• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1590
      • Показать ещё
      Люди613
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации78
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы481
      • Показать ещё
      Формат8
      Разное686
      • Показать ещё
      Издания84
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели49
      • Показать ещё
28 марта, 14:16

"Whenever Stocks Go Down, Everyone Still Goes Into 'The Sky Is Falling' Mode"

It was just yesterday morning, when futures were tumbling during the year's worst pre-market selloff in the aftermath of Friday's GOP failure to repeal Obamacare, that Bloomberg's Richard Breslow wrote "traders have lost confidence in their ability to interpret what’s plainly market-moving news." He added that "far from hoping to be the first to trade, [traders] need someone else to commit and help create the narrative. No wonder so many funds are shuddering and then shuttering." What a difference a day makes: with traders wondering on Monday morning if someone else would take the lead and BTD, the answer ended up being a resounding yes with the S&P wiping out a nearly 1% drop, to briefly trade in the green, as the VIX suffered one of its biggest intraday drops on record, the "narrative" was back and as SocGen's Kit Juckes noted overnight, "equity market participants have taken a look at the lower yields and weaker dollar and decided that since absurdly low rates are the elixir that the equity bull market lives on, they might as ‘buy the dip’ yet again.” And yet, as Breslow follows up in his latest daily letter, there appears to be a shift in sentiment. As the former FX trader notes, "don’t let anyone try to tell you that stock-market pullbacks, including modest ones, are something investors and policy makers can now handle with aplomb. You can calculate financial-conditions indices with all sorts of back-fitted weightings but when stocks go down, everyone still goes into “The sky is falling” mode." And therein lies the rub: whether it is central banks lifting offers, or risk-parity funds stepping in, or just algos frontrunning other confused algo orders, human traders are increasingly more nervous and frustrated by a market which is seemingly impervious to any adverse newsflow, and while they will gladly piggyback on the latest daily BTFD rally, when left on their own, and especially if selling resumes, the "panic" comes back. Which is why the Fed's renormalization path is so questionable: one miscalculation, one selloff, and the central bank will be right back at it, assuring a market of 20-some year old hedge fund managers there is nothing to worry about, and doing the occasional "Bullard QE4 jawboning" should the selling accelerate. Meanwhile, the familiar divergence between equity and bond (and dollar) traders - for whom "the jury is still out" - has returned. Breslow explains why in his full note below: You Can Still Learn From Forgone Opportunities   Well, we had some nice excitement yesterday and markets have been doing their best imitation of a weekend warrior only too happy to get safely back to the couch. There’s more of a mood of relief at dodging a bullet than self-examination of a pretty predictable trading opportunity forgone. But, as they say, lessons have been learned.    We now definitively know that little of the grand plans for a miraculous set of changes in U.S. policy will come easy. So we need to re-handicap them accordingly. Including the timing. Also recalibrate our thinking on which asset classes care more about which policies.   And don’t let anyone try to tell you that stock-market pullbacks, including modest ones, are something investors and policy makers can now handle with aplomb. You can calculate financial-conditions indices with all sorts of back-fitted weightings but when stocks go down, everyone still goes into “The sky is falling” mode.   There’s no shortage of Fed speakers for the balance of this week. Any of them willing to submit to Q&A should be asked how much and in what potential form fiscal stimulus figures into their forecasts. They like to say it doesn’t very much. But it’s in there somewhere, hard to believe anything else. And can’t not affect their assumptions for rate rises. Just how strong do they really think this and the global economy are on their lonesome? Frankly, it’s just not good enough to settle for we’ll see how things pan out.   Clearly dollar and bond traders think the jury is out. And want to see some infrastructure proposals. Equity traders are comfortable banking on deregulation and tax cuts. They have their own priorities. If the party in power needs a “win” that’s where the push will come from. And perhaps sooner than analysts expected, with health reform no longer standing in the way.   For currencies the best read on short-term attitudes remains USD/JPY. Using 111.70 as a pivot is as good as it gets for judging momentum. It’s clean and clear. If you insist on trading EUR/USD, use 1.0760. It’s close and will determine the mood. It’s more ambiguous because it will also hinge on how much fire Europeans are willing to play with talking about rate rises.   Gold didn’t make a new year-to-date high in yesterday’s panic. That remains in play and is close. For Treasuries, keep using 2.37% on a close as the pivot to judge just which range we are in. Remember, equities remain, and will continue to do so, the ultimate sacred cow.

28 марта, 03:04

Blamer-In-Chief: The Art Of The Dodge

“I blame myself – it was my fault, and I take full responsibility for it,” said Donald Trump, not once, ever, in his entire life. Here’s what else he didn’t say about the rout and ruin of repeal and replace: “I was clueless about health care policy. Instead of reading my briefing books or even my own bill, I played golf. I bullsh*tted my way through every meeting and phone call. And when it was explained to me that this dumpster fire of a bill would break my promise that everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they are now, which was a huge applause line, by the way, I threw my own voters under the bus.” In the wake of his Waterloo, instead of manning up, Trump blamed Democrats for not voting to strip health insurance from 24 million people, not voting to cut Medicaid by $880 billion in order to cut taxes by $883 billion and not voting to obliterate the signature legislative accomplishment of the Obama years. “Look,” he complained with crocodile bafflement to the “New York Times,” “we got no Democratic votes. We got none, zero.” Yet not once had Trump or Paul Ryan asked a single Democrat what it would take to get them to support a bill. “The good news,” Trump said, seeing the sunny side of the catastrophe he predicts is coming, is that the Democrats “now own Obamacare.” Don’t blame me – it’ll be their fault when it explodes, not mine. Trump blamed Republicans, too. Friday morning, when the bill was still in play, he tweeted that if the Freedom Caucus stops his plan, they would be allowing Planned Parenthood to continue. Friday afternoon, amid the wreckage, Trump told the “Washington Post’s Robert Costa that he was just an innocent bystander. “There are years of problems, great hatred and distrust” in the Republican Party, “and, you know, I came into the middle of it.” White House aides, bravely speaking without attribution, blamed Ryan for snookering the rookie-in-chief into tackling Obamacare before tax reform. Trump himself told Costa, “I don’t blame Paul.” He repeated it: “I don’t blame Paul.” Then again: “I don’t blame Paul at all.” The laddie doth protest too much, methinks. By tweet time Saturday morning, clairvoyantly touting Jeanine Pirro’s Saturday night Fox News show, Trump had found a surrogate to stick the knife in Ryan without his fingerprints on it. “This is not on President Trump,” Pirro said, avowing that “no one expected a businessman,” “a complete outsider,” to understand “the complicated ins and outs of Washington.” No, it’s on Ryan, she said. Ryan must step down. Blame precedes politics. In Western civilization’s genesis story, Adam blamed Eve for tempting him, and he blamed God for Eve. But America’s genesis story contains a noble, if apocryphal, counter-narrative: When George Washington’s father asked him who chopped down the cherry tree, the future father of his country didn’t blame someone else – he copped to it. That’s the legacy Harry Truman claimed when put “The buck stops here” sign on his Oval Office desk. But Trump is the consummate blame artist, a buck-passer on a sociopathic scale. He kicked off his campaign by blaming Mexico for sending us rapists and stealing our jobs. He blamed Hillary Clinton for founding the birther movement. He blamed Obama for founding ISIS. He blamed Obama’s Labor Department for publishing a “phony” unemployment rate. He blamed three million illegal voters for losing the popular vote. He blamed the botched raid on Yemen on U.S. generals. When U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled against his Muslim travel ban, he blamed Robart for future terrorism: “If something happens, blame him and court system.” He blamed “fake news” for treating Michael Flynn, “a wonderful man” whom he fired, “very, very unfairly.” He blamed Obama for wiretapping Trump Tower. He made his spokesman blame British intelligence for carrying that out. When GCHQ called that a crock, Trump played artful dodger: “All we did was quote… a very talented lawyer on Fox. And so you shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox.” Obamacare is imperfect but fixable. But Trump wants to bomb it, not improve it. He wants to light the fuse, but to blame Democrats for exploding it. Trump could shore up the insurance exchanges that cover 10 million Americans by marketing them when enrollment opens again in November – but I bet he won’t. He could instruct government lawyers to appeal a lawsuit halting federal subsidies for co-payments and deductibles of low-income enrollees that House Republicans won last year – but I bet he won’t. On the other hand, he has the power to narrow the essential benefits Obamacare requires insurers to provide by, say, limiting prescription drug coverage and lowering the number of visits allowed for mental health treatment or physical therapy – and I bet he will. Will Trump get away with it? He’s spent a lifetime banging his highchair and blaming the dog for his mess. No wonder he calls the free press fake news; no wonder he calls citizen activists paid protesters. You call someone who gets away with blaming others “unaccountable.” You know what the antonym of that is? Impeachable. This is a crosspost of my column in the Jewish Journal, where you can reach me if you’d like at [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 марта, 03:04

Blamer-In-Chief: The Art Of The Dodge

“I blame myself – it was my fault, and I take full responsibility for it,” said Donald Trump, not once, ever, in his entire life. Here’s what else he didn’t say about the rout and ruin of repeal and replace: “I was clueless about health care policy. Instead of reading my briefing books or even my own bill, I played golf. I bullsh*tted my way through every meeting and phone call. And when it was explained to me that this dumpster fire of a bill would break my promise that everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they are now, which was a huge applause line, by the way, I threw my own voters under the bus.” In the wake of his Waterloo, instead of manning up, Trump blamed Democrats for not voting to strip health insurance from 24 million people, not voting to cut Medicaid by $880 billion in order to cut taxes by $883 billion and not voting to obliterate the signature legislative accomplishment of the Obama years. “Look,” he complained with crocodile bafflement to the “New York Times,” “we got no Democratic votes. We got none, zero.” Yet not once had Trump or Paul Ryan asked a single Democrat what it would take to get them to support a bill. “The good news,” Trump said, seeing the sunny side of the catastrophe he predicts is coming, is that the Democrats “now own Obamacare.” Don’t blame me – it’ll be their fault when it explodes, not mine. Trump blamed Republicans, too. Friday morning, when the bill was still in play, he tweeted that if the Freedom Caucus stops his plan, they would be allowing Planned Parenthood to continue. Friday afternoon, amid the wreckage, Trump told the “Washington Post’s Robert Costa that he was just an innocent bystander. “There are years of problems, great hatred and distrust” in the Republican Party, “and, you know, I came into the middle of it.” White House aides, bravely speaking without attribution, blamed Ryan for snookering the rookie-in-chief into tackling Obamacare before tax reform. Trump himself told Costa, “I don’t blame Paul.” He repeated it: “I don’t blame Paul.” Then again: “I don’t blame Paul at all.” The laddie doth protest too much, methinks. By tweet time Saturday morning, clairvoyantly touting Jeanine Pirro’s Saturday night Fox News show, Trump had found a surrogate to stick the knife in Ryan without his fingerprints on it. “This is not on President Trump,” Pirro said, avowing that “no one expected a businessman,” “a complete outsider,” to understand “the complicated ins and outs of Washington.” No, it’s on Ryan, she said. Ryan must step down. Blame precedes politics. In Western civilization’s genesis story, Adam blamed Eve for tempting him, and he blamed God for Eve. But America’s genesis story contains a noble, if apocryphal, counter-narrative: When George Washington’s father asked him who chopped down the cherry tree, the future father of his country didn’t blame someone else – he copped to it. That’s the legacy Harry Truman claimed when put “The buck stops here” sign on his Oval Office desk. But Trump is the consummate blame artist, a buck-passer on a sociopathic scale. He kicked off his campaign by blaming Mexico for sending us rapists and stealing our jobs. He blamed Hillary Clinton for founding the birther movement. He blamed Obama for founding ISIS. He blamed Obama’s Labor Department for publishing a “phony” unemployment rate. He blamed three million illegal voters for losing the popular vote. He blamed the botched raid on Yemen on U.S. generals. When U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled against his Muslim travel ban, he blamed Robart for future terrorism: “If something happens, blame him and court system.” He blamed “fake news” for treating Michael Flynn, “a wonderful man” whom he fired, “very, very unfairly.” He blamed Obama for wiretapping Trump Tower. He made his spokesman blame British intelligence for carrying that out. When GCHQ called that a crock, Trump played artful dodger: “All we did was quote… a very talented lawyer on Fox. And so you shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox.” Obamacare is imperfect but fixable. But Trump wants to bomb it, not improve it. He wants to light the fuse, but to blame Democrats for exploding it. Trump could shore up the insurance exchanges that cover 10 million Americans by marketing them when enrollment opens again in November – but I bet he won’t. He could instruct government lawyers to appeal a lawsuit halting federal subsidies for co-payments and deductibles of low-income enrollees that House Republicans won last year – but I bet he won’t. On the other hand, he has the power to narrow the essential benefits Obamacare requires insurers to provide by, say, limiting prescription drug coverage and lowering the number of visits allowed for mental health treatment or physical therapy – and I bet he will. Will Trump get away with it? He’s spent a lifetime banging his highchair and blaming the dog for his mess. No wonder he calls the free press fake news; no wonder he calls citizen activists paid protesters. You call someone who gets away with blaming others “unaccountable.” You know what the antonym of that is? Impeachable. This is a crosspost of my column in the Jewish Journal, where you can reach me if you’d like at [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 марта, 01:14

Maybe Getting Tight With Rep. Devin Nunes Wasn’t Such A Hot Idea For Trump

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s White House probably wishes now it had never even heard of Rep. Devin Nunes. Not a week after calling attention to the House Intelligence Committee chairman’s claims about suspicious surveillance of Trump’s transition team, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday sounded like he was done talking about the California Republican. “I know that Chairman Nunes has confirmed that he was on White House grounds Tuesday and, frankly, any questions regarding who he met with or why he was here should be referred to him,” Spicer said. Spicer’s new tone comes as Nunes continues trying to explain why it was that he went to the White House on March 21 to receive documents from a source only to head back to the White House on March 22 to brief Trump on what he had learned. Nunes told Bloomberg News that his source was an intelligence official, not a White House employee. Spicer, meanwhile, claimed that he knew very little about the whole thing. “All of what I know has been available through public comments,” he said, referring to news accounts. Monday’s statements are the latest in the evolution of Spicer’s views on Nunes. Last Wednesday, Spicer went out of his way to make sure everyone had heard Nunes’ announcement that he had come to learn that Trump transition team members had been swept up by surveillance conducted by U.S. intelligence. Nunes’ committee is investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian spy agencies’ efforts to get Trump elected. “My understanding is that Chairman Nunes is coming to the White House later to brief the president on this development,” Spicer said. The next day, as Nunes was dodging questions as to where his new information came from, reporters asked Spicer whether the White House itself could have been Nunes’ source. Spicer ridiculed the question. “I don’t know that that make sense,” he said Thursday. “I don’t know why he would travel ― brief the speaker, then come down here to brief us on something that ― that we would’ve briefed him on. It doesn’t really seem to make a ton of sense. So, I’m not aware of it. But it doesn’t really pass the smell test.” But by Friday afternoon, after Nunes acknowledged that all the surveillance he was referring to was legal and had taken place as a result of court orders, Spicer again changed his tack when asked if he could rule out that Nunes’ source for his documents was from within the administration. “I don’t know where he got them from. He didn’t state it,” Spicer said. “I don’t have anything for you on that. So I cannot say anything more than ‘I don’t know’ at this point.” Monday, prior to Spicer’s daily briefing, the White House put out a statement referring all questions about Nunes’ newly disclosed visit to the White House complex to Nunes himself ― a request that reporters did not honor, forcing Spicer to spend much of the briefing trying to distance the White House from an increasingly embattled ally. Democrats are demanding that House Speaker Paul Ryan replace Nunes as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because of his open coordination with Trump, arguing that Nunes cannot lead an impartial investigation into Trump’s team. During his campaign last year, Trump frequently praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, even saying Putin was a better leader than President Barack Obama. In the meantime, Putin’s spy agencies were secretly working to help Trump win by stealing and releasing potentially embarrassing documents about the campaign of Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton ― disclosures that Trump cited on a daily basis. FBI Director James Comey testified at a congressional hearing last week that his office has for nearly a year been conducting an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 марта, 22:41

What If the Health-Care Collapse Saves Trump's Presidency?

Despite the damage done to his reputation, the defeat may liberate him to pursue the agenda his voters support—not the one the Republican establishment favors.

27 марта, 19:01

Police hunt nightclub gunfight suspects

US police are searching for suspects in a nightclub shooting that left one man dead and 15 other people injured. The attack sent club patrons diving to the ground to dodge bullets in what they described

27 марта, 18:26

Democrats eye Comstock's swing seat after Obamacare repeal failure

Rep. Barbara Comstock dodged constituents, declined town halls and avoided taking a public stance on the Republican Party’s increasingly unpopular health care bill in the months leading up to its collapse.Her last-minute decision to oppose it — after other GOP moderates had spoken out and sealed the bill’s doom — is unlikely to protect her in 2018. Democrats had already smelled blood, targeting Comstock after Hillary Clinton won her increasingly purple district in northern Virginia by 10 percentage points. Comstock, a second-term moderate Republican, came out against her party’s Obamacare repeal bill just several hours before her ally, House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled it from the floor to forestall an even more humiliating defeat.On that same day, a Fairfax County school teacher named Kimberly Adams announced her intention to run against Comstock as a Democrat. Others are also stepping up: Loudoun County Democratic Committee Chairman Marty Martinez said he’s talked to at least 10 potential candidates interested in unseating the Republican. “I think she’s in big trouble,” he said of Comstock. “Normally, we have trouble finding just one.”Comstock, who had campaigned against Obamacare and who won re-election by six points is among a handful of moderate Republicans who came out against the bill right before it went down. Many caught in the crossfire over Obamacare may pay the price in the midterms -- earning acrimony from newly energized Democrats who see an opportunity in the botched repeal effort and in some cases (not yet in Comstock’s) from Republicans to their right. The day before the planned vote, a Quinnipiac University poll showed that just 17 percent of voters nationally supported the repeal bill, while 56 percent opposed it. The rest were undecidedRepublican officials say they're not worried about Comstock. “I don't think she's going to have a problem in the midterms at all," said Loudoun County Republican Committee Chairman Will Estrada, adding that he doesn't believe she will face a primary challenger in 2018.Comstock said in a statement Friday that while she liked parts of the Republican repeal bill, she could not support the final version — in part, because GOP leaders had pulled requirements for maternity care and mental health services in their 11th-hour negotiations with the Freedom Caucus.“The uncertainties in the current version of the bill caused me not to be able to support it today,” she said. In Comstock’s politically splintered suburban district, repealing Obamacare was never going to be an easy sell.Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Republican, who used to represent parts of the same district, said Comstock has been handling the divisive issue of health care exactly how she should be as a member representing a suburban swing district.“She kept her powder dry, which is smart,” he said. “She’s a pretty savvy politician holding a swing seat in a tough year. She’s not naive about this stuff. The bill was a moving target. It kept changing. It was smart to keep a low profile.”The district has nearly 40,000 people, or just under 5 percent of its residents, enrolled in Obamacare’s marketplace. And while the state did not expand Medicaid, a Virginia health department analysis found the bill would have cost nearly $1.8 billion in federal funding for Medicaid over a six-years, according to the Associated Press. The bill would have changed the program from an open entitlement to capped payments for states.But Comstock’s reluctance to speak out earlier against the bill like fellow Virginia moderate Republican Rob Whitman, who opposed the bill in mid-March saying he feared his constituents would lose coverage, caught the attention of district Democrats.A local grassroots group called “Dump Comstock” was formed earlier this year with the mission of defeating her in the midterms. Aiming to tie her to a president unpopular in the district, it calls her a “puppet of the Trump regime.” A super PAC called “Take Back the Tenth” was created to fund the group’s activities.Abbey Mansfield Ruby, a DC-area corporate lawyer who founded the group, said the “ragtag army” of people in the 10th District, which has a little over 1,000 followers on Facebook, throws events to register and educate voters for the upcoming midterms. The sole purpose of the group is to unseat Comstock.“Comstock doesn’t stand for anything other than what House Speaker Paul Ryan tells her to stand for,” Mansfield Ruby said. “She’s a Paul Ryan loyalist who chooses party over country and constituents every time.”An ill-timed ad campaign sponsored by the American Action Network, which aired during the NCAA Basketball tournament the day after the bill collapsed, caused further embarrassment. It thanked Republican lawmakers who supported the repeal efforts, including Comstock in the list. A spokesperson for the American Action Network said the ads had been airing for the last two weeks, adding that they would end this week.“People in the 10th district see through all of her actions,” said Fairfax County Democratic Committee Chair Sue Langley. “It was clear that the bill was going to fail. But knowing that the bill would have been such a disaster, she should have opposed it from the start. It was the right vote for her — but at the wrong time and for the wrong reason. We don’t think that sort of move will earn her political capital in this district.”Republican leaders dismiss those arguments: Estrada, for instance, says Comstock’s last-minute decision to oppose the bill was smart because the legislation kept changing up until the very end. Comstock’s deputy chief of staff Jeff Marschner, meanwhile, denies she avoided constituents who wanted to discuss the repeal bill. He said Comstock has been “ever present in her district,” talking to hundreds of people about their personal health care concerns while attending nearly 50 events since the start of the 115th Congress. “The congresswoman has also held two telephone town halls connecting to 9,000 constituents on health care, and our office has corresponded with approximately 5,000 constituents on healthcare related questions,” he said.Still, most Republicans acknowledge the defeat of the Obamacare repeal bill is a loss for the GOP that could hurt the party's slate in next year's elections.“Midterms are all about who shows up and we know the Democrats will. You can see the anger. They’re ready to go,” Davis said, adding “Republicans need to generate the same intensity and this doesn’t help.”

27 марта, 16:28

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: Bank of America, Comerica, Sterling Bancorp and Preferred Bank

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: Bank of America, Comerica, Sterling Bancorp and Preferred Bank

27 марта, 11:00

В России хотят возобновить выпуск автомобилей «Волга»

В России могут возобновить производство автомобилей под маркой «Волга», но вместо легковых автомобилей это имя будут носить коммерческие транспортировщики. Эту идею озвучил в интервью «Ведомостям» председатель совета директоров и совладелец холдинга «Русские машины» (в который входит производитель «Волги» — группа «ГАЗ») Зигфрид Вольф.

27 марта, 00:46

The Death Of Trumpcare Is The Ultimate Proof Of Obamacare's Historic Accomplishment

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Affordable Care Act overcame the tea party protests of 2009 and the Democrats losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010. It survived two challenges in front of the Supreme Court and the calamitous rollout of healthcare.gov. Now it has withstood the attempt to replace it with the American Health Care Act, better known as Trumpcare. Somehow, despite the intense political forces arrayed against it, and the mind-boggling policy problems it tries to solve, the 2010 health care law keeps defying efforts to wipe it out. That says something about the people who wrote it ― and what they have achieved. Obamacare has never been hugely popular, and it has never worked as well as its architects hoped. Millions of Americans don’t like it and, even now, there are parts of the country where the markets are struggling to survive. But the program has provided security and access to care for millions of others. More importantly, it has shifted the expectations of what government should do ― and of what a decent society looks like. This week’s defeat of the Republican repeal effort shows just how hard it is to undo those changes. And it won’t get any easier. What Obama And Pelosi Did (And Trump And Ryan Didn’t) On Friday, hours before President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) formally conceded their bill lacked the votes to pass, White House press secretary Sean Spicer signaled what was coming. Trump, he said, had “left everything on the field.” The statement was preposterous. Trump and the Republicans in Congress had spent all of 63 days trying to pass their Obamacare repeal ― less than three weeks of which were spent actually debating the text of the AHCA. They held votes before Congressional Budget Office evaluations were ready, and were about to ask the full House to decide on the proposal just hours after making major changes to it. Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already indicated he intended to bypass his committees altogether and take legislation directly to the floor ― perhaps with a quick House-Senate negotiation, a fast vote and a signature from the president. By contrast, it took former President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) more than a year to pass Obamacare ― a politically tortuous period that many people later blamed for Democrats losing their House majority in 2010. At the time, every apparent error loomed large ― from taking on health care at all, to letting the process drag out for more than a year, to slavishly crafting a proposal as CBO specified, to cutting unpleasant deals with health care’s special interests. Lost amid the recriminations was the talent each player brought to his or her task ― and the Democrats’ single-minded focus on avoiding mistakes of the past in order to achieve something their party had been trying to do since the days when Franklin Roosevelt was in the White House. I am not saying we needed 14 months to do this. But I think a more careful and deliberate approach ... would have gotten us further down the path to a solution. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) The work had begun long before Obama even ran for president. In the aftermath of the defeat for Bill Clinton’s 1994 health care plan, activists, advocates and intellectuals regrouped ― and then spent literally years hashing out their ideas for achieving universal coverage in a politically viable way. When Obama did run, he borrowed their work for his own plan. When he was elected, the most pivotal committee chairman of the process, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), was ready with his own blueprint that looked nearly identical. Baucus had done something else: Working with then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), he had convened meetings with virtually every health care stakeholder, from hospitals to unions to insurers to patient advocacy groups, exchanging ideas and negotiating over principles. It meant that when the actual legislating started, the channels of communication were already open and the groundwork for a common vision was already in place.  And still it was a nearly impossible task. Like the Republicans this year, Democrats found consensus difficult to achieve ― among the outside groups, and within their own ranks as well. Liberals wanted a more generous program, and a public option. Moderates wanted to avoid too much government spending and too much meddling with the way independent businesses operate. But unlike the Republicans, the Democrats’ reaction was to work with the different groups and slowly bring them along ― most vividly, by negotiating with a handful of moderate Republicans, in the hopes that one or two (or maybe more) would sign onto the plan. It never happened, but the effort to woo those members helped secure moderate Democrats who needed to tell their constituents that, yes, they had tried to be bipartisan. One reason Democratic leaders were able to preserve legislative momentum was that they understood, at all times, where they were trying to go ― and they were fluent enough in the policy to handle direct negotiations on their own. One of the enduring images of Obama during the Affordable Care Act fight was his visit to a Republican Party policy retreat in Baltimore, where he fielded questions and parried criticisms from the assembled members for roughly 90 minutes. The work that led to Obamacare had begun before Obama even ran for president. Trump, by contrast, seemed to lack anything beyond a superficial understanding of the bill, to the point where allies worried about letting him negotiate details. “Either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or both,” a Capitol Hill aide told CNN about the president. As for Pelosi, her job was easier than Ryan’s in one important sense. Nobody in her caucus was as extremist or nihilist as the Freedom Caucus, partly because Democrats had done so much prep work and hammered out a rough consensus before the hard legislating work began. But Pelosi didn’t try to jam through “slapdash” legislation, as Harold Pollack, writing in Politico, recently called the AHCA. And she didn’t flinch when her political task looked utterly hopeless. When Kennedy’s seat went to Scott Brown, depriving Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority to approve a final compromise, she told Obama she would get the votes for the Senate’s bill ― and she did, taking charge of the whip count personally ― and working her caucus, one member at a time, until she had a majority. On Sunday, during an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), conceded that maybe the Democrats knew what they were doing. “When the Democrats came to power in 2009, for 60 years at least, they had been pursuing a national health care system, yet they didn’t introduce legislation for eight months, and they didn’t pass it for over a year of Barack Obama’s first term,” Cotton said. “I am not saying we needed 14 months to do this,” he added, “but I think a more careful and deliberate approach, which we now have time to do because we are going to have to revisit health care anyway, would have gotten us further down the path to a solution.” The Resilience Of Obamacare But the Republican failure wasn’t just about process. It was also about policy ― and a failure to realize just how profoundly the Affordable Care Act has changed public expectations for how the U.S. health care system operates. The end product of that long, cantankerous debate in 2009 and 2010 wasn’t pretty. Keeping the health care industry on board meant heeding their demands to ratchet back aggressive cost controls. Holding moderate Democrats in the coalition meant putting a tighter lid on what the program would spend. Passing the Senate bill meant accepting statutory language that its authors had hoped a conference committee would clean up before enactment. These compromises and concessions made implementation difficult. The sloppy language from the Senate bill exposed the program to the lawsuit King v. Burwell, which, if successful, would have destroyed the exchanges. The deals to secure support from individual members, like the “cornhusker kickback” that helped reel in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), stained the whole effort with a tinge of corruption. The stingy funding meant that some middle-class people wouldn’t get much financial help, despite high premiums. Republicans proved exceptionally adept at turning these problems into political advantages. But more frequently than not, they attacked the law because it wasn’t living up to liberal ideals ― because it left middle-class people on the hook for premiums, or because the plans had onerous deductibles, or because it was insufficiently harsh to the health care industry. McConnell was fond of pointing out that the law had left some 25 million people uninsured. The message was unmistakable: The health care law had failed because it had made health care harder for people to get, and the GOP had a better way. These arguments helped Republicans grab and hold congressional majorities, and they helped put Trump in the White House. But McConnell wasn’t interested in covering more people any more than Ryan wanted to lower people’s deductibles. And the need to write legislation exposed their real policy preferences ― which were lower taxes, fewer regulations and less government spending on the poor. The combination meant that more people, not fewer, would be exposed to crippling medical bills. When the CBO finally did weigh in, the number of people predicted to lose their insurance, 24 million, was so big that even Republicans couldn’t spin or lie their way out of it. “All politicians overpromise,” Jonathan Chait, of New York magazine, observed. “But the Republicans did more than overpromise. They delivered a policy directionally opposed to their promises.” Republicans had also convinced themselves that nobody who had insurance through the Affordable Care Act liked it. The media coverage made it easy to believe this. Stories of people losing their old plans or paying more for new ones were all over the press for the first few years of the program. Stories of people saving money, or getting insurance for the first time, were much harder to find. But as surveys showed, the majority of people getting coverage through the Affordable Care Act were actually satisfied with it ― and quite a few were deeply grateful. In the last few months, finally, their stories became part of the conversation. They showed up on television, in the print media, and especially at town hall meetings ― forcing Republicans to answer questions they’d successfully dodged for years by tapping into anger with “Obama” and glossing over details about the “care.” “If it wasn’t for Obamacare, we wouldn’t be able to afford insurance,” an Iowa farmer told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Recalling Grassley’s 2009 false warning that the Affordable Care Act had “death panels,” the farmer said, “With all due respect, sir, you’re the man that talked about the death panel. We’re going to create one big death panel in this country if people can’t afford insurance.” At a CNN town hall, in front of a live national audience, an Arizona man with cancer told Ryan that the health care law was paying for his cancer treatment. “I want to thank President Obama from the bottom of my heart because I would be dead if it weren’t for him,” the man said, adding that he was a Republican who once opposed the law and had volunteered in GOP campaigns. The backlash left Republicans visibly rattled. And although leaders tried to write off such incidents as paid activists making trouble, they couldn’t explain why nearly every group connected to health care ― from the American Medical Association to AARP ― was making the same arguments. Nor could Republicans explain plummeting public support for the legislation. By the end, the GOP bill had support from just 17 percent of the population ― much less than Obamacare, at its worst, ever polled. Depriving people of health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition is no longer acceptable. Up until the end, Republicans had the votes to pass the House bill or something like it, and deliver Trump the big win he craved. It’s not so difficult to imagine a scenario with slightly better leadership, and slightly less obstreperous Republican factions, in which the legislation would have gone through both chambers and eventually to the White House. But doing so would have almost surely produced a massive political backlash, because taking health insurance away from millions of people ― depriving people of health care because they have a pre-existing condition, or because they don’t have enough money to pay for it ― is no longer acceptable. It was the status quo until 2010. That was seven years ago and there is very little enthusiasm for going back. As Sen. Bill Cassidy, a conservative doctor who represents the conservative state of Louisiana, told The New York Times, “There’s a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care.” What Happens Now Obamacare remains a shaky enterprise, with markets in several states down to two or even one insurance company. And Trump, who has already taken some actions to sabotage the program’s performance, might make it even a shakier. “Bad things are going to happen to Obamacare,” Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday, making what sounded to a lot of people like a threat. “There’s not much you can do to help it.” Nobody questions that Obamacare requires reinforcement and repair ― or that someday it might need total replacement. Conservatives and liberals each have plenty of ideas along those lines. But the standard for judging any of these proposals, or some bipartisan combination of them, will be the same one that Trumpcare failed to meet: Does it protect the people who need protection? Does it improve access to care? Does it reduce financial insecurity? Does it move the U.S. closer to a system where all Americans truly have a way to get the medical care they need ― at a price they can afford? This, in the end, is what Obama, Pelosi and their allies achieved with the Affordable Care Act ― not the creation of a jury-rigged system of regulations and tax credits, or the expansion of an overtaxed Medicaid program, or any of the myriad smaller policy initiatives the Affordable Care Act. The true legacy of Obamacare is the principle that everybody should have health insurance. Erasing that is not something that can happen in 63 days. And it may never happen at all.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 марта, 20:47

The Need for a Reformation of Authority and Hierarchy Among Economists in the Public Sphere

Brad Delong: The Need for a Reformation of Authority and Hierarchy Among Economists in the Public Sphere: I find that I have much more to say (or, rather, largely, republish) relevant to the current debate between Simon Wren-Lewis and Unlearning...

26 марта, 17:24

Без заголовка

**Must-Read:** Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff are mainstream economists. The fact is that they had much more influence on economic policy in 2009-2013 than did Simon Wren-Lewis and me. Simon needs to face that fact squarely, rather than to dodge it. The fact is that the "mainstream economists, and most...

Выбор редакции
26 марта, 10:30

All This Panic: the most relatable film about teenage girlhood ever?

Jenny Gage’s intimate documentary of seven Brooklyn teenagers has been praised for its honest account of growing up. We asked four British school friends to assess it‘I don’t want to age. I think that’s the scariest thing in the entire world,” says Ginger Leigh Ryan, one of the girls featured in Jenny Gage’s documentary All This Panic. Set in the Brooklyn neighbourhood of Clinton Hill and directed by the former US fashion photographer, with cinematography by her husband Tom Betterton, the film follows seven teenagers – best friends Lena and Ginger, their school friends Sage, Olivia and Ivy, Ginger’s younger sister Dusty, and Dusty’s best friend Delia – over a three-year period.i-D magazine said the film “might be the most honest documentary about teenage girlhood ever”. That’s a bold claim, but there’s something to be said for the way Gage’s film articulates the emotional intensity of being a teenage girl. What makes it different from other coming-of-age films is the way it allows the girls to articulate their experiences as they occur, and in their own words. The Virgin Suicides showed teenage girls as their male classmates remembered them; Spring Breakers objectified and parodied them; films like Fat Girl, Fish Tank, Girlhood and Mustang shaped their stories around their protagonists’ particular traumas rather than their triumphs. Gage takes them seriously, and wants to hear what they have to say about the world and their place in it. The film follows the girls as they experiment with dating and drinking, but doesn’t dodge more serious issues, like Lena’s dysfunctional family and precarious finances, Ginger’s decision not to go to college (and her father’s insistence that she “try and be more interesting”), and Olivia’s eventual coming out. Continue reading...

26 марта, 05:22

Uber Halts Self-Driving Car Fleet After Crash In Arizona

Uber is suspending its entire self-driving car program while it investigates a crash involving one of its vehicles in Tempe, Arizona. The ride-hailing company confirmed the crash after a photo was posted on Twitter showing an Uber SUV Volvo on its side next to another dented car with broken windows. BREAKING: Self-driving Uber vehicle on it’s side after a collision in Tempe, AZ. Photos by @fresconews user Mark Beach pic.twitter.com/5NCF2KG0rW— Fresco News (@fresconews) March 25, 2017 No one was injured, Tempe police told Bloomberg News. The Uber vehicle was not found to be fault, as another car failed to yield the right of way. “There was a person behind the wheel” of the Uber car, police spokesman Jose Montenegro told the publication. “It is uncertain at this time if they were controlling the vehicle at the time of the collision.” All autonomous cars are currently required to have humans behind the wheel to take control of the vehicle if necessary. There were no passengers in the back seat, according to Uber. Uber began testing its cars in Arizona after its self-driving program was shut down in California late last year because the company had failed to obtain the proper permits. California cracked down after Uber autonomous cars were seen breezing through red lights. The company agreed to comply with the state’s rules and once again began testing its cars in San Francisco earlier this month. The Tempe crash is more bad news for the company, which recently has been hit by a litany of accusations, including complaints of sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace. Uber used the software tool Greyball to dodge taxi enforcement officials, The New York Times reported earlier this month. And Waymo, the autonomous-car company owned by Google parent company Alphabet, sued Uber earlier this year for allegedly stealing designs for sensor technology. Dashcam footage also recently captured company co-founder and CEO Travis Kalanick berating a new driver, prompting Kalanick to issue a statement saying, “I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.”  Uber President Jeff Jones resigned last week after just six months on the job. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58113e18e4b0390e69ce2474,56548c38e4b0d4093a5933f7,58cf05bce4b00705db50534e -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 марта, 20:36

Gaining Weight? 7 Exercises That Don’t Burn Nearly as Many Calories as You Think

Your workout isn't the fat-buster you think it is! Here's a look at exercises that don't burn as many calories as you think.

25 марта, 05:17

ANDREW MALCOLM: What’s really hidden deep within all this intel squabbling. Here’s what real…

ANDREW MALCOLM: What’s really hidden deep within all this intel squabbling. Here’s what really matters: During the waning days of the Obama administration U.S. intelligence was indeed monitoring the conversations of foreign persons of interest after the Nov. 8 election and before the Jan. 20 inauguration. That’s normal and actually encouraging given how many key […]

25 марта, 00:24

Did the GOP just dodge a bullet?

One aspect of the GOP health care bill seemed settled even before House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the plug Friday: public opinion.Polls conducted since House Republicans released the first draft of legislation three weeks ago show little public support for the bill, the surest sign that Americans were not yet on board with the GOP plan. In the most recent survey, a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, only 17 percent of registered voters approved of the legislation — far fewer than the 56 percent who disapproved. By almost every measure — overall enthusiasm for the bill, confidence that it will improve the health care system or decrease costs, support for many individual elements of the legislation — the GOP health care plan fell short among voters even before it was yanked from the House floor on Friday. Opponents of the bill were far more wholehearted than its supporters, according to all the available public polling. In the Quinnipiac poll, 43 percent of voters strongly disapproved of the bill. By comparison, only 6 percent strongly approved of it. It was even more striking among independent voters: 45 percent of them disapproved of the bill strongly, while only 3 percent strongly approved. Thursday’s Quinnipiac poll also showed overwhelming opposition to two elements of the bill: cuts to Medicaid funding (74 percent oppose) and zeroing out funding for Planned Parenthood (61 percent). Sixty-one percent of voters believed the bill, if enacted, would lead to fewer Americans with health insurance, and only 12 percent thought the plan would have a positive impact on their own health care. Few Americans expected the GOP plan to improve the health care system. This week’s POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found more voters thought the bill would make the health care system worse (36 percent) than thought the measure would make it better (30 percent). And, by a two-to-one margin, voters said it was more likely to increase health care costs (39 percent) than decrease them (20 percent). Voters also thought Republicans were moving too fast on repealing Obamacare — a response to the compressed timeline on which Trump and Ryan insisted. This week’s POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found a 43-percent plurality thought the GOP was going too quickly — greater than the combination of those who thought Republicans were moving too slowly (18 percent) or going about the right speed (17 percent) on repealing Obamacare. POLITICO and Morning Consult were the only organizations to conduct multiple surveys since the release of the bill. And while the polls still represented the only surveys to show greater support than opposition for the measure, the trendline was headed in the wrong direction for Trump and the House GOP. In the initial poll — conducted immediately after the release of the legislation — support for the bill exceeded opposition by a healthy margin: 46 percent to 35 percent. But a week later, voters were more evenly divided, with approval decreasing to just 41 percent, and disapproval ticking up to 38 percent. But even in the initial POLITICO/Morning Consult poll — which produced the most positive results for the bill of any public poll — there were a number of warning signs. The most popular elements of the proposed legislation, the poll showed, were the ones held over from Obamacare. Majorities of voters were happy the bill included allowing young adults under 26 years of age to say on their parents’ insurance plans (68 percent) and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions (71 percent). Eliminating the individual mandate that Americans buy health insurance was moderately popular, with half of voters saying it should be in the bill. But the GOP replacement to encourage Americans without employer-sponsored insurance to remain in the market — requiring adults to pay a 30-percent penalty of their premium costs for a year if their coverage lapses for more than two months — was panned by voters: Only 18 percent said it should be in the bill, compared to 64 percent who said it shouldn’t. But perhaps the most salient poll numbers for fence-sitting GOP lawmakers — whether the conservatives of the Freedom Caucus or centrists who represent competitive districts — were the political implications. And the polling offered little upside to back the bill. Far more voters in the Quinnipiac poll appeared poised to punish members of Congress for supporting the legislation than punish those who oppose or undermine it. Forty-six percent of voters said if their representative votes to replace Obamacare with the GOP plan, it would make them less likely to support their reelection, greater than the 19 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for their reelection. Part of that was widespread Democratic opposition to the bill: 73 percent of Democratic voters said it would make them less likely to vote to reelect their member. A 52-percent majority of independents also said it would make them less likely to support their incumbent, likely a red flag for those who represent competitive or Democratic-leaning seats.But for conservative members in overwhelmingly Republican districts, GOP voters weren’t as likely to punish those who defy Trump and Ryan. Roughly as many Republican voters said their members vote on the bill “won’t matter much” in their choice at the ballot box, 41 percent, as said it would make them more likely to support their member, 43 percent.

24 марта, 19:49

Reasons for U.S. Banks to Cheer (Other than Trump and the Fed)

Reasons for U.S. Banks to Cheer (Other than Trump and the Fed)

24 марта, 17:52

Top Dem Accuses GOP Rep. Of 'Attempt To Choke Off Public Info' On Russia Investigation

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee has postponed a public hearing on the group’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia in order to hold a more private one first. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.),  the highest ranking Democrat on the committee, called the decision “a dodge” and an “attempt to choke off public info.” Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan had been scheduled to testify in front of the committee on March 28th. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said the committee needed to first hear from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers in a closed setting before the planned hearing. BREAKING: Chairman just cancelled open Intelligence Committee hearing with Clapper, Brennan and Yates in attempt to choke off public info.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) March 24, 2017 Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has offered to testify before the House committee amid unsettling new reports about his ties to Russia, Nunes said. Paul Manafort, who stepped down as Trump’s campaign chair in August, worked for a close Kremlin ally to help advance Russia’s interests in the U.S., according to The Associated Press.  Nunes did not say whether or not Manafort would testify publicly.  Manafort isn’t the only member of Trump’s campaign under scrutiny. Several other former Trump advisers, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, have also been flagged as having potential suspect contact with the Russian government. Flynn resigned as national security adviser after admitting that he misled the White House about conversations he’d had with Russia before Trump’s inauguration. The FBI has also been probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The White House has said Trump was not aware of Manafort’s record with Russia before bringing him on board. White House press secretary Sean Spicer backtracked even further, comparing Manafort to a stranger that Trump may have sat next to once on a plane. This is a developing story and will be updated. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
24 марта, 15:35

Американский массл-кар получит "фишку", о которой мечтают все стритрейсеры

Суперкар Dodge Challenger в самой заряженной версии Demon продолжает свое неторопливое путешествие к полному рассекречиванию. На этот раз выяснилось, что производитель собирается снабдить новейшее купе системой для трансбрейка – блокировки трансмиссии для наиболее эффективных стартов с места.

09 июня 2015, 19:50

Пикапы Chevrolet. История начинается.

Пикапы - самые американские и самые, на мой взгляд, интересные автомобили. Я их люблю и хочу о них рассказать. А чтобы меня не обвиняли в "монетизации" сделаю это на примере марки, больше не представленной на нашем рынке. Не думаю, что GM хотя бы поблагодарит меня за эту публикацию.По некоторым данным, несколько самых первых пикапов Chevrolet были произведены еще в 1914 году. Они предназначались не для продажи, а для перевозки всевозможных грузов по территории автомобильного завода. так сказать, для внутреннего пользования! Понято, что ни один такой автомобиль не сохранился. Первые серийные пикапы были построены в городе Флинт, штат Мичиган, 22 ноября 1916-го и отгружены с завода 2 декабря того же года. Эта дата считается официальным выходом Chevrolet на рынок легких грузовиков. Машина, которую вы видите на фото, это современная реплика одного из первых пикапов Chevrolet 490.1918 модельный год ознаменовался выпуском сразу двух грузовых моделей. Обе они представляли собой грузовое шасси с металлическим капотом, под которым был установлен четырехцилиндровый бензиновый двигатель. В то время покупатели обычно сами оснащали автомобили деревянными кабинами, грузовыми платформами или кузовами, в зависимости от своих потребностей. На картинке вверху, пассажирская модификация модели Light Delivery. Я где-то читал, что в те годы за такой автомобиль просили $595. Немало, ведь это были другие, полновесные доллары, не те, что сейчас... Более тяжелая модель, построенная на той же базе, носила индекс T (Truck). Она отличалась усиленным шасси и ее грузоподъемность достигала одной тонны - вдвое больше, чем у Chevrolet 490. На машину устанавливался 37-сильный двигатель. Его мощности хватало, чтобы грузовик развивал скорость до 40 км/ч. В 1918 году чтобы купить такое транспортное средство нужно было выложить более 1000 долларов!В 1930 году на смену грузовым шасси пришли полноценные пикапы заводского производства. Компания Chevrolet приобрела кузовную фирму Martin-Parry и начала сама производить пикапы со стальной кабиной и установленным на заводе кузовом. Сердцем новых пикапов стал рядный шестицилиндровый двигатель. Его конструктивная особенность заключалась в верхнем расположении клапанов. Такие моторы стали характерной чертой практически всех пикапов Chevrolet следующих десятилетий.На фотографии модель Chevrolet Roadster Delivery, который впервые "засветился" в музыкальной кинокомедии "Follow Thru", вышедшей на экраны в 1930-м году. Видимо, в этом фильме что-то было связанно с гольфом, не случайно же сидящие в кузове актрисы держат в руках клюшки!К середине 1930-х полутонные автомобили с заводскими стальными кузовами стали основой рынка пикапов, где фирмы Mack, Studebaker и International конкурировали с Chevrolet, GMC, Ford и Dodge.В середине 1930-х годов, когда экономика США начала восстанавливаться после Великой депрессии компания Chevrolet вывела на рынок новые модели легких грузовиков обтекаемой аэродинамической формы, которая до сих пор считается эталоном дизайна той эпохи. Помимо прочих усовершенствований, модели образца 1937 года обрели усиленный кузов и более мощный 78-сильный двигатель.Этот пикап Chevrolet образа 1937 года с честью выдержал изнурительное путешествие длиной 10 245 миль по Соединенным Штатам, проходившее под наблюдением Американской автомобильной ассоциации (ААА). Кстати, средний расход топлива составил 11,3 л/100 км - неплохо даже по современным меркам!В начале 1947 года Chevrolet представила легкие грузовики серии Advanced Design – первые среди всех автомобилей корпорации General Motors, полностью обновленные после Второй мировой войны. Замысел рекламщиков и производителей состоял в том, чтобы сделать утилитарные машины более яркими, выразительными и привлекательными для потребителей. Дизайнеры компании, действую по команде маркетологов, шире расставили фары, установив их на крылья, а также подчеркнули решетку радиатора пятью горизонтальными планками. Получилось неплохо! На фото - полутонный пикап Chevrolet Advanced Design 1947-го модельного года.Машины, выполненные в этой, удачно найденной, стилистике, продержались на конвейере с 1947 по 1953 год, а затем, в начале 1955 года, был обновлен дизайн передней части (на фото вверху).После выхода на рынок моделей серии Advanced Design предпочтения американских покупателей стало постепенно смещаться в сторону пикапов. Если перед войной соотношение между продажей пассажирских автомобилей и легких грузовиков составляло примерно 4:1, то 1950 году уже 2,5:1. Пикапы стремительно набирали популярность! В середине 1950-х годов, полностью восстановившаяся после войны Америка переживала потребительский бум. Покупатели стали еще более разборчивыми и требовательными к дизайну и техническим характеристикам автомобилей. В связи с этим, в 1955 году Chevrolet представила публике совершенно новую линейку пикапов Task Force, дизайн которых перекликался с престижной легковой моделью Chevrolet Bel Air. А в качестве опции на пикапы стали устанавливать более мощные двигатели V8.В 1955 году была выпущена специальная версия пикапа Cameo Carrier. Это была уже не "рабочая лошадка", а стильный автомобиль, более уместный на подъездной дорожке к роскошному особняку, чем на ферме или заводской площадке. Можно считать, что именно с этого момента большие американские пикапы перестали быть чисто утилитарными транспортными средствами. Модель Cameo Carrier производился относительно недолго, всего лишь до 1958 года. Но ей на смену уже шли новые еще более роскошные пикапы. 1959 год. Красавица Chevrolet El Camino просто очаровала публику эффектным дизайном с характерными для того времени «килями» как у легковых моделей Chevrolet и функциональностью полутонного пикапа. Впрочем, грузить в такую машину сено и солому вредил кто-то стал. "Фермерской" эта машина могла быть только на постановочных рекламных фотографиях а в повседневном использовании ее практичность, как говорится, оставляла желать... Вскоре это поняли и покупатели. Восторги поутихли и производство El Camino по-быстрому свернули, для того... чтобы возродить через три года! Но уже в новом качестве. С мощным двигателем V8 под капотом Chevrolet El Camino 1964 модельного года стала одним из первых маскл-каров компании. Еще за два года, до появления легендарного Camaro! А в 1968 году появилась спортивная версия пикапа. Ее назвали El Camino Super Sport. С тех пор все самые "заряженные" модели Chevrolet стали носить индекс SS.Но я как-то забежал вперед. Помимо El Camino в 60-е годы встречались еще более причудливые пикапы. Например Chevrolet Corvair Rampside 1961-го года.Интереснейшей особенностью этой модели стал второй откидывающийся борт, находящийся сбоку, как дверь у микроавтобуса. Да и внешне пикап Chevrolet Corvair здорово напоминал автобус. А еще он был заднемоторным - шестицилиндровый опоенный двигатель находился под полом. Конструкция получилась слишком уж оригинальной и покупатели ее не оценили. Источники утверждают, что таких машин было выпущено всего-то около 800 штук. Тем не менее, своей страницы в истории пикапов Chevrolet модель Corvair достойна!На этом мы пока остановимся. Продолжение следует!