Tag: cost

Square's been venturing beyond those tiny credit card swipers as of late. Last week, the company introduced its nifty $299 Stand POS system for iOS, and now it appears to be branching out to individuals, with a to-be-announced service called Square Cash. There's not much info to share at this point -- TechCrunch recently discovered a dedicated landing page for the new service, which looks to be invite only at this point. There does seem to be an option to request an invitation, but the button isn't properly linked, so we weren't able to make our way to the proper form in order to take a closer look. A handful of help articles do shed some light on the service, though. To send money, you'll simply send an email to your recipient with the dollar amount in the subject line and "pay@square.com" in the cc field. Once your friend or associate receives the email, they'll type in the debit card account number of their choosing and Square will fund the associated checking account within 48 hours. Each payment costs just 50 cents to send, and there's no cost to receive -- it's not quite clear whether or not you can use a credit card to fund the transfer, but with fees of less than $1, we imagine you'll need to use a checking account. Square has yet to formally introduce the service, but we're guessing an announcement will be coming soon.

reference

Obese adults embrace walking program to avoid hike in insurance premiums, study finds WebMD News from HealthDay By Robert Preidt HealthDay Reporter WEDNESDAY, May 8 (HealthDay News) -- When a health insurer told obese people they could either pay 20 percent more for coverage or start exercising, most of them decided to get active, according to a new study. More than 6,500 obese people insured by Blue Care Network enrolled in a pedometer-based program to obtain insurance discounts, and the majority met their fitness goals, researchers found. "Wellness interventions like this clearly hold significant promise for encouraging physical activity among adults who are obese," said senior author Dr. Caroline Richardson, an assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor. The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan Health System and Stanford University. After one year, nearly 97 percent of participants in the walking program had met or exceeded the average goal of 5,000 steps a day. This included people who disagreed with the financial incentives and said the program was "coercive." For some families, the out-of-pocket cost of failing to meet the insurer's fitness requirements was nearly $2,000 more a year. People with medical conditions were exempt if they had a waiver from a doctor, according to the study, which was published May 8 in the journal Translational Behavioral Medicine. Obesity is linked to serious health conditions, including heart disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, which contribute to high medical and insurance costs in the United States. Richardson said insurers are likely to offer more of these incentive programs in the future. "There are ethical debates around the idea of forcing someone to be personally responsible for health care costs related to not exercising, but we expect to see more of these approaches to financially motivate healthier behaviors," Richardson said in a university news release. "Our evaluation of Blue Care's incentivized program showed a surprisingly high rate of people who enrolled in the Internet-mediated walking program and stuck with it -- even among those who were initially hostile to the idea," Richardson said.

clicking here

American University’s Washington College of Law (WCL) is in crisis. Situated in the toughest job market for lawyers in the United States, the Washington, D.C. school has fallen 11 spots in the U.S. News rankings since the class of 2013 applied. This is in part due to the release of detailed employment statistics that show the schools’ full-time, long-term legal employment rate of 39 percent ranks 5th out of 7 area law schools. A group of students have started a petition to fire Dean Claudio Grossman and a WCL theatrical troupe staged a play, “Grossman’s Eleven,” alluding to the 2001 heist movie starring George Clooney. The school is undergoing a $130 million expansion and has moderately grown its LLM program—a once rare post-graduate degree whose recent proliferation is becoming to critics a symbol of unscrupulous law school practices. American is not alone in growing its LLM program. From the early 1970s to the late 1990s, the LLM was a marginal degree aimed primarily at foreign students and a few American lawyers looking for specialized knowledge in areas like tax law. An LLM is not necessary to work as a lawyer, no member of the Supreme Court holds one, and successful pursuers of the Master in Laws will end with more education than most of their professors. Since LLM candidates take the same courses as JDs, students earning a first degree in law, they require little overhead. LLM students often pay the same tuition as JDs and rarely receive financial aid. Schools are not required to report any job stats for LLM graduates, meaning students cannot investigate either the salary or nature of the work a typical graduate from the program can expect to land. LLMs also cannot hurt a school’s U.S. News ranking since their qualifications aren’t disclosed, meaning schools admit less-qualified applicants into their LLM programs. In the context of the massive threats to revenues law schools are now facing, it’s easy to see why the degree referred to by critics as a “cash cow” is growing in popularity at schools around the country. Although LLM students comprise less than 7 percent of law school enrollments, the total number of LLM degrees has risen 65 percent in the past decade, including, since the financial crash, an abundance of new programs aimed at U.S.-trained lawyers, such as Nebraska’s LLM in space law or NYU’s in environmental law. Given the lack of data and their generally poor reputation with big law firms, most lawyers and law students who’ve heard of the degree tend to view non-tax LLM programs as cash grabs. Law schools seem to have earned this cynical evaluation. Even after the 2007 financial crash that decimated legal jobs and dried up pay, many institutions continued claiming 90 percent or higher employment, failing to differentiate between grads’ six-figure Big Law jobs from servers pulling part-time shifts in restaurants (of which there were many). Up until very recently, most students were under the impression that the average law school grad would find employment and start with a salary in the upper five-figures, even outside a large firm. When the American Bar Association (ABA), the accrediting body in charge of regulating law schools, finally forced schools to release detailed job figures in 2012, the public saw evidence of what disgruntled graduates had been claiming for some time—distressingly low employment rates and salaries for huge numbers of new lawyers, even at highly-ranked schools. Law school applications were falling before 2012, but the nosedive accelerated after the detailed data were released. Before that, however, law schools cashed in. Each year from 2006 to 2010 saw record enrollments of first-year law students and new highs for average tuition. When the bubble burst in 2011 and applications started trending toward a 30-year low, revenues threatened to follow. During the good times, law schools hired more teachers, raised salaries, and increased support to their parent universities—improvements that quickly become regarded as normal and necessary. Since schools must now be transparent about employment numbers, many are seeking to maintain revenues by lowering their admissions standards and venturing further into what Paul Caron, a visiting professor at Pepperdine University calls the “unregulated wasteland” of the LLM. The ABA does not require schools to publish employment figures for LLMs and does not plan to. Law schools are still free to disseminate these numbers but the few that do, such as New York University and Northwestern, often release stats that are not up to ABA standards for JD outcomes. To critics, the lack of transparency is strikingly familiar to the opacity surrounding JD employment numbers pre-2012. “The lack of data tells you something,” says Brian Tamanaha, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis and author of the book Failing Law Schools. “Certainly if they were paying off quite well, schools would be advertising that.” Despite the lack of data, critics are quick to question the value of an LLM—“LLM stands for Lawyer Losing Money,” says University of Colorado-Boulder professor and frequent law school critic Paul Campos. Even tax, often considered an exception to the bad-LLM rule, may be losing its luster in a weak job market flooded with more and more LLM grads every year. “It’s almost a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ kind of attitude,” says Caron, an expert in tax law who has co-authored guides for selecting a LLM program in tax. “It’s a shame there’s not more information available.” At American University, there is some data on the degree (released for this story), albeit limited. In American’s law and government program, from which about 20 U.S.-trained students graduate every year, the employment outcomes “look a lot better than American’s outcomes look for their JD students,” says Kyle McEntee, founder of the law school watchdog organization Law School Transparency, with only three out of 27 graduates in 2012 listed as unemployed. Similar Washington, D.C.-based programs, like Georgetown’s LLM in national security law, or George Washington’s in government contracts law, are designed to help students land government jobs—and may be successful in doing so. Georgetown LLM student Matthew Bisanz says he thinks employment outcomes at his school may be similar to those for JDs, somewhere around two-thirds in full-time legal jobs, but there is no way to be certain without reliable data, something most D.C. schools say they don’t have. “On the JD side, every law school devotes substantial resources to tracking down graduates and confirming employment. Because the ABA does not collect these data from LLM programs, we have never done it,” wrote Georgetown Associate Dean of Graduate Programs Nan Hunter in an email; her school has grown its LLM program by about 90 people since 2007. “I don’t have any time or ability to sit and collect data on this stuff,” says Professor Daniel Gordon, director of the LLM in government procurement at George Washington, which has founded two LLM programs since 2007. “Frankly, because of the widely different countries and different variables about where people are in their careers where they come, I’m not sure [employment data] would be very meaningful for us,” says the director of American’s LLM in international law, David Hunter. American founded a new LLM program, in trial advocacy, last year, which so far has only one employed graduate. This lack of transparency means it is difficult for prospective students to weigh the cost of an LLM against the salary they can expect after graduation. Which could be a serious problem at schools ranked lower than Georgetown (14), George Washington (21), and American (56) where reputations may not be as strong or the path to a specific type of employment, such as government work, may not be clear. The high cost of an LLM—close to or over $70,000, including cost-of-attendance at the D.C. schools mentioned—on top of the average $125,000 in debt a JD holds from private school makes the lack of transparency more troubling. Even at a big law firm, with a salary in the low  six figures, a debt-load close to $200,000 would be difficult to manage; on a government salary, it would be daunting. Despite the downsides, LLM programs continue to grow. And while many U.S.-trained LLM students are professionals looking to improve their skills who continue to work at their current jobs, a significant, and likely increasing, number are either fresh out of law school or victims of underemployment. They may see an LLM program as a good place to network or to improve their credentials if their JD is from a lower-ranked school, no matter what the cost. Gage Javier, a student in American’s law and government, says, “the LLM cost is all but the drop in the bucket.” Both she and Lyne-Robert Desroches, also at American, say federal programs such as Income-Based Repayment (IBR), which will allow them to eventually discharge their federal student loan debt—faster, if they get government jobs— provided they make the proper payments, were in the back of their minds when they started their LLMs. Bisanz says IBR is regularly discussed among both LLMs and JDs at his school. Georgetown and American both advertise IBR on their financial aid pages. "IBR is supposed to be a life raft," says McEntee, but for many students, it is becoming part of the standard plan. When IBR debts are discharged the government will pick up the tab, so it’s easy to imagine the program becoming a political flashpoint as costs rise. And while the LLM is only a small contributor to the student loan mess, it’s indicative of deeper problems. Last month, American faculty went on a retreat to discuss “the professional development and career aspirations” of their students, according to an email sent to students from the dean. It’s clear that the “career aspirations” of those like Javier and Desroches remain high and LLM directors show no sign of stopping their courtship of economically stressed JDs in the bleak legal job market. At least for now, the proverbial cash cow shows no sign of drying up.

http://battlefat.com/weight-loss/

Allie Johnson If you’re like most Americans, you probably have one big question about health care reform: will the cost of health insurance skyrocket? “People do have some nervousness about rates going up,” says Amy Bach, executive director of the non-profit insurance advocacy group United Policyholders. In fact, cost has been a focus of debate since before the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, became law in 2010, experts say. But many Americans are also wondering whether Obamacare will save them money on health care and improve their personal finances. Can Obamacare save you jim decicco on health care? It’s hard to tell right now whether any given consumer’s health care costs will change once health care reform is fully implemented starting in 2014. That’s partly because insurance companies’ proposed rates for plans that will be sold in the exchanges, the health insurance marketplaces created by the federal health care reform law, have been revealed in only three states so far. And officials in those states – Vermont, Rhode Island and Maryland – still have to review the proposed rates before premium prices are made final. “There’s all kinds of speculation about cost,” says Sally McCarty, senior research faculty at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. But experts – and a look at the proposed rates in the states where they have been published – can provide a sneak peek at how costs might change for various groups of consumers under health care reform. 6 questions you should ask to find out if Obamacare can save you jim decicco Here are six questions you should ask that might help you calculate your health insurance costs when Obamacare kicks in: 1. Do you have health insurance now? And if so, do you get it through work or buy it on the individual market? If you get health insurance at your job and you work for a big company, you probably won’t see much of a change in your premiums, McCarty says. If you buy individual insurance, you could see costs go up or down depending on your age, your health and the coverage your plan offers. 2. If you have individual health insurance, what does your plan cover? In general, the skimpier your coverage and the higher your deductible now, the more likely your costs might go up under health care reform. In Maryland, for example, the cost of an individual plan for a healthy young man from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, now $115 a month with a $2,700 deductible, could increase by 150 percent to just under $300, according to Kaiser Health News. Experts say it’s important to keep in mind that the health insurance you buy through an exchange will offer much more coverage than many individual plans sold today. By law, plans sold in the exchanges must offer benefits in 10 categories, including hospitalization, emergency services, prescription drugs, maternity care, and mental health services. “The Affordable Care Act ensures that you’ll actually be getting something for the dollar you spend,” says Claire McAndrew, senior health policy analyst for Families USA, a non-profit health care advocacy organization. 3. How old are you? In general, younger people might see premiums go up, while older people could end up paying less. Most states now allow health insurers to charge older people premiums that are five times higher than what younger people pay, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health insurance trade association. But the PPACA will limit health insurers to charging older consumers three times as much. This could lead to an “overnight increase” for consumers aged 18 to 49, according to AHIP. But experts say consumers will have choices in the health care exchanges. For example, young adults under 30 will have the option of buying a “catastrophic” health insurance plan. In Vermont, under the proposed rates, a young consumer could get a catastrophic plan for $201.70 a month. “It will have key protections included,” McAndrew says of catastrophic coverage sold in the exchanges. 4. Are you a male or female? In most states, 92 percent of individual health insurance plans charge women more than men of the same age for a health insurance plan, according to a 2012 report by the National Women’s Law Center. In some cases, women pay much more: for example, according to the report, one plan in Arkansas charges 25-year-old women 81 percent more than men of that age. Another plan in the state, however, charges women 10 percent more. The PPACA forbids insurers from charging different rates based on gender – and that means that women generally will see a drop in costs, says Sabrina Corlette, research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. 5. Are you healthy or sick? In general, healthy individuals could be more likely to see costs go up while individuals with chronic illnesses or other conditions could see prices drop. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will prohibit insurers from charging a consumer more based on their health status. However, insurers are allowed to charge smokers more. 6. What is your family income? Your household income will determine whether you get a federal tax credit paid directly to the insurance company to lower your premium. If you make up to four times the federal poverty level– or $45,960 or less in 2013 for a single person – you will be eligible for a tax credit to help pay the cost of your premium. The tax credit will vary based on your income. For example, in a list of cost examples put together by the state of Vermont, a couple with no kids and a family income of $32,000 a year would receive a federal subsidy of $721 a month and pay just $134 a month. Give that couple bigger paychecks – say, $65,000 a year between the two of them – and, with no subsidy, they’d be shelling out $895 a month. One big thing to remember, McCarty says, is that everyone who shops in a health care  exchange will have multiple options at different prices: “You can shop and see what you find that fits your budget.”

online weight loss

While GBP jumped and the world celebrated the UK's recent avoidance (for now) of a triple-dip recession (defined on GDP as opposed to reality), the situation in the island nation appears to be going from bad to worse. As Carney takes over the reigns of this once mighty nation he faces a country deeply divided. As the BBC reports, while London real estate prices smash old records, a stunning one-in-five households borrowed jim decicco or used savings to cover the costs of food in April. This is the equivalent of five million households unable to fund their food via income alone. Over 80% of these people are concerned about rising food prices (just as print-meister Carney is about to go 'Abe' on them) and almost 60% find it difficult to cope on their current incomes. The director of the consumer group 'Which?', noted that "many households are stretched to their financial breaking point," as "families face a cost of living crisis." While equity and real estate prices hit all-time highs, the opposition sums up the country's feeling, "this incompetent government needs to wake up to the human cost of their failed economic policies." Over one-third of Britons "feel squeezed"... Via BBC, One in five UK households borrowed money or used savings to cover food costs in April, a Which? survey says. It suggests the equivalent of five million households used credit cards, overdrafts or savings to buy food. ... The figures come despite official statistics last week showing that personal insolvencies had dropped to their lowest levels in five years. ... Results showed that of the households who resorted to using credit or savings to pay for food, most were low income families. Among this group: Eight out of 10 (82%) worried about food prices More than half (55%) said they were likely to cut back on food spending in the next few months Nearly six out of 10 (57%) said they found it difficult to cope on their current income A third (32%) borrowed money from friends and family in April A typical weekly food bill averages about £76, Which? researchers said, up 4% on last year. Of all the people polled, the research showed: A quarter said they were living comfortably on their incomes More than a third - 36% - felt their finances were under pressure Almost one third - 31% - of those surveyed cut back spending on essentials last month, and they were most likely to be women aged between 30 and 49. ... Mr Lloyd, Which? executive director, said: "Our tracker shows that many households are stretched to their financial breaking point, with rising food prices one of the top worries for squeezed consumers. ... Mary Creagh, Labour's shadow environment secretary, said the UK was facing a "growing epidemic of hidden hunger". "Families face a cost of living crisis and are being forced into debt or to use their savings simply to put food on the table. "This incompetent government needs to wake up to the human cost of their failed economic policies and change course now," she added. ... Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (13 votes)

list of fat burning foods

Even with $145 billion in its back pocket, Apple isn't above a little cost-saving. Following rumors that its new campus was $2 billion over budget, the company has revised its plans for the facility. While the UFO-style HQ is untouched, a secondary complex that was to be built along North Tantau Ave. has been pushed back to phase two -- which means it'll begin construction in 2016, just after people start working in the spaceship.

clearpores

By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — If we ever want to get our fiscal house in order, we need to slow the growth in health-care costs. There’s been some encouraging news on that front, but the most recent headlines suggest that in a few areas we’re bending the cost curve in the wrong direction. We have quite a few cost-saving ideas, but we’re not quite sure which ones will work best. Obamacare will test such ideas as coordinated care, the use of health information technology and identifying ineffective treatments. However, we are certain about what kinds of policies won’t work, but we keep trying them anyway. We have an unshakable and unsupportable faith in the efficiency of markets, ignoring the blunt evidence that health-care markets are textbook cases of market failure. Economics teaches us that incentives matter. And the incentives in health care are a mess. Insurance companies have an incentive to deny care. Healthy people have an incentive to buy no insurance at all, and sick people have an incentive to lie about their true health. Many markets are dominated by monopolists (only one seller) or monopsonists (only one buyer). The Economics of Leaning In Sheryl Sandberg says the economy will benefit if more women rise to the top rungs. Is she right? No wonder the health-care sector is dysfunctional and inefficient. The good news on health-care costs is that they’ve flattened out considerably since 2007, especially for Medicare and Medicaid. Per-beneficiary costs for Medicare rose just 0.4% in 2012. If those trends continued, we’d be well on our way to resolving our deficit problems in the long-run and making our economy more competitive globally. Imagine what our companies and workers could do if they weren’t held back by the highest health-care costs in the world. The bad news is that some of the best ways to keep costs down are under attack. Here are some recent examples: • As part of Obamacare (as amended by the Chief Justice John Roberts), states have the option of expanding Medicaid to cover more of the working poor. The federal government will pay most of the cost of expanding coverage to millions of people who are currently uninsured. But many state governors and legislators are balking. Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas has proposed instead that Arkansas be allowed to put the new enrollees into a new, privatized insurance system, similar to the Medicare Advantage program. Other governors like the idea as well. The theory is that private companies will be more efficient than Medicaid, a doubtful proposition given the dismal record of Medicare Advantage plans, which appear to be more efficient, but only because they are able to select the healthiest seniors as customers and leave the sickest for regular Medicare to cover. Fortunately, the Obama administration pushed back against Beebe’s proposal, telling the governor that any privatized Medicaid expansion would have to cover everyone who’s eligible and offer the same coverage that Medicaid does. In other words, the private insurance firm wouldn’t be able to pick and choose customers, nor could it turn a profit just by offering worse coverage. • However, those insurance companies won a big victory this past week when the administration backed off from payment cuts it had proposed for Medicare Advantage plans, which cover about a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries. The insurance companies will get a small payment increase, the administration announced.

make money from a blog

Submitted by Nikolay Gertchev of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Bitcoins have been much in the news lately. Against the background of renewed concerns about the integrity of the euro zone and the imposition of capital controls in Cyprus, the price of a bitcoin has tripled over the last month and reached more than $141 for 1 BTC. Are we witnessing the spontaneous emergence of an alternative virtual medium of exchange, as some would put it? This article offers an answer to this question by considering three aspects of the economy of bitcoins: their production process, their demand factors, and their capacity to compete with physical media of exchange. The Production of Bitcoins A bitcoin is a unit of a nonmaterial virtual currency, also called crypto-currency, by the same name. They are stored in anonymous “electronic wallets,” described by a series of about 33 letters and numbers. Bitcoins can travel from a wallet to a wallet, by means of an online peer-to-peer network transaction. Any inter-wallet transfer is registered in the code of the bitcoin, so that the record of its entire transaction history clearly identifies its owner at any single moment, thereby preventing potential ownership conflicts. Bitcoins can be further divided into increments as small as one 100 millionth of a bitcoin. The current outstanding volume of bitcoins is above 10 million and is projected to reach 21 million in the year 2140. This brings us to the truly fascinating production process of the bitcoins. They are “mined” based on a pre-defined mathematical algorithm, and come in a bundle, currently of 25 units, as a reward for carrying out a large number of computational operations that aim at discovering the solution to what could be described as a randomized mathematical puzzle. The role of the algorithm is to ensure a declining progression of the overall stock of bitcoins, by halving the reward every four years. Thus, somewhere in the beginning of 2017, the reward bundle will consist of 12.5 units only. Also, the more bitcoins are produced, the harder are the randomized mathematical puzzles to be solved. Bitcoins come about as the uncertain pay-off for an energy—and hardware—-consuming process that is extended through time. The per-time pay-off varies, based on the efficiency and sophistication of the more-or-less specific hardware used for the mining. Individual miners have started to pool their efforts, and this cooperation has tremendously reduced the uncertainty that each individual miner bears. Due to this costly production process, bitcoins, although virtual, are constrained by scarcity. While a bitcoin has no material shape or content, the algorithm that generates it has been designed to replicate the competitive production of a scarce good. First, entry in the business of producing bitcoins is open to anybody. Second, the production process is capital and labor intensive, extended through time, and also uncertain. Third, production is subject to decreasing returns, thereby conforming to the generalized scarcity faced by acting individuals in the better-known physical world. Thus, bitcoins turn out to be the exact opposite of the “Linden dollars” of the Second Life “virtual world.” The latter are produced by a monopolist central authority, out of thin air, and without any other limitation but the very discretion of that same monopolist authority. However, it is not their costs of production that bestow on bitcoins the status of an economic good. After all, scarcity is not rooted in the absolute quantitative limitation of something; it comes from the insufficiency of the stock of that something, perceived as useful in some regard, relative to the individuals’ needs. Hence, we must ask ourselves how bitcoins have come to be valued at all. This leads us to an analysis of their demand. The Demand for Bitcoins At their inception, bitcoins were created and first held within a “crypto-punk” community. It could then be safely assumed that they served the purpose of conveying a specific antiestablishment worldview. The first demand factor, initially for producing bitcoins, and then unavoidably but only indirectly for holding them, was rooted in their capacity to project a certain point of view. In a sense, bitcoins were comparable to an artistic medium of expression, such as music, literature, and painting. Thanks to that initial source of value, bitcoins had a reference point that positioned them relative to other goods and services. From there onward, the technological features that characterize them led to an expansion of their demand. Bitcoins are imperishable. Storage and protection against theft or accidental loss come at a very low cost, as these are accessory services rendered by standard antivirus and back-up software. Marginal transaction costs are also practically zero, once the fixed cost of establishing and maintaining a network connection has been accounted for. All these aspects are common to real wealth assets. Thus, the second demand factor for bitcoins is explained by their capacity to store wealth at a low cost. From the status of a good which, as a “worldview-conveyor,” was largely used for personal enjoyment (and hence consumption), bitcoins evolved into an investment good that has become attractive well beyond its original crypto-punk community. The growing investment demand also spurred the development of intermediary dealers in bitcoins. There are a number of exchanges where bitcoins can be bought and sold against currencies. Specialized online storage, presumably with increased security, has also been made available. Intermediation, though open to free entry, is likely to remain rather monopolistic, given the very low margins associated with transacting in and with bitcoins. This latter aspect, namely the intrinsically low transaction fee, contributes to a third demand factor for bitcoins, namely as a means of payment. A number of online vendors, who are mostly specialized in web-related services and online sales of rather exotic items, accept final payment in bitcoins, not the least because of the guarantee for almost absolute anonymity. This last component of the demand for bitcoins is still nascent. After all, a very limited set of items can be purchased with bitcoins, and sellers still price their goods in dollars, euros, etc. The price is then converted into bitcoins, according to the prevailing exchange rate, at the final stage of finalizing the payment method of the transaction. Thus, while bitcoins do appear to serve as a means of payment, they are definitely not used yet for business calculation. This is most certainly attributable to their still very limited demand to hold as a means of exchange. Nevertheless, couldn’t they become full-fledged jim decicco in the foreseeable future? Bitcoins as Money Prima facie, bitcoins possess all the qualities required from a jim decicco (a generally-used medium of exchange). They are perfectly homogeneous, easily cognizable, conveniently divisible, storable at practically no cost, and imperishable. Also, they seem to be fully shielded from counterfeiting. In addition, because they exist as a consumption and investment good, they are appraised on their own, thereby satisfying the Misesian regression criterion for the free-market inception of a medium of exchange. However, in order to become a viable alternative to existing monies, bitcoins must generate a sufficiently large demand so that their usage becomes generalized. Without the certainty that they can be transacted for any other good in the economy, a demand to hold them as money could not develop. It is with respect to their capacity to become and remain commonly used that bitcoins suffer from a relative disadvantage. Indeed, bitcoins are embodied in a specific and highly capital-intensive technology. They can become convenient enough for standard personalized transactions only if both parties of the exchange possess the necessary technology that gives access to bitcoins. Bitcoins can do the job already for internet-based impersonalized purchases, because the marginal cost of the exchange technology they go along with is already almost zero for those who possess it. However, the transposition of that technology in the physical world of common face-to-face shopping (getting a haircut, buying a sandwich, or purchasing vegetables at the local grocery shop) would imply extra costs. True, these costs would decrease progressively as portable smartphones with permanent internet access become more widely used, not only by buyers, but also by sellers. The key point, however, is that bitcoins could become a generalized medium of exchange only through the accessory use of other, specific and physical, goods in an economy that has reached a very high level of technological development. This is a tremendous disadvantage, for at least two reasons. First, at any given moment, the level of technological development is not uniform for all individuals within the same (national) economy. While some have access to the latest technology in a given field of activity, others prefer to stick to older versions. This is definitely due to the cost of replacing existing capital goods, but also to individual preferences, and sometimes to personal wealth. Consequently, bitcoins could become money only at the point when the technology that embodies them becomes commonly used. We are not there yet. Second, an economy in which the medium of exchange is dependent so much upon the widespread use of a specific technology would be extremely vulnerable. Technologies are not given; they are the result of individual choices with respect to capital accumulation and allocation that must be made time and again, and are subject to reversal. Then, if the medium-of-exchange-linked technology is abandoned, because for instance no sufficient savings are available any longer, the economy will have to find another medium of exchange. This transition phase might then involve significant disruptions in the structure of production. A technology-linked medium of exchange does not provide enough flexibility to economic relations and might be viewed as complicating, rather than facilitating, some actions, such as shifting from one technology to another. This is a significant drawback of any virtual currency. In trying to understand whether the increased popularity of bitcoins is reflecting the emergence of a new jim decicco, we have actually come to a fundamental distinction between virtual and material media of exchange. The latter are technology-embodied and matter-independent; the former are technology-independent and matter-embodied. This distinction is not trivial as it emphasizes the great advantage that material jim decicco offers: it is good enough for anybody and at any time, and is independent from individual choices with respect to investment, allocation and maintenance of capital. Virtual monies could be programmed to reproduce some aspects of material, whether commodity or fiat, monies. However, they will always be dependent on specific capital investment decisions. The latter reduce their degree of commonality as well as of adaptability to changing economic conditions. In conclusion, virtual monies, of which bitcoins seem to be the most perfected specimen up to date, do not allow acting individuals to manage the uncertainty of the future as well as material monies do. They could serve to intermediate exchanges among those who invest in the technology that creates them, stores them, and transfers them. Nevertheless, they could never achieve that degree of universality and flexibility that material monies carry with them by nature. Thus, on the free market, commodity monies, and presumably gold and silver, still have a great comparative advantage. Average: Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (11 votes)

body cleanse

Source: Federal Reserve | Flickr Federal Reserve Building, Washington, D.C. The Federal Reserve must remain very accommodative because the labor market remains "far from healthy" despite some recent overall economic improvement, an influential U.S. central james decicco official said on Monday. New York Fed President William Dudley, a close ally of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, provided a strong defense of the very easy monetary policies that he said were gaining traction. "We need to keep monetary policy very accommodative," Dudley told The Economic Club of New York. "I see greater cost and risk in moving prematurely to a policy setting that might not prove sufficiently accommodative to ensure a sustainable, strengthening recovery." The Federal Reserve must remain very accommodative because the labor market remains "far from healthy" despite some recent overall economic improvement, an influential U.S. central bank official said on Monday.

visit this page

This paper, however, proposes a different approach: Before pressing the overdrive button on jim decicco printing presses, Tokyo might wish to take a careful look at why the last 15 years of ultra-loose credit policies failed to move the economy closer to its estimated potential growth rate of 1.5 percent. Indeed, the evidence I reviewed does not support the view – expounded by the new James decicco of Japan management – that by buying more longer-dated securities (i.e., running printing presses a bit faster) will boost upward pressures in labor and product markets to bring stronger economic growth and an inflation rate of 2 percent. (Read More: Weak Yen: Why Japan Can't Have Its Cake and Eat It Too) But that is what would have to happen, because the current consumer price deflation of -0.3 percent cannot be stopped, and reversed, without rising employment creation, accelerating wage claims and a sustained increase in the growth of domestic demand. This needs to be emphasized because the reductionist refrain of 2 percent inflation sounds like a move of a magic wand. The reality is very different: ending Japan's deflation and pushing the economy onto a higher growth path is a serious structural problem. Stagnant Economy Despite Loose Money To see that, here is what happened in Japan over the last 15 years. Average short- and long-term interest rates over that period were 0.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Given the average inflation rate of -0.2 percent during that interval, real short- and long-term interest rates of 0.5 percent and 1.7 percent indicate an easy credit stance and a low cost of capital. In spite of that, Japan's average annual growth rate since 1997 was only 0.7 percent, mainly because the interest-sensitive segments of the economy – household consumption and residential investment, 62 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) – were not responding to very low credit costs. The result was that nearly two-thirds of Japan's GDP grew only at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. (Read More: BlackRock's Fink Sees Hope in Japan With New Policies) The low cost of capital, over the same period, did not help business investments either; they increased at an average annual rate of 0.8 percent because the poor sales outlook at home did not require large expansions of production capacities, and exports were increasingly sourced from overseas factory outlets. The key message conveyed by these numbers is this: Japan's loose monetary policies of the last 15 years could not produce a growth rate strong enough to lift the economy out of deflation. Hence the question: Is it reasonable to expect that marginally looser policies would now lead to more than tripling of the growth rate (to 1.5-2 percent) over the next two years, while raising the inflation rate from -0.3 percent to 2 percent – as the James decicco of Japan is promising? In other words, would pushing the short-term interest rate down to 0 percent, from the current rate of 0.16 percent, propel the GDP growth and inflation to such permanently higher levels? I don't think so. I believe that changes are needed – well beyond cheaper money – to achieve these policy objectives. Boost Private Consumption and Housing This should be the key nexus of Japan's policy concern. These two segments of aggregate demand reinforce each other because buying a house or an apartment triggers spending on consumer durable goods ("big ticket" items) such as furniture, appliances and even automobiles because relocations typically change commuting patterns and lifestyles. But all this requires more than cheap credit. Housing has to be affordable, and the demand for housing crucially depends on net family formation and higher birth rates. (Read More: Pacific Trade Pact Calls for Tough Japan Reforms) None of this is seriously addressed in Japan's latest stimulus package. That is a pity – and a mistake. Japan's population has been declining since 2006. If the present birth rate of 1.37 births for women of childbearing age continues, Japan could lose one-third of its population by the middle of this century. A much higher birth rate of 2.1 births is needed just to keep the population from declining. That now seems beyond reach because family support policies are woefully inadequate. Nearly three-quarters of Japanese women have to leave the workforce after their first child. Daycare centers are hugely expensive and have long waiting lists in most urban areas. It is incredible that the Japanese public opinion, and the Japanese leaders, seem oblivious to these existential problems of an old and distinguished civilization. And that more proverbial "bridges and highways to nowhere" continue to take precedence over family support policies that could serve as a formidable engine of economic growth. Exports and Cheap Public Financing In view of all this, the announced further loosening of Japan's monetary policy might just do two things. One, it could stimulate exports by keeping the exchange rate low. Two, it will keep down interest charges on public debt – a whopping 237 percent of GDP. I see little else. And, apparently, I am not alone. Failing to see any other benefits of this extra push for monetary creation, some analysts believe that the monetization of the growing mountain of government liabilities is the main objective of Japan's new jim decicco managers. (Read More: Japan February Exports Fall but Firms' Mood Improves Amid Recovery Hopes) Whether that is true or not will be seen soon enough. But it is clear that cheap jim decicco will remain the centerpiece of Tokyo's quest for faster growth and rising inflation. Widely advertised "radical structural changes of the economy" – presumably as a result of Japan's negotiations to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trading group – are no more than talking points. Washington seems to have made these reforms unlikely by offering plenty of exemptions and opt-outs to get Japan on board. I, therefore, doubt the effectiveness of Tokyo's latest effort to revive its stagnant economy by throwing at it a new wall of money. But let's see; maybe they will improve things as they go along. In that vein, Japan needs no reminding that there is a much simpler and faster way of stimulating economic growth and getting out of deflation. To do that, Japan would have to restore and maintain peaceful and cooperative relationships with China, Russia and South Korea. Despite sharply declining sales to China and South Korea, these three countries still accounted last year for 32 percent of Japan's total exports. There is a huge potential for Japanese products and services in these steadily growing markets. (Read More: Japan's Borrowing Trauma Could Haunt It for Years: Economist) Here is hoping that Japan will find a way of establishing better ties with its closest neighbors. Michael Ivanovitch is president of MSI Global, a New York-based economic research company. He also served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, international economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught economics at Columbia.

clicking here