicycle...clothes...bank account.” When the lists started to peter out, Ralph asked about National Parks and public airwaves. A light went off in each of our heads, and a whole new list was shouted out: rivers, libraries, the Smithsonian, monuments. That’s when I realized that the commons isn’t an overgrazed pasture; it really is all that we share.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society right now?
There are so many interrelated aspects of our current economic and social systems which undermine the commons. Some obstacles are structural, like government spending priorities that elevate military spending and oil company subsidies over maintenance of parks and libraries. Others are social, including the erosion in social fabric and community-based lifestyles. Actually, even those have structural drivers; for example, land use planning which eliminates sidewalks and requires long commutes to work contribute to breakdown of social commons by impeding social interactions. It’s all so interconnected!
A huge obstacle is the shift toward greater privatization and commodification of physical and social assets. Many things that used to be shared—from open spaces for recreation to support systems to help a neighbor in need—have been privatized and commodified; they’ve been moved out of the community into the market place. This triggers a downward spiral. Once things become privatized, or un-commoned, we no longer have access to them without paying a fee. We then have to work longer hours to pay for all these things which used to be freely available—everything from safe afterschool recreation for kids to clean water to swim in to someone to talk to when you’re feeling blue. And since we’re working longer hours and spending more time alone, we have less time to contribute to the commons to rebuild these assets: less volunteer hours, less beach-clean-up days, less time for civic engagement to advocate for policies that protect the commons, less time to invite a neighbor over for tea. And on it goes.
What is the greatest opportunity to strengthen and expand the commons right now?
In spite of real obstacles, we have a lot on our side as we advance a commons-based agenda. First, we have no choice. There’s a very real ecological imperative weighing down on us. Even if we wanted to continue this overconsumptive, hyper individualistic and vastly unequal way of living, we simply can’t. We have to learn to share more and waste less, to find joy and meaning in shared assets and experiences rather than in private accumulation, to work together for a better world, rather than to build bigger walls around those who can. And the good news is that these changes not only will enable us to continue to live on this planet, but they will result in a happier, healthier society overall.
There’s another shift emerging which offers some real opportunities for building support for the commons. People in the overconsuming parts of the world are getting fed up with the burden of trying to own everything individually. We used to own our stuff and increasingly our stuff owns us. We work extra hours to buy more stuff, we spend our weekends sorting our stuff. We’re constantly needing to upgrade, repair, untangle, recharge, even pay to store our stuff. It’s exhausting.
The shift I see emerging is from an acquisition focused relationship to stuff, to an access- focused relationship. In the acquisition framework, the more stuff we had, the better, as captured in the 1990s bumpersticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins.” Having spent a couple decades being slaves to our stuff, we are rethinking. Now it is “He Who dies with the Most Toys Wasted His Life Working to Buy Them and Lived in a Cluttered House When He Could have been Investing in Community with which to Share Toys.”
Increasingly people want access to stuff, not all the burden that comes with ownership. Instead of owning a car and dealing with all that comes with it, we get one just when we want through city car share programs. Instead of hiring a plumber, we swap music lessons with one through skillsharing networks. Why buy something to own alone, when we can share it with others? Why signup for an even more crushing mortgage for a house with a big back yard, when we can instead share public parks? From coast to coast, there’s a resurgence of sharing, so much that it even has a fancy new name: collaborative consumption. I’m really excited about this. A whole new generation of people is realizing that access to shared stuff is easier on one’s budget and on the planet, then individual ownership. Now, that’s liberating.
—JAY WALLJASPER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.Small Spaces etc. - Micro Minimal
To contact us Click HERE
This week the most minimal of small spaces to date. The first is called One-Sqm-House. This one square meter (10 square feet) dwelling is an architect's prototype. This clip is via Alex at Tiny House Talk, whose tag line is "small spaces more freedom."
When I first saw this I thought of past competitions for architects and designers to produce temporary, emergency and homeless shelter.
The examples below are from one of these competitions 5 years ago. I've since lost the proper links to the source. Whoops.
There is a kind of hierarchy within the homeless population. There are those who have found temporary shelter within homes of family or friends, those who have an RV or car, those who have vouchers for temporary shelter and those simply fending for themselves on the street. Despite the most common picture of a homeless person being like the Banksy illustration at the beginning of this post or the guy above, it is women with children who are in fact the most vulnerable of homeless population.
The Babes of Wrath are two women, Diane Nilan and Pat LaMarche, who travel around the country and work with homeless children and families. You can follow their EPIC Journey (Everyday People In Crisis) here. They are interviewed here on the Young Turks.
Recently the homeless were counted in San Diego County, a local girl mounted a blanket distribution project for the homeless in memory of her uncle and housing strategies for lowest income has presumably been the subject of several years of General Planning Update citizen participation.
Aternet is currently running a series on the poor. Part 1's recent article, 2 Years in Jail for Sitting on a Milk Crate? The Shocking Ways America Punishes Poor People Living on the Street (Hard Times, USA) haunted me. I know from experience how few places there are to sit while walking in Encinitas. We aren't alone. Laws all over the country are designed solely to target the homeless. There are better solutions.
Part 2 is titled Hard Times, USA: Would You Consider Thinking Differently About Poverty and Poor and Homeless People? A huge number of Americans feel vulnerable every day of every week, their future unknown. What are you going to do about it? Both of these are really excellent articles and are recommended. The rest of this powerful series Hard Times USA is at Alternet this month.
There is one simple response (as the video illustrated) for what is the most important thing one could spend money on for the homeless? Houses. Simple but not easy to incorporate in our community dialog.
This week the most minimal of small spaces to date. The first is called One-Sqm-House. This one square meter (10 square feet) dwelling is an architect's prototype. This clip is via Alex at Tiny House Talk, whose tag line is "small spaces more freedom."
When I first saw this I thought of past competitions for architects and designers to produce temporary, emergency and homeless shelter.
The examples below are from one of these competitions 5 years ago. I've since lost the proper links to the source. Whoops.
There is a kind of hierarchy within the homeless population. There are those who have found temporary shelter within homes of family or friends, those who have an RV or car, those who have vouchers for temporary shelter and those simply fending for themselves on the street. Despite the most common picture of a homeless person being like the Banksy illustration at the beginning of this post or the guy above, it is women with children who are in fact the most vulnerable of homeless population.
The Babes of Wrath are two women, Diane Nilan and Pat LaMarche, who travel around the country and work with homeless children and families. You can follow their EPIC Journey (Everyday People In Crisis) here. They are interviewed here on the Young Turks.
Recently the homeless were counted in San Diego County, a local girl mounted a blanket distribution project for the homeless in memory of her uncle and housing strategies for lowest income has presumably been the subject of several years of General Planning Update citizen participation.
Aternet is currently running a series on the poor. Part 1's recent article, 2 Years in Jail for Sitting on a Milk Crate? The Shocking Ways America Punishes Poor People Living on the Street (Hard Times, USA) haunted me. I know from experience how few places there are to sit while walking in Encinitas. We aren't alone. Laws all over the country are designed solely to target the homeless. There are better solutions.
Part 2 is titled Hard Times, USA: Would You Consider Thinking Differently About Poverty and Poor and Homeless People? A huge number of Americans feel vulnerable every day of every week, their future unknown. What are you going to do about it? Both of these are really excellent articles and are recommended. The rest of this powerful series Hard Times USA is at Alternet this month.
There is one simple response (as the video illustrated) for what is the most important thing one could spend money on for the homeless? Houses. Simple but not easy to incorporate in our community dialog.
Haters Don't Lie, They Multiply (Return of the Little Hater)
To contact us Click HERE
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.
From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
22 Şubat 2013 Cuma
Financial Fairs and Classes across Washington
To contact us Click HERE
It’s financial fair season.
Organizations across Washington are hosting financial fairs to assist individuals with their finances this tax season.
At many of these events you will find free tax preparation, financial education classes, local resources, and more.
Upcoming Fairs and Classes
It’s financial fair season. Organizations across Washington are hosting financial fairs to assist individuals with their finances this tax season.
At many of these events you will find free tax preparation, financial education classes, local resources, and more.
Upcoming Fairs and Classes
- February 9 - Tacoma Super Refund Saturday
http://associatedministries.org/2013-super-refund-saturday/ - February 9 – Bremerton Super Saturday
http://www.kcr.org/documents/SuperSaturday.pdf - February 9 – Vancouver Finance Smart Class
http://www.homecen.org/classes.new.html - February 13 – Spokane Money Management Class
http://www.snapwa.org/events - March 2 – Tacoma Financial Fitness Fair
http://associatedministries.org/2013-financial-fitness-fair/ - March 5 – Thurston County Financial Education Course Begins
http://www.enterpriseforequity.org/financial-education/ - March 9 – Seattle Financial Fitness Day
http://skcabc.org/FinancialFitnessDay/default.htm - April 27 – Pasco Financial Fitness Day
email financialfitnessday2013@gmail.com for more details.
DFI Expanding Investor Education In Your Workplace Program
To contact us Click HERE
We are pleased to announce that we are expanding the pilot program of the award-winning Investor Education in Your Workplace (IEiYW) program.
We are making the program available to up to 600 state-chartered bank and credit union employees, military personnel, AmeriCorps leadership members, and financial education teachers throughout the state.
About the Program
IEiYW is an award-winning online financial and investment education program for employers to help educate their employees about long-term savings and investment options such as 401(k), 403(b) or related retirement plans.
The 10-week-long IEiYW program runs from May to August of this year. Participation will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
The IEiYW program already has been fielded tested nationwide by more than 15,500 employees working at nearly 400 companies.
Registration and Information
For more information about the program, contact Lyn Peters at 360-902-8731 or lyn.peters@dfi.wa.gov.
Interested parties can register for an informational webinar online at http://www.ieiyw.com/webinars. Webinar sessions will be held February 21, and February 28, March 5 and March 13 at noon PST.
We are pleased to announce that we are expanding the pilot program of the award-winning Investor Education in Your Workplace (IEiYW) program.We are making the program available to up to 600 state-chartered bank and credit union employees, military personnel, AmeriCorps leadership members, and financial education teachers throughout the state.
About the Program
IEiYW is an award-winning online financial and investment education program for employers to help educate their employees about long-term savings and investment options such as 401(k), 403(b) or related retirement plans.
The 10-week-long IEiYW program runs from May to August of this year. Participation will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
The IEiYW program already has been fielded tested nationwide by more than 15,500 employees working at nearly 400 companies.
Registration and Information
For more information about the program, contact Lyn Peters at 360-902-8731 or lyn.peters@dfi.wa.gov.
Interested parties can register for an informational webinar online at http://www.ieiyw.com/webinars. Webinar sessions will be held February 21, and February 28, March 5 and March 13 at noon PST.
Fixing Errors on Credit Reports
To contact us Click HERE
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released the results of a 10-year study on the accuracy of credit reports. The study found that one in five consumers’ reports have errors.
The findings highlight the importance of checking your credit report.
Obtaining Your Free Credit Report
According to the FTC, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.
To order your free credit report, visit annualcreditreport.com or call 1-877-322-8228.
If You Find Errors, Dispute Them
If you find errors on your credit report, dispute them right away. Contact both the company and the credit reporting agency in writing about what you think is inaccurate. Credit reporting agencies must investigate the disputed information, usually within 30 days.
If that doesn’t work, you can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at www.consumerfinance.gov. They will review your complaint and update you along the way.
Resources
1. Federal Trade Commission – Disputing Errors on Credit Reports
2. AnnualCreditReport.com
3. Results of FTC Study
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released the results of a 10-year study on the accuracy of credit reports. The study found that one in five consumers’ reports have errors.The findings highlight the importance of checking your credit report.
Obtaining Your Free Credit Report
According to the FTC, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.
To order your free credit report, visit annualcreditreport.com or call 1-877-322-8228.
If You Find Errors, Dispute Them
If you find errors on your credit report, dispute them right away. Contact both the company and the credit reporting agency in writing about what you think is inaccurate. Credit reporting agencies must investigate the disputed information, usually within 30 days.
If that doesn’t work, you can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at www.consumerfinance.gov. They will review your complaint and update you along the way.
Resources
1. Federal Trade Commission – Disputing Errors on Credit Reports
2. AnnualCreditReport.com
3. Results of FTC Study
Washington Saves Week – February 25 – March 2, 2013
To contact us Click HERE
Governor Jay Inslee has proclaimed February 25 – March 2, 2013 as Washington Saves Week.
Washington Saves Week is a part of the America Saves Week campaign coordinated by America Saves and the America Savings Education Council.
Started in 2007, the week is an annual opportunity for organizations to promote good savings behavior and a chance for individuals to assess their own saving status. Across the country, hundreds of organizations participate in the week reaching millions of people.
The campaign theme "Set a Goal. Make a Plan. Save Automatically." is aimed at reminding consumers to utilize the automatic payroll deduction options at their place of employment to begin building an emergency fund, create a retirement fund or develop a targeted savings fund for their future.
Resources for Washington Residents
We invite all Washington residents to participate in Saves Week, Feb. 25- March 2, 2013 by visiting dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/wa-saves and browsing the resources made available to you.
To find a money management class near you, visit our financial education calendar at www.dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/calendar.htm
Governor Jay Inslee has proclaimed February 25 – March 2, 2013 as Washington Saves Week.Washington Saves Week is a part of the America Saves Week campaign coordinated by America Saves and the America Savings Education Council.
Started in 2007, the week is an annual opportunity for organizations to promote good savings behavior and a chance for individuals to assess their own saving status. Across the country, hundreds of organizations participate in the week reaching millions of people.
The campaign theme "Set a Goal. Make a Plan. Save Automatically." is aimed at reminding consumers to utilize the automatic payroll deduction options at their place of employment to begin building an emergency fund, create a retirement fund or develop a targeted savings fund for their future.
Resources for Washington Residents
We invite all Washington residents to participate in Saves Week, Feb. 25- March 2, 2013 by visiting dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/wa-saves and browsing the resources made available to you.
To find a money management class near you, visit our financial education calendar at www.dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/calendar.htm
Washington Elementary Classrooms Sought for Reading Days
To contact us Click HERE
The Jump$tart Washington Coalition — a non-profit coalition dedicated to financial literacy for K-12 children — is sponsoring Financial Literacy Reading Days in Washington elementary classrooms April 20-27 during Washington Money Smart Week.
The program provides a venue for community leaders to step out of their offices and into one of their city’s elementary schools to read a financial education story to Washington youth. Previous Reading Days books have included “The King’s Chessboard,” the Berenstain Bears “Trouble With Money” and “Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock” by former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.
Each community leader also will lead students in an activity that more fully explores the concepts raised in the book: such as the importance of and power in saving, compound interest, investing, donating, working for money, not spending more than you have, etc.
Previous community leaders have included Washington State Treasurer James L. McIntire, mayors, legislators and city council members. The visit time would be approximately 30-45 minutes in the classroom.
How to Participate
1) If you are interested in having a community leader read to one of your elementary classes, please select two dates during the school week of April 22-26 and two times for each day and Jump$tart will work to secure a community leader to bring a Financial Literacy Reading Day to your school.
2) Contact Lyn Peters at the Department of Financial Institutions by emailing Lyn.Peters@dfi.wa.gov or calling (360) 902-8731.
The Jump$tart Washington Coalition — a non-profit coalition dedicated to financial literacy for K-12 children — is sponsoring Financial Literacy Reading Days in Washington elementary classrooms April 20-27 during Washington Money Smart Week.The program provides a venue for community leaders to step out of their offices and into one of their city’s elementary schools to read a financial education story to Washington youth. Previous Reading Days books have included “The King’s Chessboard,” the Berenstain Bears “Trouble With Money” and “Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock” by former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.
Each community leader also will lead students in an activity that more fully explores the concepts raised in the book: such as the importance of and power in saving, compound interest, investing, donating, working for money, not spending more than you have, etc.
Previous community leaders have included Washington State Treasurer James L. McIntire, mayors, legislators and city council members. The visit time would be approximately 30-45 minutes in the classroom.
How to Participate
1) If you are interested in having a community leader read to one of your elementary classes, please select two dates during the school week of April 22-26 and two times for each day and Jump$tart will work to secure a community leader to bring a Financial Literacy Reading Day to your school.
2) Contact Lyn Peters at the Department of Financial Institutions by emailing Lyn.Peters@dfi.wa.gov or calling (360) 902-8731.
21 Şubat 2013 Perşembe
Darst, The Little Book That Still Saves Your Assets
To contact us Click HERE
In 2008 David M. Darst, currently the chief investment strategist of Morgan Stanley’s global wealth management group and chairman of its asset allocation committee, wrote The Little Book That Saves Your Assets. Five years later he is back with an update: The Little Book That Still Saves Your Assets: What the Rich Continue to Do to Stay Wealthy in Up and Down Markets (Wiley, 2013).
The recommended keys to protecting your wealth, as you might suspect from Darst’s credentials, are asset allocation and diversification. The author does not, however, offer the reader a model portfolio that would be appropriate for investors of all ages and personalities and for all situations. Portfolios must be personalized. What is right for a 25-year-old who wants to buy a house in two years is different from what is right for the 25-year-old who is saving for his child’s college education. As Darst writes, “The single most important factor in determining how you manage your investments and structure your asset allocation plan is you. … From the start, you need to establish your goals, honestly evaluate your current financial condition, and be aware of your state of mind and feelings about the financial markets.” (pp. 91-92)
Throughout the book Darst assumes the role of a trusted financial advisor, and sometimes a meta-advisor, with the help of words of wisdom from “Uncle Frank.” If you have a small portfolio and a resolute do-it-yourself attitude you can heed his advice and perhaps profit. Otherwise, you can learn what to look for in a money manager.
Admittedly, the DIYer who is new to investing will face a pretty steep learning curve and will need far more than this “little book” to design and implement an appropriate investment plan. Darst introduces him, for instance, to strategic vs. tactical asset allocation—a distinction deceptively simple in principle, tough to carry out effectively. A single sentence highlights the difficulties: “A large part of your success in using Tactical Asset Allocation is the ability to determine what an asset’s true, intrinsic value is at a given point in time; how far out of line the asset’s price is versus its true, intrinsic value; and what conditions will make it return to its value.” (p. 85) Considering that even those who earn their livings as stock analysts usually lack this ability and that so-called true value rarely coincides with price, the amateur investor who wants to pursue this tactic faces an uphill battle.
For those with some experience in the financial markets Darst’s book is an enjoyable, nay wise, read. You’ll have two new uncles to guide you in your effort to save your assets: Frank and David.
The recommended keys to protecting your wealth, as you might suspect from Darst’s credentials, are asset allocation and diversification. The author does not, however, offer the reader a model portfolio that would be appropriate for investors of all ages and personalities and for all situations. Portfolios must be personalized. What is right for a 25-year-old who wants to buy a house in two years is different from what is right for the 25-year-old who is saving for his child’s college education. As Darst writes, “The single most important factor in determining how you manage your investments and structure your asset allocation plan is you. … From the start, you need to establish your goals, honestly evaluate your current financial condition, and be aware of your state of mind and feelings about the financial markets.” (pp. 91-92)
Throughout the book Darst assumes the role of a trusted financial advisor, and sometimes a meta-advisor, with the help of words of wisdom from “Uncle Frank.” If you have a small portfolio and a resolute do-it-yourself attitude you can heed his advice and perhaps profit. Otherwise, you can learn what to look for in a money manager.
Admittedly, the DIYer who is new to investing will face a pretty steep learning curve and will need far more than this “little book” to design and implement an appropriate investment plan. Darst introduces him, for instance, to strategic vs. tactical asset allocation—a distinction deceptively simple in principle, tough to carry out effectively. A single sentence highlights the difficulties: “A large part of your success in using Tactical Asset Allocation is the ability to determine what an asset’s true, intrinsic value is at a given point in time; how far out of line the asset’s price is versus its true, intrinsic value; and what conditions will make it return to its value.” (p. 85) Considering that even those who earn their livings as stock analysts usually lack this ability and that so-called true value rarely coincides with price, the amateur investor who wants to pursue this tactic faces an uphill battle.
For those with some experience in the financial markets Darst’s book is an enjoyable, nay wise, read. You’ll have two new uncles to guide you in your effort to save your assets: Frank and David.
Weatherall, The Physics of Wall Street
To contact us Click HERE
James Owen Weatherall’s The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013) is an engrossing book. Even though I was familiar with many of the stories the author recounts, at no point was I tempted to skip a page. Coming from me, that’s high praise indeed.
In the first chapter Weatherall takes the reader on a journey from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century attempts at a systematic theory of probability (Cardano, de Méré, Pascal, and Fermat) through Bachelier’s 1900 dissertation, A Theory of Speculation. Bachelier is credited with having come up with the random walk model/efficient market hypothesis. Like many quants, he was ahead of his time. “In a just world, Bachelier would be to finance what Newton is to physics. But Bachelier’s life was a shambles, in large part because academia couldn’t countenance so original a thinker.” (p. 27)
It wasn’t until Maury Osborne’s 1959 paper entitled “Brownian Motion in the Stock Market,” similar in both topic (predicting stock prices) and solution to Bachelier’s thesis, that people began to understand that physics could make a substantial contribution to finance. By then, as Osborne said, “Physicists essentially could do no wrong.” (p. 28) Scientists were in demand in industry, research facilities, and government. Pre-The Graduate, think nylon and the Manhattan Project.
Osborne found that stock prices don’t follow a normal distribution as Bachelier had suggested; rather, the rate of return on a stock (the “average percentage by which the price changes each instant”) is normally distributed. “Since price and rate of return are related by a logarithm, Osborne’s model implies that prices should be log-normally distributed.”
The plots “show what these two distributions look like at some time in the future, for a stock whose price is $10 now. Plot (a) is an example of a normal distribution over rates of return, and plot (b) is the associated log-normal distribution for the prices, given those probabilities for rates of return.” (p. 37)
Osborne later modified his Brownian motion model, which had assumed that prices are equally likely to move up or down. “Osborne showed that if a stock went up a little bit, its next motion was much more likely to be a move back down than another move up. Likewise, if a stock went down, it was much more likely to go up in value in its next change. That is, from moment to moment the market is much more likely to reverse itself than to continue on a trend. But there was another side to this coin. If a stock moved in the same direction twice, it was much more likely to continue in that direction than if it had moved in a given direction only once. Osborne argued that the infrastructure of the trading floor was responsible for this kind of non-randomness, and Osborne went on to suggest a model for how prices change that took this kind of behavior into account.” (p. 46)
Osborne’s methodology (though not his model), Weatherall maintains, is worth emulating. First, you study the data and “make simplifying assumptions to derive simple models.” Then “you check carefully to find places where your simplifying assumptions break down and try to figure out, again by focusing on the data, how these failures of your assumptions produce problems for the model’s predictions. … For instance, Osborne showed that price changes aren’t independent. This is especially true during market crashes, when a series of downward ticks makes it very likely that prices will continue to fall. When this kind of herding effect is present, even Osborne’s extended Brownian motion model is going to be an unreliable guide.” (p. 47)
These few paragraphs are just a taste of what’s in The Physics of Wall Street. We meet Benoît Mandelbrot, Ed Thorp, Fischer Black, James Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard of the Prediction Company, Didier Sornette, and finally Pia Malaney and Eric Weinstein.
Weatherall defends quants and argues, with Weinstein and Malaney, that there are ways to make economic and financial models better by using “more powerful mathematics to avoid having to make strong assumptions about people and markets.” (p. 211) Whether you agree with him or not, he makes a thoroughly enjoyable and beautifully teased out case.
In the first chapter Weatherall takes the reader on a journey from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century attempts at a systematic theory of probability (Cardano, de Méré, Pascal, and Fermat) through Bachelier’s 1900 dissertation, A Theory of Speculation. Bachelier is credited with having come up with the random walk model/efficient market hypothesis. Like many quants, he was ahead of his time. “In a just world, Bachelier would be to finance what Newton is to physics. But Bachelier’s life was a shambles, in large part because academia couldn’t countenance so original a thinker.” (p. 27)
It wasn’t until Maury Osborne’s 1959 paper entitled “Brownian Motion in the Stock Market,” similar in both topic (predicting stock prices) and solution to Bachelier’s thesis, that people began to understand that physics could make a substantial contribution to finance. By then, as Osborne said, “Physicists essentially could do no wrong.” (p. 28) Scientists were in demand in industry, research facilities, and government. Pre-The Graduate, think nylon and the Manhattan Project.
Osborne found that stock prices don’t follow a normal distribution as Bachelier had suggested; rather, the rate of return on a stock (the “average percentage by which the price changes each instant”) is normally distributed. “Since price and rate of return are related by a logarithm, Osborne’s model implies that prices should be log-normally distributed.”
The plots “show what these two distributions look like at some time in the future, for a stock whose price is $10 now. Plot (a) is an example of a normal distribution over rates of return, and plot (b) is the associated log-normal distribution for the prices, given those probabilities for rates of return.” (p. 37)
Osborne later modified his Brownian motion model, which had assumed that prices are equally likely to move up or down. “Osborne showed that if a stock went up a little bit, its next motion was much more likely to be a move back down than another move up. Likewise, if a stock went down, it was much more likely to go up in value in its next change. That is, from moment to moment the market is much more likely to reverse itself than to continue on a trend. But there was another side to this coin. If a stock moved in the same direction twice, it was much more likely to continue in that direction than if it had moved in a given direction only once. Osborne argued that the infrastructure of the trading floor was responsible for this kind of non-randomness, and Osborne went on to suggest a model for how prices change that took this kind of behavior into account.” (p. 46)
Osborne’s methodology (though not his model), Weatherall maintains, is worth emulating. First, you study the data and “make simplifying assumptions to derive simple models.” Then “you check carefully to find places where your simplifying assumptions break down and try to figure out, again by focusing on the data, how these failures of your assumptions produce problems for the model’s predictions. … For instance, Osborne showed that price changes aren’t independent. This is especially true during market crashes, when a series of downward ticks makes it very likely that prices will continue to fall. When this kind of herding effect is present, even Osborne’s extended Brownian motion model is going to be an unreliable guide.” (p. 47)
These few paragraphs are just a taste of what’s in The Physics of Wall Street. We meet Benoît Mandelbrot, Ed Thorp, Fischer Black, James Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard of the Prediction Company, Didier Sornette, and finally Pia Malaney and Eric Weinstein.
Weatherall defends quants and argues, with Weinstein and Malaney, that there are ways to make economic and financial models better by using “more powerful mathematics to avoid having to make strong assumptions about people and markets.” (p. 211) Whether you agree with him or not, he makes a thoroughly enjoyable and beautifully teased out case.
Hecht, How to Make Money with Commodities
To contact us Click HERE
Andrew T. Hecht’s How to Make Money with Commodities, written with Mark S. Smith (McGraw-Hill, 2013) is a surprisingly good book. I say “surprisingly” because it joins a crowded and for the most part uninspired field and yet manages to stand apart.
Despite the fact that the book is intended for two radically different audiences, the equities investor and the beginning to intermediate commodities trader, it artfully glides between them. The investor learns to read futures data as a guide to the prospects of his commodity-driven investments. The beginning commodities trader is introduced to the landscape; the intermediate trader gets a richer context and some tips.
One thing that distinguishes this book is its stories. Hecht has many of his own (such as the outsized silver position that he and three other traders at the Philbro division of Salomon Brothers had in 1995, “a bigger position than the Hunt brothers took back in 1979”). Some come from his friends: for instance, the “fiasco of the giant sugar cube.” “Because of the low value of sugar, the ships that transport this sweet commodity are often old and sometimes not in the best state of repair. Raw sugar is loaded onto and off a ship with a device that resembles a vacuum cleaner.” In this case, “at some point during the journey, moisture had leaked into the cargo—so much moisture that the shipment had turned rock solid.” The trader who had negotiated the deal needed some quick thinking to reduce his losses. “He hired a team of laborers to break up the giant sugar cube with jackhammers. The laborers then had to remove thousands of smaller cubes by hand. The cargo was eventually unloaded and delivered to the buyer, who then demanded a discount because the sugar was not in the form contracted for. While insurance paid for part of the fiasco, the trader’s profit margin was not enough to cover the losses, which amounted to several million dollars.” (p. 48)
Hecht also recalls one of the problems that coffee traders encountered in the 1980s. The vessels of drug smugglers often carried “huge coffee shipments to mask the aroma of the drugs.” On one occasion “a dead body arrived with a massive coffee shipment, along with a large cache of marijuana and cocaine.” (p. 209)
Another distinguishing characteristic of the book is its detail. When discussing natural gas, Hecht describes among other things its dramatic historical volatility, the divergence between UNG and the price of natural gas in early 2012 when the book was being written (signaling that “either UNG is too low or that the price of natural gas will rally from levels shown on the chart”—the latter happened), and the negative correlation between heavy natural gas users such as Potash and the commodity.
And he demonstrates how the trader who understands commodities can profit in the stock market. A case in point was his 2008 trade in JetBlue as oil made new all-time highs and JBLU was dirt cheap. “When the price of crude oil fell, there was a short-term correction in JetBlue’s price—it shot up by more than 100 percent in six months.” (p. 110)
Hecht had skin in the game for nearly 35 years, and it shows in this book. Both investors and traders can learn from him.
Despite the fact that the book is intended for two radically different audiences, the equities investor and the beginning to intermediate commodities trader, it artfully glides between them. The investor learns to read futures data as a guide to the prospects of his commodity-driven investments. The beginning commodities trader is introduced to the landscape; the intermediate trader gets a richer context and some tips.
One thing that distinguishes this book is its stories. Hecht has many of his own (such as the outsized silver position that he and three other traders at the Philbro division of Salomon Brothers had in 1995, “a bigger position than the Hunt brothers took back in 1979”). Some come from his friends: for instance, the “fiasco of the giant sugar cube.” “Because of the low value of sugar, the ships that transport this sweet commodity are often old and sometimes not in the best state of repair. Raw sugar is loaded onto and off a ship with a device that resembles a vacuum cleaner.” In this case, “at some point during the journey, moisture had leaked into the cargo—so much moisture that the shipment had turned rock solid.” The trader who had negotiated the deal needed some quick thinking to reduce his losses. “He hired a team of laborers to break up the giant sugar cube with jackhammers. The laborers then had to remove thousands of smaller cubes by hand. The cargo was eventually unloaded and delivered to the buyer, who then demanded a discount because the sugar was not in the form contracted for. While insurance paid for part of the fiasco, the trader’s profit margin was not enough to cover the losses, which amounted to several million dollars.” (p. 48)
Hecht also recalls one of the problems that coffee traders encountered in the 1980s. The vessels of drug smugglers often carried “huge coffee shipments to mask the aroma of the drugs.” On one occasion “a dead body arrived with a massive coffee shipment, along with a large cache of marijuana and cocaine.” (p. 209)
Another distinguishing characteristic of the book is its detail. When discussing natural gas, Hecht describes among other things its dramatic historical volatility, the divergence between UNG and the price of natural gas in early 2012 when the book was being written (signaling that “either UNG is too low or that the price of natural gas will rally from levels shown on the chart”—the latter happened), and the negative correlation between heavy natural gas users such as Potash and the commodity.
And he demonstrates how the trader who understands commodities can profit in the stock market. A case in point was his 2008 trade in JetBlue as oil made new all-time highs and JBLU was dirt cheap. “When the price of crude oil fell, there was a short-term correction in JetBlue’s price—it shot up by more than 100 percent in six months.” (p. 110)
Hecht had skin in the game for nearly 35 years, and it shows in this book. Both investors and traders can learn from him.
Crowder, Schneeweis, and Kazemi, Postmodern Investment
To contact us Click HERE
Postmodern Investment: Facts and Fallacies of Growing Wealth in a Multi-Asset World by Garry B. Crowder, Thomas Schneeweis, and Hossein Kazemi (Wiley, 2013) is a cautionary book. “Financial myths contain enough plausibility to encourage intellectual laziness; enough truth to support the lie; enough pathos to snare the human condition; and, enough visceral appeal to be widely embraced. But, more importantly, myths and misconceptions are usually based on rigorously tested past truths.” (p. xix)
The authors analyze a range of asset classes—equity and fixed income, hedge funds, managed futures, commodities, private equity, and real estate. Yes, they analyze; they don’t merely describe or explain. In the process they poke holes in common myths and misconceptions about each asset class as well as the overarching theories of asset allocation and risk management.
We live in “interesting” times. Old rules of investing have been tested and often found wanting; newer rules have sometimes been even worse. Markets keep evolving, with new products and new challenges for investors. It is up to the individual investor or portfolio manager to keep abreast of current market realities and to adjust his investments accordingly.
Let’s look at just a couple of points the authors make. First, they argue that it’s a myth that “commodities provide a natural diversifier to traditional assets.” As they write, “The concept of a natural diversifier often refers to the idea that the return movement of a particular investment will consistently offer positive (or negative) returns when the other asset performs poorly (or well). The problem is that because many commodities do not have a long-term positive expected rate of return … the natural return may be regarded as near zero. An analysis could reveal a low correlation between the commodity and a stock or bonds return simply because the commodity has no consistent return pattern. The commodity could be called a diversifier in the same way a U.S. Treasury bond would be identified—a low expected return and no correlation with risky assets.” (p. 184)
And speaking of diversification, what about time diversification? That is, despite the volatility of stocks and bonds in the short run, does time diversification reduce their volatilities in the long run? No, the authors contend. “[S]ome believe that in the long run, traditional stock and bond investments can be viewed as almost riskless because U.S. stock and bond investments have always offered positive returns over long investment horizons (e.g., 20 years). Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, the two-year expected rate of return should be twice the one-year expected rate of return and, all else equal, the three-year expected rate of return is three times the one-year return. The same linear relationship exists for risk. The two-year expected variance is twice the one-year rate, and the three-year expected variance is three times the one-year variance. Summarizing, in the long run both the expected return and the expected risk increase—there is no free lunch. It is the linear relationship between expected return, risk, and investment horizon that makes reducing risk a prime goal for investors (e.g., the long-term rate of return is related to the annual return and volatility such that the lower the annual volatility, the greater the long-term rate of return).” (p. 58)
Postmodern Investment challenges the investor to rethink his portfolio—and his often misguided preconceptions. It’s a breath of fresh air.
The authors analyze a range of asset classes—equity and fixed income, hedge funds, managed futures, commodities, private equity, and real estate. Yes, they analyze; they don’t merely describe or explain. In the process they poke holes in common myths and misconceptions about each asset class as well as the overarching theories of asset allocation and risk management.
We live in “interesting” times. Old rules of investing have been tested and often found wanting; newer rules have sometimes been even worse. Markets keep evolving, with new products and new challenges for investors. It is up to the individual investor or portfolio manager to keep abreast of current market realities and to adjust his investments accordingly.
Let’s look at just a couple of points the authors make. First, they argue that it’s a myth that “commodities provide a natural diversifier to traditional assets.” As they write, “The concept of a natural diversifier often refers to the idea that the return movement of a particular investment will consistently offer positive (or negative) returns when the other asset performs poorly (or well). The problem is that because many commodities do not have a long-term positive expected rate of return … the natural return may be regarded as near zero. An analysis could reveal a low correlation between the commodity and a stock or bonds return simply because the commodity has no consistent return pattern. The commodity could be called a diversifier in the same way a U.S. Treasury bond would be identified—a low expected return and no correlation with risky assets.” (p. 184)
And speaking of diversification, what about time diversification? That is, despite the volatility of stocks and bonds in the short run, does time diversification reduce their volatilities in the long run? No, the authors contend. “[S]ome believe that in the long run, traditional stock and bond investments can be viewed as almost riskless because U.S. stock and bond investments have always offered positive returns over long investment horizons (e.g., 20 years). Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, the two-year expected rate of return should be twice the one-year expected rate of return and, all else equal, the three-year expected rate of return is three times the one-year return. The same linear relationship exists for risk. The two-year expected variance is twice the one-year rate, and the three-year expected variance is three times the one-year variance. Summarizing, in the long run both the expected return and the expected risk increase—there is no free lunch. It is the linear relationship between expected return, risk, and investment horizon that makes reducing risk a prime goal for investors (e.g., the long-term rate of return is related to the annual return and volatility such that the lower the annual volatility, the greater the long-term rate of return).” (p. 58)
Postmodern Investment challenges the investor to rethink his portfolio—and his often misguided preconceptions. It’s a breath of fresh air.
Taulli, High-Profit IPO Strategies, 3d ed.
To contact us Click HERE
Post-Facebook and pre-cliff, IPOs faltered in 2012. As of December 10, the Bloomberg IPO index was down 3.1% year to date; the S&P was up 12.9%. The major culprit was Facebook. But over the last ten years the index, which tracks the performance of IPOs over their first twelve months as publicly traded companies, is up 164% as opposed to the S&P’s 83%. (Once again, thanks to Bespoke for this data, even though by now it’s a bit stale.) IPOs may still be a potential source for outsized profits, just not for quick automatic profits. The go-go years are gone.
Moreover, fewer deals are getting done. In 2012, 128 companies went public as opposed to 154 in 2011. It was also a year of smaller deals, with median proceeds falling 23%.
Tom Taulli, of course, recognizes this shift in market sentiment. Still and all, IPOs can be attractive investments if you have done your homework and if you either get an allocation (unlikely for the retail investor) or enter wisely in the secondary market. In the third edition of High-Profit IPO Strategies: Finding Breakout IPOs for Investors and Traders (Bloomberg/Wiley, 2013) Taulli explains the IPO process and the resources that investors can use in their quest to separate winners from losers.
About half of the book deals with the requisite homework: finding the best IPO information; making sense of the prospectus; reading the balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows; risk factors; IPO investment strategies; and short selling IPOs. Another sixty pages is devoted to IPO sectors (tech, biotech, finance, retail, foreign, energy, and REITs). Finally, Taulli looks at alternative IPO investments (funds, spin-offs, angel investing, and crowd funding).
For those who like to dream, there is always the 100x IPO. If you had bought $10,000 in shares on the first day of trading, you would have (as of the writing of the book) $1.3 million in AMZN,$1.5 million in DELL, $1.7 million in AAPL, $3.5 million in MSFT, and $10.3 million in WMT. Even if you had waited a year before buying stock in most of these 100-baggers you would still have made a fortune. Of course, for every mega-winner there are scores of mega-losers. The most often cited example is pets.com, but I consider myself a winner here: I never bought the stock and I still have a promotional pets.com mouse pad with a photo of my last litter of basset hounds.
Unlike most authors, Taulli has thoroughly updated his book for the third edition. For example, he studies the prospectus of Zynga, the income statement of Annie’s, and the statement of cash flows of Facebook. Under risk factors he cites a slew of reasons that IPOs turned out to be bad investments. To take but a single case, Zeltiq Aesthetics (ZLTQ), which “sold sophisticated machines that it claimed allowed physicians to reduce people’s stubborn fat bulges,” faltered badly because it faced serious competition. “What’s more, the company was also having trouble differentiating its approach. Its advertising campaign, which was called ‘Let’s Get Naked,’ had people running around in their underwear! It was not a clear marketing message.” (pp. 105-106) I must admit that I had never heard of Zeltiq, but its “Z-q” name alone would have given me pause. I don’t think the firm hired the late Michael Cronan (responsible for the TiVo and Kindle names) to brand it.
Taulli’s book is thorough, informative, and well written. Anyone who’s interested in IPO investing, especially in avoiding pitfalls, can profit from it.
Moreover, fewer deals are getting done. In 2012, 128 companies went public as opposed to 154 in 2011. It was also a year of smaller deals, with median proceeds falling 23%.
Tom Taulli, of course, recognizes this shift in market sentiment. Still and all, IPOs can be attractive investments if you have done your homework and if you either get an allocation (unlikely for the retail investor) or enter wisely in the secondary market. In the third edition of High-Profit IPO Strategies: Finding Breakout IPOs for Investors and Traders (Bloomberg/Wiley, 2013) Taulli explains the IPO process and the resources that investors can use in their quest to separate winners from losers.
About half of the book deals with the requisite homework: finding the best IPO information; making sense of the prospectus; reading the balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows; risk factors; IPO investment strategies; and short selling IPOs. Another sixty pages is devoted to IPO sectors (tech, biotech, finance, retail, foreign, energy, and REITs). Finally, Taulli looks at alternative IPO investments (funds, spin-offs, angel investing, and crowd funding).
For those who like to dream, there is always the 100x IPO. If you had bought $10,000 in shares on the first day of trading, you would have (as of the writing of the book) $1.3 million in AMZN,$1.5 million in DELL, $1.7 million in AAPL, $3.5 million in MSFT, and $10.3 million in WMT. Even if you had waited a year before buying stock in most of these 100-baggers you would still have made a fortune. Of course, for every mega-winner there are scores of mega-losers. The most often cited example is pets.com, but I consider myself a winner here: I never bought the stock and I still have a promotional pets.com mouse pad with a photo of my last litter of basset hounds.
Unlike most authors, Taulli has thoroughly updated his book for the third edition. For example, he studies the prospectus of Zynga, the income statement of Annie’s, and the statement of cash flows of Facebook. Under risk factors he cites a slew of reasons that IPOs turned out to be bad investments. To take but a single case, Zeltiq Aesthetics (ZLTQ), which “sold sophisticated machines that it claimed allowed physicians to reduce people’s stubborn fat bulges,” faltered badly because it faced serious competition. “What’s more, the company was also having trouble differentiating its approach. Its advertising campaign, which was called ‘Let’s Get Naked,’ had people running around in their underwear! It was not a clear marketing message.” (pp. 105-106) I must admit that I had never heard of Zeltiq, but its “Z-q” name alone would have given me pause. I don’t think the firm hired the late Michael Cronan (responsible for the TiVo and Kindle names) to brand it.
Taulli’s book is thorough, informative, and well written. Anyone who’s interested in IPO investing, especially in avoiding pitfalls, can profit from it.
20 Şubat 2013 Çarşamba
The 10th Amendment is meaningless so long as the states are on Fedzilla's dole.
To contact us Click HERE
Liberty activists keep talking up the 10th Amendment but there's a dirty little secret about how the 10th Amendment became irrelevant and meaningless. Simply stated, the states no longer even care about the 10th Amendment because they are so dependent on Fedzilla for funding that they sacrificed their sovereignty decades ago. Veronique de Rugy illuminated the situation quite clearly in a Reason.com article.
Get States off the Federal Dole
States with the highest dependency on the Federal government for revenue are as follows:
Federal Aid to State Budgets
MS - 49%
LA - 47%
AZ - 46%
SD - 46%
MT - 42%
TX - 40%
Even a few states at the low end of federal dependency are in the high 20% percentile, with most states depending on Fedzilla for 30-40% of their spending.
The very significant growth in federal state aid has resulted in powerful public sector labor unions, the massive growth in state programs and huge increases in public sector employees.
As the state grows, the private sector shrinks and what is left of the job creating private sector is relentlessly pounded with oppressive taxation to fund the ever growing public sector. It's a vicious cycle that destroys the economy that produces the wealth to fund the public sector. Ultimately, there is no money or wealth to fund government at all levels. However, the powerful public sector continues to ferociously lobby for higher taxation on the private sector to sustain its unsustainable plunder. At the end of the day, the public sector is nothing more than a parasite that is sucking the life, prosperity and wealth out of the people.
Liberty activists keep talking up the 10th Amendment but there's a dirty little secret about how the 10th Amendment became irrelevant and meaningless. Simply stated, the states no longer even care about the 10th Amendment because they are so dependent on Fedzilla for funding that they sacrificed their sovereignty decades ago. Veronique de Rugy illuminated the situation quite clearly in a Reason.com article.
Get States off the Federal Dole
These reflexive calls for Washington to pick up the tab underscore one of the greatest shifts of power in American politics during the last four decades: the transition from state and local autonomy to federal subsidy and control. This centralization of government was made possible largely by grants-in-aid, money provided by the federal government to state and local governments or private parties. They have become the third largest category in the federal budget, trailing only Social Security and national defense.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 1,724 of these grants in fiscal year 2011, paying for things such as bridges, teachers, Medicaid, farm subsidies, and abstinence programs. The total cost of these federal grants was $515 billion, up 160 percent in real terms since the beginning of the 1990s and nearly 60 percent since 2000. After the adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the 2009 stimulus bill, grant spending increased by 16 percent in 2009 and 11 percent in 2010—the highest annual spikes in history.
Grants are not merely a substantial part of the federal budget. They have become like a drug for the states. The federal share of total state spending rose from 25.7 percent in 2001 to 34.1 percent in 2011. State and local governments drink up roughly 80 percent of total federal grant spending, with the remainder going mostly to nonprofit organizations providing services at the state and local levels.The states are on Fedzilla's dole and the percentages are staggering.
States with the highest dependency on the Federal government for revenue are as follows:
Federal Aid to State Budgets
MS - 49%
LA - 47%
AZ - 46%
SD - 46%
MT - 42%
TX - 40%
Even a few states at the low end of federal dependency are in the high 20% percentile, with most states depending on Fedzilla for 30-40% of their spending.
The very significant growth in federal state aid has resulted in powerful public sector labor unions, the massive growth in state programs and huge increases in public sector employees.
As the state grows, the private sector shrinks and what is left of the job creating private sector is relentlessly pounded with oppressive taxation to fund the ever growing public sector. It's a vicious cycle that destroys the economy that produces the wealth to fund the public sector. Ultimately, there is no money or wealth to fund government at all levels. However, the powerful public sector continues to ferociously lobby for higher taxation on the private sector to sustain its unsustainable plunder. At the end of the day, the public sector is nothing more than a parasite that is sucking the life, prosperity and wealth out of the people.
Meet Bell, CA - America's Shinning Example of Statism on Steroids
To contact us Click HERE
Bell, California is one of the poorest cities in California with a population of 38,000 and average per capital income of under $25,000 according to Bloomberg, here. The impoverished city of Bell is 90% Hispanic but Bell made national headlines a few years ago when it went public that it's City Manager earned an annual salary of nearly $800,000. Bloomberg further reported:
Fortunately, the citizen of Bell became justifiably enraged over the government they elected and revolted. The crimes of Bell's public officials are well known and it appears that they will be prosecuted for their crimes.
Massive corruption case going to trial Huffington Post
Bell, California is one of the poorest cities in California with a population of 38,000 and average per capital income of under $25,000 according to Bloomberg, here. The impoverished city of Bell is 90% Hispanic but Bell made national headlines a few years ago when it went public that it's City Manager earned an annual salary of nearly $800,000. Bloomberg further reported:
Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.As if an $800,000 a year overpaid bureaucrat isn’t bad enough, Reuters reports that the pension costs to taxpayers for this $800,000 a year parasite could top $30 million, here.
An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000…
It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.
The city’s personal income was $24,800 per capita in 2008..
Fortunately, the citizen of Bell became justifiably enraged over the government they elected and revolted. The crimes of Bell's public officials are well known and it appears that they will be prosecuted for their crimes.
Massive corruption case going to trial Huffington Post
Six former officials of the scandal-ridden city of Bell go on trial this week in a massive corruption case that nearly bankrupted the Los Angeles suburb.Even if the public officials are prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison, that won't be the end of Bell's problems. The city had issued $35 million in bonds and that debt will continue to be a burden on the impoverished Bell taxpayers. The LA Times reported, here:
The former mayor and vice mayor and four former City Council members are charged with misappropriation of public funds in a 20-count felony complaint.
Prosecutors claim they looted the city's treasury in order to pay themselves exorbitant salaries. The complaint says sham commissions were created to enrich the defendants.
Two major figures in the scam are not part of this trial. Former City Manager Robert Rizzo and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia are scheduled to be tried separately. They have been accused of making millions while hiking taxes and fees for residents in the modest, blue-collar suburb where many live in poverty....
Defense attorneys had argued that the council members earned their salaries, working full time on the city's behalf, not only attending monthly council meetings but taking part in community projects that benefited low-income people, the aged and numerous others.
Prosecutors contend that Rizzo had an annual salary and compensation package worth $1.5 million and masterminded a scheme to loot the city of Bell of more than $6 million. His assistant city manager, Spaccia, was paid $376,288 a year.
Council members drew salaries of about $100,000 a year, which Hall said was about 20 times more than they were entitled to make.
The six defendants are expected to claim they worked hard for the city and were unaware of Rizzo's financial manipulations.Those set to go on trial Tuesday are former Mayor Oscar Hernandez, former vice mayor Teresa Jacobo and former council members George Mirabal, George Cole, Victor Bello and Luis Artiga.
Testimony at the trial is expected to focus on the creation of sham boards and commissions such as the city's Surplus Property Authority which met a handful of times between 2005 and 2010 and never for more than a minute or two. Hall calculated that resulted in council members being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour for sitting on the authority's board.
He said the city's Solid Waste and Recycling Authority was never legally created and, in any case, met only one time in 2006 -- to vote its members a pay raise.
"It was a sham agency," said the judge.
Former District Attorney Steve Cooley, who filed the Bell corruption cases, said more than $5.5 million was taken from the city coffers.
The small and cash-strapped city of Bell is on the hook for a $35-million bond debt that voters didn't approve — and that the city can't afford to pay off, The Times has learned.The misery of public corruption doesn't end when the corrupt politicians are brought to justice. They leave a very long trail of financial burdens that taxpayers will be sorting out for many years.
The debt, which Bell took on three years ago to buy land near the 710 Freeway, is more than twice the size of Bell's annual operating budget. Come November, the city could lose the land to foreclosure.
America's Porker Kids and the Government that Subsidizes their Obesity and Diseases
To contact us Click HERE
Much is being written about the epidemic of America's fat kids. It's a real tragedy because many of these kids become insulin dependent at very early ages as a result of the food that they consume. They are also acquiring a lot of serious health problems.
Wow—Obese Kids’ Health Is Much Worse Than We Thought
Only in America do we kill our kids for profit and do it with our tax dollars!!
Type II diabetes is attributable to lifestyle choices, obesity and is considered a lifestyle disease. It's on the rise in America's children and at an alarming rate.
The Increase of Obesity & Diabetes in Children
Much is being written about the epidemic of America's fat kids. It's a real tragedy because many of these kids become insulin dependent at very early ages as a result of the food that they consume. They are also acquiring a lot of serious health problems.
Wow—Obese Kids’ Health Is Much Worse Than We Thought
A large new study finds more health problems for very overweight children in childhood—not just later in life.Kids are eating high calorie, low nutrition diets that primarily consist of simple carbohydrates, sugar, corn syrup, fats, sodium, processed foods and GMO foods. Much of what kids eat in the schools is taxpayer funded garbage. Additionally, much of what is spent on the food stamp programs to feed the poor goes to very unhealthy junk food because subsidizing corporate profits of Big Food trumps a sound nutritional diet. Even more horrifying is that Migration Information reported that schools actually sell advertising to junk food purveyors by signing “"pouring rights" contracts that permit snack and soft drink companies to advertise to children on school vending machines, scoreboards, book covers, t-shirts, and news programs shown on televisions in the classroom., here.
We all know the number of American kids who are overweight or obese is at a scandalous rate (childhood obesity rates doubled between 1988 and 2006). But most of us might assume that the really bad health consequences of being very overweight will come later, in adulthood, when numbers for the big killers—heart disease, stroke, and diabetes—peak. And while that is true, there’s now new research showing a much bigger effect of excess weight on kids’ health when they are young.
The new study, which appeared in Academic Pediatrics, was led by Neal Halfon, MD, MPH, director of the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities, in Los Angeles. The research looked at over 43,000 kids ages 10 to 17 around the country and asked about kids’ health issues like asthma, diabetes, and pain, as well as developmental and behavioral issues.
Only in America do we kill our kids for profit and do it with our tax dollars!!
Type II diabetes is attributable to lifestyle choices, obesity and is considered a lifestyle disease. It's on the rise in America's children and at an alarming rate.
The Increase of Obesity & Diabetes in Children
In many cases, obesity and diabetes go hand in hand. Diabetes and obesity in children is on the rise....Why are America's kids so unhealthy, fat, sick and diabetic from bad food? Because the government subsidizes the deadly poison that children consume. In many ways, it's a double special interest profit center. Sick kids with government financed lifestyle diseases then become highly profitable customers for Big Pharm and its dangerous drugs.
Children are exposed to several types of instant gratification with foods throughout the day, notes Keep Kids Healthy. Aside from vending machines, unhealthy snacks may also available to students in the cafeteria at school. Some school cafeterias offer a la carte items where the child can create his own lunch with junk food and processed food rather than choosing a healthy pre-planned menu option.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)