Disjointed Blitz Snippets Of Information - And Nothingness

Comment of the day:

"Wow. Wow.To be clear: I'm an Obama supporter... but if you think the huge gains of Obama's first 4 years are an indication that the "stock market loves President Barack Obama", you apparently missed an important fact: Those gains were from rebound after a crash. A successful rebound, not guaranteed by any means, and certainly faster than many past comparable market recoveries have been, but it wasn't out of love for Obama. That's nuts. Market longterm growth is not due to any "love" for someone, nor their policies. So how does Wall Street really feel about Obama? Look to their short-term decisions. The US market plunged about 2-1/2% the day Obama was reelected. Overseas markets were up before the results, and also plunged when the vote was clear. Looks like the sentiment is that he's bad for business. Even though the last four years have shown the opposite to be true. THAT is what the stock market believes."

I don't know how it will play out. Markets can change on a dime. They over-panic sometimes, and other times, they're too tolerant. They adjust and market correct, magically, each time.

Do I think Obama is a socialist and that we should run for the hills? Nope. He's socialistic but I'm not sure to the point of panic. Yeah, he's a little too comfortable with nutbars like Chavez and his rhetoric is rather silly sometimes, but he is limited on what he can do.

The recent sell-off may be an over reaction. I don't think it's because of Obama per se (Elizabeth Warren is the silent elephant in the room) since the market pretty much knows he's a tax and spend President. What they don't know is how the House and the President will play with each other.

We'll have to see. Today wasn't encouraging. Boehner sent out an olive branch - markets went up - Obama, for his part, said he was open to ideas but would not move on taxes for incomes over $250 000 - markets dropped. They rallied but the three days after the election suggest the stock markets around the world think he's bad for business.

They didn't drop because of the taxes - they dropped because they worried if they could work together. All the markets want are decisions once and for all so they can adjust.

The recovery is being overplayed. For now, the strategy is to print more money while borrowing.

***

I agree. As long as they're not foolish enough to go tax capital gains and dividends. Those types of investment incomes are a gold path to prosperity FOR THE MIDDLE-CLASS.

***

Chart from Business Insider.

Stick with gold. As long as the U.S. keeps printing and borrowing, there's no reason to think precious metals would pull back.

***

And for something different. Interesting discussion at NRO about conservatism and the Hispanic vote.

David Brooks on PBS argued that new immigrants come from "community" oriented societies (singling out Hispanics and Asians) and are therefore attracted to the Democrat party (more like it's hand outs) as opposed to the individualistic Irish-Scots - alien to them - take on life espoused by the GOP.

Here's my problem with this. No one is saying shack up with a gun and scream, "Mine!" in the libertarian-progressive camp. All they're arguing is charity begins at home essentially. Take care of yourself and your family. If you have a business, you take care of that and the employees you care for. Once secure, you look to the community before you. Attend Church, volunteer at an organization, raise money for someone in need. This is the only real way to foster a strong common sense approach to caring for one another.

The government, at its most basic principle, argues it's not practical and the only way is to come and get a welfare cheque or EBT card. Of course, the problem with this is too many able-bodied people scam the system. In a community-oriented world, those people wouldn't be able to hide.

In my view, the moderate libertarian approach is sound. The government approach bypasses all the human interaction since it wants to take of that for you. If anything, new immigrants should be attracted to philosophy of community through its own customs MIXED with the sense of rugged individualism that usually fosters a dynamic identity. Who can better off this mix? Call it Irish-Scots-Asian-Mexicano.

I think the GOP should continue to sell those ideals - without anti-government rhetoric as there is an essential, albeit limited, role for the state to play. Not abandon them. I believe it's a message that transcends race. It's universal. Let the Democrats obsess over race.

How many times do you say hello to your neighbour?

***

My liberal friend from Massachusetts takes this progressive position on taxes verbatim.

To him, we're too Pollyanna for buying into the low taxes, free-markets are actually more complex than progressives care to realize meme.

Judge Posner is still an admirer of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Thoughts?

***

Bush. One last time. His tax cuts remain controversial. Looks to me, it may have not been just the cuts per se, but other factors that led to a deficit.

Two wars and increasing Medicare (funny how liberals never mention all his spending for social benefits as well as his attempt to reform immigration) spending while cutting taxes is seen as a misstep - hardly evil.

The debate remains controversial. Aren't they all? I was still reading economic opinion essays on Reagan back in the 2000s.

I guess it depends where you stand on things. Obama wants to bring rates back up to 39.6% from 35%. It's not like he wants to shoot it to, say, 45%. Just wants to bring it to pre-Bush rates. I don't like tax increases myself (they're inefficient and DO dis-incentivize. Economists who argue otherwise can suck my bone) - I think spending is the issue - but if it means loosening grid lock so be it.

I reject the notion from progressives of "it only is $2000 more per year on the year." That's subjective and none of their god damn business. It falls in line with the "how much money do you need?" routine - and that I can't accept. The tax revenues from this look to be small. Nonetheless, there is a financial deficit problem and Congress needs to bring that down.

Pragmatically, give the President his increase. It gives the GOP goodwill coin. They can then hammer on spending - assuming they ever cared about that in the first place.

At the end of the day, no one knows what the results will be.

If growth remains anemic it won't matter all that much.

From 2011 MSN:

OK, Bush was one of the big players to start this mess. NOOOOO disputing that. But remember that there were a bunch of Dem and Repub Congressmen that helped him along, as did Daddy Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. The leadership - AND Congress -- over the last 40 years has been a joke! Having Obama spend more than twice of what Bush did certainly DOES NOT help! Obama's relationship to Bush and his policies is the political equivalent to throwing gas on a fire. We've got nothing but out-of-touch idiots at the helm of this country. It just disgusts me these days. We need to fire them ALL.

Only thing is, one can say, "yes, but can we attribute the $300 million surplus to those guys too?"

***

That's right. Companies cut jobs when faced with uncertainty. Way of the world.

***

All this talk about the demographics moving away from the GOP may be true and all, but I gotta say, from what I've seen of who supports the Democrats (i.e. Dunham, Future of Our Children song video etc.), if that's the future...

I may even be tempted to say keep those votes. No different than the red-neck conservative vote.

Too easily swayed by appeals to emotions.

***

Not to pile on or anything....

Norman Ornstein, Resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute on the current state of the Republican party:

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly possible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenge."

***

University of Colorado professors 0
Nate Silver 1

***

Let's see, record number of people on some sort of social assistance, but some economists say 12 million jobs and 6% unemployment on the way in the next four years.

Which is it?

How to hedge?

***

Great discussion on the WSJ thread here.

***

Bah. What do I know?

I make a mean Lebanese-style chicken though.