Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Some of us around here have a far different view of Obama than what I've been reading above in this thread. I've been biting my tongue. I won't attempt to justify myself here, since it seems that, at least politically, I am a stranger in a strange land. I'll just say I figure Obama is a deeply dishonest demagogue and a front man for some hard left Marxists.

The extent to which his true colors, background, positions and real support has been misrepresented in both the media and blogosphere by deliberate campaigns of deception is astounding and scary.

I fear for my beloved country.

I will now return to discussing economic issues.

The fact is, Obama is going to get elected tomorrow. To imagine that his policies will not have an impact on the economy is sticking your head in the sand.

If you really feel he has marxist policies, then being a major dollar bear is probably a very wise idea at this point.

However, I'm not so sure.

He'll be a one term president if he doesn't play the centrist and the democrats will be booted out of congress in 2010, castrating his ability to get policies passed.

No, I think you're going to find someone who is just a bit more ambitious. I think you'll find someone who plans on staying there the whole 8 years and plans to govern strongly from the center.

My guess is that he'll be more Tony Blair than Jimmy Carter.

[xtronics]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Both parties have promised more socialism - I'm going to write Ron Paul in as I don't think either of them have a clue.

Put it this way - if I was to hire an engineer - and gave them a test on simple math - and the candidates for the job scored 35% and 40% - one could say that the one that scored 40% would be better - but neither of them have the basic skills to be an engineer to the point that I wouldn't hire either of them.

You can pick one over the other - they both scare me - the lesser of two evils? No way! I want neither engineer designing bridges. Writing Ron Paul in sends a loud and clear message that there is a base of voters that want a fiscally responsible government.

[D-Mack]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

The fact is, Obama is going to get elected tomorrow. To imagine that his policies will not have an impact on the economy is sticking your head in the sand.

I was watching CNN yesterday, both Brzezinski and Albright had a smirk on their face when the moderator pointed out that McCain could get elected

ZAKARIA: Who would you suggest they be?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I would think, of course, such names come to mind, Senators Hagel and Lugar. But there may be others, but particularly those two.

I think that would be extremely reassuring and encouraging, both domestically and internationally, and would send the right signal.

ZAKARIA: I should point out, there is, of course, a chance that Senator McCain will be elected president.

ALBRIGHT: Yes, we know ...

(LAUGHTER)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../fzgps.01.html

[Rantly McTirade]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Volcker is very similar to Reagan, in that both were moderately good at their jobs(solid 'B' grade) but because of the stunning incompetence, and
scattered corruption, of those that came before and after them, they
appear as miracle workers.
Obama is an academic poindexter doofus, whose sole skill is giving a good
rant-but only if he has notes or a teleprompter to feed his lines.He's done absolutely nothing to justify a position of high and serious responsibility in any sort of organization or political structure; to the extent that he has a record, or has sponsored legislation or openly advocated particular policies,whether economic or social, they've been what would be considered far left in at least 98% of the US(excepting places like Hyde Park, where he's hung about).I live in the Chicago area, and the fact that this dweeb is actually close to being President-at least at this point-is simply astounding and indicative of yet another undeflated bubble-a 'political bubble'of some kind.
Palin is at least as qualified as Obama for either position on the national ticket, and I say this not as support for her but as further indication of how useless Obama actually is. Palins' experience, however brief, includes
legislative-at a level that is close to the public itself and with responsibility for services that are actually necessary to the public-and executive experience, again, with more real responsibility for necessary government
service provision and decision making, albeit for a small polity, than Obama
has ever come close to. Palin's abuse stems from her willingness to call cultural decadence and perversity(abortion, homo matrimony,etc.) simply
wrong and requiring prevention and punishment;unfortunately, the imposition of such vile practices by judicial fiat, which is the greatest depravity-in a political sense as much or more than culturally-has not been specifically addressed by Palin(or anybody) in this campaign-confirming the lack of 'a dime's worth of difference' yet again.Ironically,
Palin is highly hypocritical and narcissistic on cultural issues. Having a large family is great, but if that's the choice a family makes, then they have to order their affairs so that the mother-again, the mother- is fully in the home if three or more children are had-which is to say she should be utterly unknown to the world at this moment;if so perhaps her 17 year old would not be knocked up. Having a fifth(not first) child at an age when the chance for a birth deformity rises literally by the month is hugely narcissistic; running for national office, instead of giving up any local, much less state level, office when your family is having the problems Palins' is takes ego and narcissism into the stratosphere. These are the kinds of reasons Palin has no business running on a national ticket, but as they confirm that some life choices are stupid and simply wrong, her primary critics will never mention them.
Finally, Obama and Bernanke actually seem to deserve each other, as both are academic poindexters full of theorizing and pontification who'll position-paper and Powerpoint us into bankruptcy and dramatically reduced living standards.

[jdv]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

[quote=metalman;58346
mccain/milf ticket is frigging intolerable.[/quote]

Oh that's funny!

[metalman]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Volcker is very similar to Reagan, in that both were moderately good at their jobs(solid 'B' grade) but because of the stunning incompetence, and
scattered corruption, of those that came before and after them, they
appear as miracle workers.
Obama is an academic poindexter doofus, whose sole skill is giving a good
rant-but only if he has notes or a teleprompter to feed his lines.He's done absolutely nothing to justify a position of high and serious responsibility in any sort of organization or political structure; to the extent that he has a record, or has sponsored legislation or openly advocated particular policies,whether economic or social, they've been what would be considered far left in at least 98% of the US(excepting places like Hyde Park, where he's hung about).I live in the Chicago area, and the fact that this dweeb is actually close to being President-at least at this point-is simply astounding and indicative of yet another undeflated bubble-a 'political bubble'of some kind.
Palin is at least as qualified as Obama for either position on the national ticket, and I say this not as support for her but as further indication of how useless Obama actually is. Palins' experience, however brief, includes
legislative-at a level that is close to the public itself and with responsibility for services that are actually necessary to the public-and executive experience, again, with more real responsibility for necessary government
service provision and decision making, albeit for a small polity, than Obama
has ever come close to. Palin's abuse stems from her willingness to call cultural decadence and perversity(abortion, homo matrimony,etc.) simply
wrong and requiring prevention and punishment;unfortunately, the imposition of such vile practices by judicial fiat, which is the greatest depravity-in a political sense as much or more than culturally-has not been specifically addressed by Palin(or anybody) in this campaign-confirming the lack of 'a dime's worth of difference' yet again.Ironically,
Palin is highly hypocritical and narcissistic on cultural issues. Having a large family is great, but if that's the choice a family makes, then they have to order their affairs so that the mother-again, the mother- is fully in the home if three or more children are had-which is to say she should be utterly unknown to the world at this moment;if so perhaps her 17 year old would not be knocked up. Having a fifth(not first) child at an age when the chance for a birth deformity rises literally by the month is hugely narcissistic; running for national office, instead of giving up any local, much less state level, office when your family is having the problems Palins' is takes ego and narcissism into the stratosphere. These are the kinds of reasons Palin has no business running on a national ticket, but as they confirm that some life choices are stupid and simply wrong, her primary critics will never mention them.
Finally, Obama and Bernanke actually seem to deserve each other, as both are academic poindexters full of theorizing and pontification who'll position-paper and Powerpoint us into bankruptcy and dramatically reduced living standards.

i've never understood this deification of volcker. he was a half decent pol who understood that a net creditor with a big bag of savings can kill in inflation monster with a rate hike sledgehammer. ain't rocket science.

he's repeatedly said he can't do that today. the usa's problem now is the opposite, due in large part because of the 'fat spread' his policies created... too much debt, not enough savings, low interest rates. there is no volcker silver bullet to shoot.

[mikedev10]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

Both parties have promised more socialism - I'm going to write Ron Paul in as I don't think either of them have a clue.

Put it this way - if I was to hire an engineer - and gave them a test on simple math - and the candidates for the job scored 35% and 40% - one could say that the one that scored 40% would be better - but neither of them have the basic skills to be an engineer to the point that I wouldn't hire either of them.

You can pick one over the other - they both scare me - the lesser of two evils? No way! I want neither engineer designing bridges. Writing Ron Paul in sends a loud and clear message that there is a base of voters that want a fiscally responsible government.

write-ins don't get counted - so if you want to support a real conservative vote libertarian or constitution parties so your vote does get counted. i voted for baldwin because barr (stupidly) dissed paul at paul's 3rd party press conference.

[jdv]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I fear for my beloved country.

I will now return to discussing economic issues.

On the other hand:
- Torture isn't scary
- neither are renditions
- neither is guantanimo, or lack of due process
- neither is the patriot act, and giving away are precious freedoms because we can always assume that OUR goverment would NEVER abuse it's power, neither now or in the future.
- No bid Halliburton contracts aren't scary, nor disappearing TRILLIONS of dollars from the defense dept
- Ignoring the REAL Al-Queda, and emphasizing the fake one in Iraq isn't scary
- Letting the Taliban regroup while we're busy in Iraq isn't scary
- The dept of homeland security isn't scary
- Our goverments efficient response to Hurricanes isn't scary
- Jake Abrahamoff isn't scary. Nor was his widespread bribing of a republican congress.
- wars of choice aren't scary, neither is antagonizing the rest of the world
- Huge socialistic TARP programs aimed at millionaires and billionaires aren't scary, it's much more frightening to aim govt spending policies to benefit the middle class
- HUGE republican deficits aren't scary, it's the Clinton surpluses that terrified me.
- Deficits don't matter and certainly are not something WE should be scared of, it's really our childrens problem.
- Besides, anyone that disagrees that we can BORROW our way to prosperity is a fool. It's the republican way! But it's ok, because we'll jsut label liberals as big spenders, it really doesn't matter what reality is.
- Having the largest percentage of our population in prison relative to the rest of the world isn't scary. Not at all. In fact, we should lock up more people at $30k per prisoner cost to the taxpayer per year. It all goes on the credit card anyway...
- The shrinking middle class isn't scary
- And trickle down economics really do work!


Last week I heard the former Republican governer of Minnesota endorse Obama. When the radio host asked him if he thought his party would be angry because he was moving away from it, he replied:
"My party has moved away from me. Old-time Republicans from before 1970 wouldn't recognize these current Republicans."

Amen.

Obama is not scarier than George Bush. And you really ought to examine the Republican sound bites and marketing you hear. Because the right wing is absolutely brilliant at marketing. My hat is off to them. Meanwhile, the facts speak different:

Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_...nts_print.html
Democratic Presidents: 3.65%
Republican Presidents: 3.08%


Employment gains per year 1953-2001
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_...nts_print.html
Democratic Presidents: 1.684 million/year
Republican Presidents: 1.279 million/year



Unemployment: 1948-2001
Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office
CalPundit, using data from the BLS
Democratic Presidents 3-yr lag: 5.06 %
Democratic Presidents 4-yr lag: 5.04 %
Democratic Presidents 5-yr lag: 5.01%
Republican Presidents: 3-yr lag: 6.16 %
Republican Presidents: 4-yr lag: 6.18 %
Republican Presidents: 5-yr lag: 6.21 %



Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004
Roger Altman, Wall Street Journal (data from Federal Reserve)
Democratic Presidents 4.3%
Republican Presidents: 3.2%



GDP growth: 1962-2001
(P.L.A., using data from the BEA)
Democratic Presidents: 3.9 %
Republican Presidents:2.9 %


GDP growth: 1948 - 2001
Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office
CalPundit, using data from the BEA
Democratic Presidents: 3-yr lag: 3.56 %
Democratic Presidents: 4-yr lag: 3.78 %
Democratic Presidents: 5-yr lag: 3.71 %
Republican Presidents: 3-yr lag: 3.35 %
Republican Presidents: 4-yr lag: 3.16 %
Republican Presidents: 5-yr lag: 3.21 %


GDP growth: 1930-2000
Carol Vinzant in Slate
Democratic Presidents: 5.4%
Republican Presidents: 1.6%


Inflation: 1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the BLS
Democratic Presidents: 4.26 %
Republican Presidents: 4.96 %


Inflation:1948-2001
Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office
CalPundit, using CPI data from Economagic
Democratic Presidents: 3-yr lag: 3.33 %
Democratic Presidents: 4-yr lag: 3.07 %
Democratic Presidents: 5-yr lag: 3.20 %
Republican Presidents: 3-yr lag: 4.36 %
Republican Presidents: 4-yr lag: 4.60 %
Republican Presidents: 5-yr lag: 4.48 %



(You'll like this one!)
Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending:1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt.Budget 2003
Democratic Presidents: 6.96 %
Republican Presidents: 7.57 %



(You'll like this one!)
Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt.Budget 2003
Democratic Presidents: 8.34 %
Republican Presidents: 10.08 %



(You'll like this one!)
Non-defense Federal Government Employees:1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt.Budget 2003
Democratic Presidents: Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years)
Republican Presidents: Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years)




(Imagine rerunning the stats after Bush2!)
Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt.Budget 2003
Democratic Presidents: $36 billion
Republican Presidents: $190 billion




(Imagine rerunning the stats after Bush2!)
Increase in National Debt:1962-2001
P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt.Budget 2003
Democratic Presidents: Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years)
Republican Presidents: Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)




Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998
Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov Research Paper, UCLA
Also reported by CNN Money
Democratic Presidents: ~ 11% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)
Republican Presidents: ~ 2% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)


Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000
Carol Vinzant in Slate
Democratic Presidents: 12.3 % (S&P 500)
Republican Presidents: 8.0 % (S&P 500)


District spending by Congress:1995 - 2001
Associated Press report: 1, 2
Democratic districts: $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.2 billion in 2001 (34% increase)
Republican districts: $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.8 billion in 2001 (52% increase)



The stats above were cut and pasted from a decidely liberal website. But the studies they are quoting seemed to be from non-liberal sources. Forbes? BLS? Wall Street Journal? Those don't have a liberal agenda!


Now I greatly respect the knowledge and opinions I read here. I would love to see some contradictory fact based evidence to the contrary. Because looking at the data above, it seems to me that the democrats win in every economic category that matters to me. And if that's the case, the only reason for a fiscal conservative like myself to vote for a Republican is:
a). If I'm in the top 5% of the population in income, investments, and overall wealth, and I think the tax cuts from the republicans will be larger than the economic and corruption cost we would have from having them in power.
b). I'm pro-life or pro-gun and those are a key issue for me.
c). I really don't like my kids much, and want to make sure the world we hand them is in a really sorry shape.
d). I'm secretly rooting for China.


For me - none of those are really true. So I guess I vote Obama. ;)

And if all those stats above are statistically accurate, then I again salute the Republican marketing machine, they do a fantastic job. Just say "tax and spend" enough times, and it becomes common knowledge. Even if it isn't accurate. Perception is reality. And the American public is amazingly stupid.


So do some research. Don't just take Rush's word for things.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

the fact that this dweeb is actually close to being President-at least at this point-is simply astounding and indicative of yet another undeflated bubble-a 'political bubble'of some kind.

Yup - good point. A really big bubble ... :eek:.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

[in response to the carefully detailed anti-Bush rant above ...]

The level of political discourse in this nation seems to have fallen below that needed to sustain liberty.

Nothing personal, mind you, "jdv". It's happening to both sides, though not equally so.

[xtronics]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

write-ins don't get counted - so if you want to support a real conservative vote libertarian or constitution parties so your vote does get counted. i voted for Baldwin because Barr (stupidly) dissed Paul at Paul's 3rd party press conference.

Depends on which state if Write-ins get counted - I think I will go Baldwin...

[jdv]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

[in response to the carefully detailed anti-Bush rant above ...]

The level of political discourse in this nation seems to have fallen below that needed to sustain liberty.

Nothing personal, mind you, "jdv". It's happening to both sides, though not equally so.

And nothing personal to you Pythonic.

I honestly would love to hear real statistics from the right side of the aisle. Because I'm trying to seperate the hype from reality. Fact from marketing. And it just seems to me that hype wins the day, and reality matters very little in our 30 second sound byte world.

So if you know someone that has some actual data, I'd love to hear it. Or if Finster, Bart, or any of the other stats guys would like to show the bias that went into those stats, I truly would love to hear it.

[Chomsky]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

I'm just wondering to what extent the Dem numbers are skewed by the FIRE economy go-go days under the administration of Bill Clinton, the best GOP President we've had in decades.

[Judas]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

If we're going to go statistical, we should adopt the Chinese model!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Paul Volcker as Obama's main man - bearish on gold?

So if you know someone that has some actual data, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think you will find the basis of our differences by comparing economic statistics from the Clinton and Bush terms. The President is not King or Dictator, and the economy is driven by larger forces than those in the White House seem even to know, much less control.

The key difference is between a limited government formed by free, responsible men for specified purposes, and a government viewed by its citizens as the source of last resort for their well being.

You might check out Mark Levin's Required Reading list, at: http://marklevinshow.com/section/required-reading/, or his Favorite Links, at: http://marklevinshow.com/links/ . Lately I've also been enjoying reading The Discerning Texan's blog, at: http://www.discerningtexan.com/ .