patrick.net

@bankster,
Padilla's book is flawed in that he blames deregulation for the S&L crisis, but the video is well worth watching just to see how he stumbles around that first question he gets from someone in his audience. lol.

Brand, it was fine in BOLD, too :-)

Patrick, I just read your letter on your support for Obama. That's exactly why I voted for him as well. We're not hypocrites, we're voting for the best choice between the two. Switching from one party to the other depending on the person running is far more open minded than voting the party line. Good job!

I also just read Patricks letter on support for Obama. I also wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but prefer Obama over McCain. One reason was Palin as VP. That was just incredible... and the idea that he graduated at the bottom of his class, 6th from the bottom. It does not inspire confidence when someone brags about how bad they did in school...

Actually, Ron Paul is an accepted write-in candidate in CA.
I think it sends a pretty strong message when you vote for neither, but still vote. I think Gail Lightfoot is the Libertarian VP pick.

I suggest voting for a person that can win. I think there is a stark difference between the two main candidates, and most people know which one of them they would prefer.

Voting for a candidate that cannot win in effect is a vote AGAINST the mainstream candidate that is closer to your heart. Does anyone really want to do that?

Listen to your heart, but vote with your head.

"Voting for a candidate that cannot win in effect is a vote AGAINST the mainstream candidate that is closer to your heart. Does anyone really want to do that?"

Yes, in fact, I do. They both suck. Neither of them agree with me on what I consider one of the most important decisions (bailout) in the history of our country.

If I can't agree with them on the most important thing to me, then fuck em.

the pundits are in full force bull mode.

I think once the rug is pulled out from underneath them... probably late this year, we will see the true capitulation. That is when everyone that was watching with interest will want nothing to do with it.

I am now starting to understand the road to a depression, and why so many people get fucked by it.

If people would stop believing that a vote for a third party guy is throwing their vote away, we would get more attention from the mainstream. All we have to do is convince people to not believe the lies about throwing a vote away by voting third party. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that must be destroyed.

I voted for a third party candidate and have no regrets.

I will stop believing that voting for a 3d part candidate is a waste AFTER the election system has been reformed. And that is ALL I will have to say about elections systems today. And that is a promise.

Happy election day to everyone -- I'm headed to the polls.

I agree with those who push 3rd party. The 3rd party may not win this election, but a noticeable non-Demopublican vote would get the attention of those main stream politicos. Also, voting third party now is a way to build for the future. At one time, the Republican Party was a "third party."

I agree with those who push 3rd party.
FWIW, I strongly believe third party candidates gave us both the Clinton and Bush presidencies.

Third party candidates are agents of change!

They sway the undecided. They attract the lunatic fringe votes away from viable candidates. They attract a following and then quit before November so the now angry mob at least stays true to thier "real" party.

Come on... Chapter 3, Bipartisan Campaign Playbook

Everyone in California can feel comfortable voting for Ru Paul since everyone knows Obama will win there. It's not throwing your vote away since the outcome is so clear.

People who voted for 3rd party this time are more likely to be conservative voters which will hurt McInsane.

Kidding aside,

I'm stuck on these points:

Our next president voted FOR the bailout bill. No matter what their reasons, they ignored the massive showing of their constituent body's sentiment. How much more important will this distinction be in the oval office?

McCain still talks about "keeping families in their homes" despite common knowledge of RE speculation being a large contributor to our current problem. He panders to those voters who are underwater as their inflated home value cliff dives, by promising to act, to keep home values high.

Obama is slick and practiced. He is aligned with some very disingenuous notions and people. He advocates changes to our system that have broad ramifications to our civil liberties and rights. But his most disqualifying factor to lead and rule our country, is his strong desire to do so. This kind of power only belongs in the hands of those that would not seek it so voraciously.

McCain is feeble and unconvincing to me.
He parrots high ideals, but has a distinct tell.
The bluff may be called today.
If he wins, I fear that they will try to preserve the status quo long enough to spend their winnings.

Obama has a frightening duality to me.
A soothsayer able to calm and rouse simultaneously.
Too self ambitious to follow through on his notions of sacrifice.
He is the darling of the liberal MSM.
We have seen his ilk before.
If he wins, I fear that we will watch a chapter of human history repeated and our nation stripped of the ideals it was founded on.

Steveoh,

What ilk (person) are you comparing Obama with?

Anyway, time will tell :-).

Just-you,

In retrospect, I've already spouted too much.

Today has just been very compeling and finding the truth in all the misinformation has been tough.

Yes, time will tell.

Yeah, I'm curious too about this ilk, too... Bubba... Kennedy? I thought the Frontline show "The Choice" did a good job at showing how driven he is. BTW, I'm guessing he goes less than a year before MoveOn-types turn on him. Anyone handicapping which cabinet post(s) will go to a Republican?
He is what he's always been, namely a pragmatic, centrist, Democrat who when circumstances dictate will conciliate conservatives on a hot button issue that might cause political trouble.

Interesting read on China Growth.

China's economic certitude crumbles

It's going to be a long night.

I just hope it will be quick. Please don't do the 2000 all over again, we cannot afford something like that.

I've already got my U.S.S.A. T-shirt pressed and ready to go.

"Gail Lightfoot is the Libertarian VP pick"

Any relation to Gordon?

I think I safely say, congratulations to Barack Obama, the President-elect of the United States of America.

can safely say

EBGuy, justme, anyone,

I guess I can't make a statement like that and then backslide out...

Let's just say that I tend to agree with Donald J. Boudreaux in his article here:

http://tinyurl.com/6qsc6f

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.

Wow! I've never been in moderation before. Wonder what set it off...

This is awesome to watch in hi-def.

I like how they waited til 8 to announce California. It took one minute after the polls closed to call the state. LOL.

I don't know whether to be happy for Obama or sad. He has inherited the biggest bucket of shit ever known to mankind.

I'm just happy to have witnessed history. However he handles that bucket, our country has irreversibly changed for the better.

Honestly I have always wanted that senile old fart to inherit the bucket, until I found out that he hired Fiorina to be his economic adviser, and I've decided we deserve something better than such a colossal cluster fuck.

Barrack Hoover Obama, here you go.

I hope he lives up to his rhetoric and I wish him well. We'll know in the first six months if he's up to the task.

Malcolm, I want your statement above to be 100% true. I really do. Not that I have the intellect to even think about trying to fix the mess in which we find ourselves. EEEEEEK. What a job.

Bap33,

The first bombs will go off in Africa when Obama pushes the button. Think of it as black on black crime to the nth degree.

Make that: sane rhetoric. :)

Now that Obama is president, will Freddie and Fannie be made GSE again?
Will housing bubble come back?

"Will the housing bubble come back?"

I'm watching that VERY, VERY closely. We will see it coming this time. Fool me once... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Nov 5, 2008

THE BEAR'S LAIR
A repeat lesson for voters
By Martin Hutchinson

The number of economically damaging policy ideas imposed on the United States has greatly increased in the past few months. However, from the statements of the presidential candidates, the next few years may turn this storm of bad ideas into a blizzard. Those with an emotional attachment to the US economy should brace themselves for trauma.

The new salience of bad economic ideas is not particularly surprising. The US economy is heading into an economic downturn that promises to be at least as severe as those of 1974 and 1980-82, whose memory is already fading a generation into the past. Additionally, the 2000-07 period was one in which US voters made very small if any income gains, with such gains arising only through refinancing of ever more gigantic home

mortgages. Meanwhile, the distant and dislikable titans of Wall Street apparently scooped up all the money generated by the economy.

Now the housing bubble has burst, the average jaundiced voter naturally sees the free market system and the George W Bush administration as responsible for the recent not-particularly-pleasant years and the economic horror that has followed. Claims by Republican politicians that the debacle was all the fault of the housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while partly true, are wholly unconvincing.

With voters miserable and facing a disastrous economic position that they believe was caused by free market excesses, it is not surprising that they are looking favorably on statist nostrums. Both political candidates have propounded bad ideas, Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama more than Republican John McCain, largely because he has more ideas in general. In addition, there are a few bad ideas that have embedded themselves into the system, accepted by both political candidates and the political class as a whole.

McCain's bad economic ideas are few in number, but in terms of economic ineptitude they're doozies. Typical of them was the proposal for a gas tax holiday over the summer, which since supplies were tight would have driven up consumption, transferring wealth from the US government to the Saudis. In his urge to connect with populist-minded voters, McCain appears either not to have consulted any economists on this bizarre scheme or to have ignored their advice when presented.

Then there's his proposed US$300 billion bailout of subprime mortgage borrowers who cannot make their payments. Like the Troubled Assets Relief Program of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, this appears principally to be a vehicle for relieving taxpayers of their money. By providing benefits only to those mortgage payers who are not paying their mortgages on time, it rewards the most over-optimistic borrowers and the most feckless lenders at the expense of those who restricted themselves to more manageable mortgages or who maintained careful credit standards over their mortgage lending (not that there appear to have been many of the latter.)

Even if the $300 billion was dropped from helicopters (no thanks, Mr Bernanke, we'll call you if we need you) it would reduce the value of mortgage loans outstanding, probably by more than its nominal amount, by increasing the chance that borrowers would fall into arrears in order to qualify for a bailout.

McCain's third major bad idea is the design of his "cap and trade" carbon emissions program. Global warming may or may not be real. It seems likely that the most effective approach to combating it would combine programs of population control (to reduce the number of future carbon emitters) with mitigation efforts, such as higher seawalls and heat-resistant crops. Even if restricting carbon emissions were attractive, a carbon tax would be a more efficient way to achieve it than a "cap and trade" system.

Finally, at the fourth layer of economic inefficiency (although to be fair, the first three layers seem to be common to almost all politicians), McCain adds an additional nonsense by giving away emission permits. That turns a more or less market-oriented system for achieving something probably pointless into a government handout system. Permits under McCain's system would be allocated by bureaucrats, either according to some faceless and doubtless erroneous formula or according to the amount of campaign contributions they had given. The arena of government favoritism would thus be considerably enlarged, that of the free market correspondingly diminished.

Turning now to Obama, some of his proposals are well designed and appear likely to achieve their objectives without creating gross economic distortion. It is for example likely that a capital gains tax increase from 15% to 20% will indeed yield additional revenue over the long term, although a further increase beyond 20% might not - wherever the Laffer optimum for capital gains taxes lies, it is almost certainly above a 20% marginal rate. Likewise, Obama's healthcare proposals mix increased government subsidy with considerable reliance on free-market cost reduction measures; they appear well designed if you like that sort of thing.

The principal problem with Obama is his deliberate failure to define himself. The moderate Obama, with a University of Chicago economic advisor and a keen brain attuned to the free-market system, would probably be a pretty good president, at least in the economic sphere. However, there is also another Obama, possessor of the most liberal voting record in the US Senate and supporter of many of the more damaging schemes beloved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the Congressional Democrat left. Finally there is the shadow of a third Obama, born and bred a street radical, friend of ex-Weatherman terrorist William Ayres and supportive parishioner of the highly anti-capitalist parson Jeremiah Wright.

It is an interesting question whether Ayres-Obama or Pelosi-Obama would be more economically damaging - their prescriptions would clearly be very different - but there is no doubt that by relying on moderate-Obama being fully in control throughout, we are taking a considerable chance.

Obama's tax proposals come in several versions, reflecting his multi-facetedness. One version would simply reverse most of the Bush tax cuts, plus add a moderate social security surcharge for high incomes, taking the top marginal rate of Federal tax up from 35% to 42% or so. The other, produced by Pelosi-Obama, would sock top incomes with the full social security charge and add a further tax increase, taking the top marginal Federal rate well up into the mid-50s (and adding state tax on top of that.) Pelosi-Obama's tax proposal would be highly economically damaging; moderate-Obama's would not.

On trade there is a similar dichotomy. Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement and using trade agreements to enforce labor and environmental standards is a Pelosi-Obama approach that could potentially have the same effect on world trade as the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff. Moderate-Obama's advisors say he doesn't really mean it. We'll have to see.

On housing, moderate-Obama opposed a three-month foreclosure moratorium. Pelosi-Obama favors it and appears to be dominant here. Moderate-Obama was right; such a moratorium, like McCain's foreclosure subsidy, would be highly damaging to the value of outstanding mortgage debt, worsening the banking system's balance sheet problems.

On Wall Street, Pelosi-Obama is largely dominant, denouncing greed and calling for much tighter regulation. (Of course, the crisis also brought out a hitherto unexpected streak of Pelosi-McCain.) Pelosi-Obama also governs Obama's co-sponsorship of "card check" legislation, by which the unions would no longer have to win a secret ballot to gain representation at a workplace but would only need to strong-arm the weaker members of the workforce into signing a representation card. While failing to address the problems of the poor, who generally do not have unionizable jobs, that legislation would drive the US workspace sharply back towards the French model of union dominance of key industries, with consequent decrease in US economic efficiency and competitiveness.

Some of Obama's other economic ideas seem to derive from Ayres-Obama. His attempt to tie student funding to hours of community service worked derives less from the unionized Pelosi Democrats than from a street-radical's urge to make snotty middle-class kids experience the "real world" of the streets.

Likewise, his 2001 regret that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth" and "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" was pure Ayres-Obama. Lovers of the rule of law and well-established property rights must hope that at least on this front Ayres-Obama will remain dormant through an Obama administration.

Finally, there is Obama's Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund, deploying $50 billion of taxpayer money over five years. The nature of this venture depends on whether Pelosi-Obama or Ayres-Obama is dominant in its creation and design.

A Pelosi-Obama fund would promote unprofitable ventures by large unionized companies with proven but uneconomic technologies in politically important regions - similar to the Bush administration's ethanol boondoggle. An Ayres-Obama fund would promote street-environmentalism, devoting its resources to wholly unproven back-of-an-envelope ideas with no obvious profit motivation that were promoted by urban hustler groups. Neither would be economically or environmentally useful - a carbon tax, tilting the playing field towards environmental technologies, would be much more likely to produce useful enviro-tech advances.

In many ways more frightening than the bad ideas supported by one or other candidate are those for which there is a consensus.

For example, both parties now appear to believe in larger government. The Democrats welcome it explicitly, whereas according to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) statistics US public expenditure bottomed out in 2000 at 34.2% of gross domestic product and has now increased under Republican government to 38.3% of GDP in 2008. Given the enthusiasm of both parties for increasing it further, this trend is likely to continue.

As I have discussed previously, OECD data since 1960 shows that high levels of public expenditure and rises therein have markedly depressing effects on economic growth, being together responsible for over 50% of the differences between countries and periods in growth rates. Little wonder therefore that US growth over the past few years has been sluggish; it is likely to get more so.

A second idea on which there has been general consensus between presidential candidates, although a modest rebellion in Congress, has been the TARP. The original idea of devoting $700 billion of taxpayers' money to buying the economy's least valuable assets, surplus securitized mortgage bonds, has now apparently been abandoned. At least one can hope so - by diverting scarce capital from more productive uses it would have depressed economic growth markedly.

However, instead of breathing a sigh of relief and letting taxpayers off the hook, Treasury Secretary Paulson has taken to using the TARP as an all-purpose slush fund, bailing out the banks and apparently in future providing subsidies to the automobile industry, local governments and anyone else with political connections who needs it. The result is that Treasury borrowing in the year to September 2009 is now estimated to be $2 trillion, around double last year's level. Needless to say that too will damage the economy. TARP was a terrible and poorly implemented idea; no doubt that is why it is so popular with the political class.

However the bad economic idea for which support in the political class is most whole-hearted is that of excessively low interest rates, far below the rate of inflation. The financial crisis has been caused not by high interest rates but by excessive leverage. The three-month interbank dollar LIBOR peaked at 4.82% and overnight LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) at 6.87%, neither representing "tight money" in a currency whose inflation is still running at more than 5%. Even those who decry over-loose monetary policy as responsible for the 2002-06 housing bubble fail to identify its responsibility for the stock bubble that preceded it in 1995-2000.

As for former Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and the present incumbent Ben Bernanke, they are wholly unrepentant of their monetary profligacy and to a large extent remain the heroes of the political class, in spite of the devastation they have caused.
It is this item of public education that must be stressed repeatedly by those who seek the welfare of the US economy. Deregulation was only a minor cause of the housing bubble and subsequent debacle; the true cause was excessive money supply creation by the Fed, which is not a private sector free-market entity but an agency of government.

It is these lessons, that over-easy money will bring long-term disaster and that government has been primarily responsible for this as for so many previous crises, which must be taught to the American people. Only when voters have learned their lessons can we hope that politicians will no longer find political traction for cockamamie and damaging economic nostrums.

The campaign against Greenspan and Bernanke, to get Bernanke fired and Greenspan de-deified is not an optional meddling in ancient history. It is the most crucial economic struggle of our time.

Will housing bubble come back?

IMO, a minor Spring bounce is in the cards.

Not investment advice