America's election

Everything to play for


See article

Readers' comments



O made a hash of it given a sitting duck.
O could've simply said he's for capitalism of the inclusive compassionate variety in contrast to the ruthless vulture capitalism r espouses.
Brevity is not only the soul of wit but also success.

Deendayal Lulla

I wish we had the same kind of debate in India for electing the prime minister. In India,the debates are non-existent. An analysis of US elections forces one to think that candidates for presidential race do invoke the foreign policy of the country. For example,Romney wants a tough action against Iran,for developing nuclear weapons,which is illogical. Every country has a right to possess nuclear weapons for self-defence. Obama reminds me of the regional leaders in India who want to hide their inefficiency,by taking shelter behind the theory of outsourcing of jobs,which obama says that more jobs should be created for Americans,rather than American companies outsourcing jobs to India. Where is the information on flow of funds to both the contestants - who are the contributors,and the amount,and this information should be in the public domain. Fortunately,there are no personal attacks against each other. One more important issue is how can the public hold the candidates accountable for the promises they make.

lisaqmoon in reply to Deendayal Lulla

I don't think Romney doesn't think Iran doesn't have a right, he is looking at the fact they keep saying they plan to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. In that context they have no right. Gov. Romney is an honest thoughtful person. He is concerned like allot of other Americans about the survival of our friends in Israel. Nobody would care about Iran except for their coming right out & telling their plans. The media in the US & corrupt politicians are running the show. The would should honestly hope for Romney. Obama's show of weakness just like Carter & Clinton has embolden these terrorist. Look at events every time in modern history America had a whiny leftist as president We all believe it or not want peace. But because of things I believe done nearly a hundred years ago in the Middle East & WW2, there will be no peace. Look at the stupidity of this administration getting involved in Egypt's business. Why are we in Afghanistan?


Ryan serious? Every economist who has looked at Ryan's proposals has said they are nonsense on stilts. The only way his soak the poor and reward the rich scheme works is by cooking the books and ignoring reality. Since the debate, which Romney clearly won, no one has the slightest idea what Romney stands for. He won the debate by renouncing all the positions he won the nomination on. Which Romney are we to believe. When truth is irrelevant, winning debates becomes easy. Obama is no better. His slogan , " yeah, but the othe rugby is worse," is not winning many converts to his side. All in all one simply despairs for the future of the US. Will it be tweedle-dumb, or tweedle- dumber?


Can you believe him, now? Romney is chimerical stealth agent of the Mormon Church, which will buy the White House at any price, and he will say anything to seal the deal. To gain an existential understanding of the cult that produced Mitt Romney, and to get your socks scared off, read The Assassination of Spiro Agnew, available in paperback and e-book at:


Tom Whalen

Read The Assassination of Spiro Agnew.


Romney just doesn't look like a president. A old fox or a glib politician will be more precisely.


Romney massacred Obama. He gunned him down in broad daylight. He slaughtered him. He fryed him in the Chair(an empty one). He lynched him from an oak tree. He waterhosed him, tasered him. He foreclosed on him.
It was awesome, devastating. Call me an Etch-a sketch. Take that & that. And this ones for all those poor, suffering unemployed people me & my party have always cared compassionately for.
Willard thats enough you're in danger of looking like a highly paid goon. Reagan was a lot of things but he was never a goon. Try to be more sunny like Reagan. Its a wonderful life. Less goon , more sunny optimism.

Isn't the point of a debate to directly address the issues or does that make you a "paid goon"? Is it better to look down at the podium and sulk while you have no answers. Yea, that's the sign of a true leader; right.

Though he tries to drive class warfare representing the working man, Romney looked more like a working man at the debate. Preparedness and directly addressing questions while Obama seemed inconvenienced by the whole thing.

I think you are onto something though...forget debating in the next round. Invite a few celebs, get some music going; maybe a live performance by one of BO's friends, and watch Obama smile and have a beer and it will bring some "sunny optimism". That will really show up those goons who care about the real issues.

Actions speak louder than words and Romney & the GOP actions speak volumes. Threatening to shut down the government every 3 months is not addressing issues.

Romney lied through his teeth. As ususal, there is no scope for debate under those conditions, a reflection of the situation of the last 4 years.

Baseless, bias assertions without facts to back them up. You are backing into conclusions and they don't appear to be based on anything tangible that can be debated.

Obama v. Romney = Perception v. Reality...unfortunately perception can be easier to convey in a soundbite and a far cooler story to tell. Fortunately debates neutralize at least some of the smoke and mirrors for those who care enough to pay attention to them. Hopefully undecideds in Florida and Ohio are listening...


Completely read the us presidential election first debate, the debate obviously romney prepare more fully, Obama is only the speech type player, he is not fit to come and go without back to debate.

For around the employment, the energy crises, the tax policy, medical insurance and government officials on the conference, the two sides have a lot of indelible differences, seem to please the middle class, Mr Romney more believe that the market inherent excitation function. This position is concerned only from the President, Obama has undoubtedly more consummate and more feasible specific economic stimulus project.


The Odyssey of Ebony and Ivory

Along the long roads, highways and byways,
through valley's, hills, deserts and skyways,
cities and towns and villages big and small,
peoples of all ages and colors to enthrall,
''Ivory'', He the chosen one of the one percentile,
endowed with inherited riches, educated in style,
descending from sumptuous ivy cloaked towers,
seeking the majority accord for unlimited powers,
to mandate for his moralistic, mercenary need,
the enrichment, wealth, the appetite for greed,
by the followers of the goddess of rich desires,
now in measured haste before his time expires,
must make his mark in convincingly oral joust,
to claim the mantle of master, of the white house.
Along the long roads, highways and byways,
though valley's, hills, deserts and skyways,
cities and towns and villages big and small,
peoples of all ages and colors to enthrall,
''Ebony'', he the chosen one from the middle ground,
defending the middling middle and poor that abound,
battling an opposition filled with self-righteous contempt.,
for policies and taxes from which they wish to be exempt,
dealing with dismal global economies, mild to extreme,
conflicts and wars that were easy to start and hard to end,
whose impoverished childhood imbedded a sympathetic ear.
to those destitute, desperate, deserving a life without fear,
offers genuine hope, without an unrealistic expectation,
all those ingredients, necessary for a real healthy nation.
[So sayeth he, apprehensive about the outcome.]


Both sides should put aside their ideological glasses and look at reality. The U.S. has a debt that is crippling it. Not only is the federal government in debt, but most people are carrying sizeable debts. Furthermore, most states are also in debt and so are most large municipalities.

For all the talk about healthcare spending, the U.S. should wake up and just admit that it currently has a poor, broken form of socialist care for its poorest, as well as the uninsured. The state will pay for it if the person cannot afford the healthcare - sound familiar. By making people buy insurance, this is another form of subsidy for the medical and insurance industry, while monumentally increasing the bureaucratic paperwork machine. It gives people care but the future ability to pay is a concern. Removing it, like the Republicans want to, essentially creates a socialist system for the poor and uninsured again - American society will pay for it. Removing Obamacare is a problem while keeping Obamacare is also a big problem with neither option really saving money - damned if you damned if you don't. The bills will keep piling up unless there is sincere rethinking of healthcare in this country.

Military spending and national security are one of the few protectionist tariff replacement techniques available to the U.S. for industry. It is necessary on one hand to keep a significant part of U.S. industry going but the U.S. can no longer afford to keep subsidizing companies. A war on two fronts has sapped the ability to pay for soldiers, salaries, equipment, deployment, pensions, medical care and so on. Military effectiveness and responsiveness is starting to fray. The military budget also has both direct and indirect spending to industries which employ millions of Americans. Neither side is to keen to cut any of this funding because it employs so many people and is a significant R&D funding source in the U.S. However, the government can no longer afford to support the military industrial complex, unless other things are going to get cut. Some see this as security but others as corporate welfare.

Employment is a problem for both sides. Despite fantastic subsidies from the government, companies are not really hiring and jobs are not coming back. Cutting subsidies, taxation, and regulation may create jobs but since people owe a lot of money, who is going to invest? Just take a look at the number of employment aged people who are not working and not part of the statistics for a clearer picture of unemployment. Underemployment is also not something that anyone seems to keep track of.

Taxation is in dire need of reform but neither side is willing to take on the thankless task. The effectiveness of tax reform has a timeline that is beyond an election cycle and no one will be happy with effective reform. While the current tax rates happen to be close to the OECD average for a country, the U.S. has a collection problem. Companies rarely pay the full taxable amount and payments can often be deferred. Romney may not be liked for his 47% observation but it seems to indicate that there are a very large percentage of people who have incomes so low that they do no pay taxes - that is a large number of people and a big problem because even reform will not collect taxes from these people. The other problem is that not all of the 53% are paying full taxes. This indicates a huge collection problem and it will affect future income for the government and the ability to pay down the debt.

These are just four areas which need serious examination but this does not include infrastructure, food production, education, banking, immigration, and etc. 2008 was clearly not enough of a wakeup call because the same rhetoric is being rehashed by both sides, regardless of who won the debate.

Employment is a major problem. Debt and even deficit , under the existing circumstances are not. When investors are actually paying the US to let them buy Treasury bonds, there is nothing to worry about short term. Long term, adjustments are necessary, but the main issue now is jobs and correcting the gross disparity of wealth distribution which puts us behind Rwanda .


The point of view of certain europeans is that Obama performed a typical socialist, at least, attack in a continental syle on all that stands for free entreprise, constitutionalism, individual freedom.
Despite some abuses his general condemnation of high incomes reminds us the not so distant authoritarian, nationalistic all in states of Europe. I doubt that ever pointing scapegoats can fix a problem let alone the economy of a big nation like USA!
Obama seems like a relativist who do not believe in constitutional rights, it is for the first time that this position is so clearly stated! His desire of augmenting the power of bureaucratic Washington and thus diminishing the Federal foundation of the Union speaks largely on his future intentions.


Any intellectual knows you can not, by definition, win a debate with lies. It's contrary to the core point.

It's already been proven Will Mitt Robme (yes, he will!) lied 27 times in 38 minutes using conservative analysis.

The technique Robme used is not a new one- it's a known debate tactic called the Gish Gallop.

When one has a losing debate stance, as Robme does from the start, this technique is designed to do precisely what he did: Be rude, ignore the rules, and rapidly hammer point after point across regardless of how preposterously false the statements are. Such as, "The sky has always been pink under Obama! Pigs can no longer fly, I will make them fly again! Grass, all purple under Obama, will be green once again! I will make it be sunny every day! I will create a bazillion jobs, lower taxes entirely, give billions to billionaires and it's all deficit neutral!" That's precisely what Robme did, and he's being hammered for it now by anyone with the intellect to pay attention to content.

Sadly, Americans as a whole are not bright, and have the attention span of a gnat with brain damage. This means they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the man eagerly cheering on endlessly sunny days isn't mentioning the fact that would kill all crops and everyone would starve. If there's no ability to listen to the content, and examine the facts- and FACTS are not arguable, open to debate or spin- there's no ability to arrive at a valid decision.

Robme appeared as he is: A sleazy used car salesman promising unlimited MPG and an endless warranty, but selling a lemon that'll make him and his other handful of rich car salesman even more money off the backs of the poor and middle class.

President Obama looked just that: Presidential. Even body language experts agree on this point.

Conservatives claim man-made climate change is not occurring, despite 98% of the world's scientists being in consensus. Notice how it's suddenly NOT hypocritical to point out that because a consensus of politically ignorant, under-, and uninformed voters say Robme won, it's a fact? Climate change consensus = not fact. Improper analysis of debate leading to incorrect winner consensus = fact. Typical conservative hypocrisy.

When every actual fact counters this notion and proves the President Obama clearly won the first debate as I successfully have explained this post.

This post's title is perfect: This is not another election. It IS "Everything to play for".

We have the continuation of America (though we are now permanently divided) under President Obama, being restored and improved- moving us forward into the next evolution necessary for our nation to survive.

Or we have a Will Mitt Robme win. The death of America and the rise of a conservative New Holy Amerikkkan Empire. Instant war with Iran- leading to the next World War, as China, Russia and the rest of the Islamic nations have enough of our systematic conservative Warpublican warmongering. An empire that leads not through example, but "we're better than you, do what we say, we can nuke you". An empire with Christianity thrust inappropriately into every aspect of our society, shattering the separation of church and state. An empire with 2nd class citizens: the LGBT community, women, minorities, and the poor. An empire that has no middle class. No health care or aid programs for those in need.

An empire with the motto, "I've got mine, screw you!"

It is everything to play for, indeed. I'm playing to save America by re-electing one of the top 15 Presidents we've ever had, so he can continue to help us recover from the Bush reign of terror and the Bush great recession.

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Druidblue

Any intellectual knows you can not, by definition, win an argument with lies. It's contrary to the core point, because, indeed, anthropogenic global warming is not a fact (a rare commodity in science but especially as espoused in the supine press), and Barry is not in the top 15 presidents, but at the very bottom.

/Øbama's reign of terror has made the USA an economic wasteland.

Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

When will you people understand that Obama had nothing to do with the crisis? Do you not know that the GOP allowed banks to leverage themselves at infinity-1?

Let me dumb it down for you. It is the year 2000 and you want to buy a house. You expect house prices to rise by double digits and the cost of you borrowing is, say, 5%.... SO, you borrow @ 5% and make 12% off your property portfolio. Hey wouldn't it be great to increase your portfolio and the size of your returns? Sure instead of getting a $200,000 mortgage why not get 100 $200,000 mortgages? Take $20 million in credit and repay these loans with achieved returns from your portfolio. For an ordinary person they could not get $20 million if their max mortgage was $200,000. But the banks, they leveraged themselves in this way, borrowing money to fund investments and using this debt as a tax shield. It's beautiful, while it works. The US banks were only allowed to leverage past 15-1 after the SEC's decision of April 2004. In the 4 years from 2004-08, the banks tripled their exposure. TRIPLED. It's not like in 2004 they were conservative, leverage of 15-1 is still one heck of a rocket boost to any investment returns, but 50-1? Wow. When the music stopped in 2008 the assets the banks leveraged at 50-1 were found to be worthless. The resulting bill is the equivalent of roughly double the entire net worth of banks in the year 2000. We are in trouble because all this debt didn't just disappear, it's still out there and needing to be repaid. Obama didn't cause this, Obama can't fix it either. It is a job for the Fed and the banks - the GOP controlled organisations who created the problem in the first place. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.....

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

President Downgrade's multi-trillion budget, by his own admission, redefined the role of government in our economy and society. President Downgrade's budget added more to the national debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.

And, why weren't the democrat-architects of this sub-prime loan mess, Barney's Frank and Chris Dodd, being charged for immorally pushing their own government-directed housing loans thru Freddie & Fannie? ... Dodd-Frank institutionalized all of these immoral problems that were put into effect by the federal government.

/Further, Øbama's 8-year reign of terror has made the USA an economic wasteland.

Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

You still aren't getting that the President had very few options. The situation Obama found himself in after succeeding Bush was the worst economic crisis since WWI.

Why is it you call him President Downgrade? The downgrades were a result of failures in the construction and ratings of CDOs. These downgrades put the financial infrastructure of the US on the verge of bankruptcy (technically speaking well past it). This happened once before, in the 1930s. The banks had liquidity issues when there was no option of printing more money under the gold standard, nor was there deposit insurance. Now we have both these things, 4 years have past since the 2008 flashpoint and 6 years since house prices started to turn south. Still we have not fixed it, even with all those bailouts and stimulus plans. Now the Fed is acting as clearing house (arguably the solution to the Great Depression) to the financials in order to extract the poison from their balance sheets.

Have you gathered the gravity of the problem yet? Let's hope so. So what caused it? I would argue 5 pieces of legislation.

1) GLB Act (1999) - repealed Glass-Steigal, ushered in the era of "universal" banks - banks which sell insurance, have commercial/residential accounts and investment banking divisions. GLB = Gramm, Leach, Bliley = Rep, Rep, Rep

2) Bankruptcy Reform Act (1999) - incentivised universal banks to use repurchase agreements (repos whose return was prioritised over all other investors prior to bankruptcy/litigation against a firm which defaults). Fuelled the CDO food-chain - banks can buy assets yielding 6%+ (debt) @ 3% cost of capital via repo. Bought and paid for the same group who coerced GLB into step 1.

3) The CFMA (2000). President Clinton is more responsible for this than Republicans, however, he is still less accountable than Rubin, Greenspan, Summers, Pandit, Paulson etc, etc who advised Congress and the President.

4) SOX (2002) - response to Enron/off-balance-sheet trading. SEC fined JPM and CITI ~ $550 million for their part in the cover-up and propagation of Enron's accounting fraud. SOX didn't stop banks and other corporations from using OBS meaning they could hide losses and manipulate earnings for tax/bonus purposes as and when they saw fit. SOX = Sarbanes-Oxley = Rep, Rep

5) SEC decision in April 2004 to allow the banks who had already purchased steps 1, 2, 3 and 4, to add the cherry on top - unlimited leverage/no net capital rule. This happened under Rep watch by regulators who met GOP approval.

Obama has only been in office for 4 years, how do you make out his "8-year reign of terror has made the USA an economic wasteland"?

As for "Dodd-Frank institutionalised all of these immoral problems", well, prior to D-F the banks designed and priced their own products and sold them on their own exchange, outside the jurisdiction of regulators such as the CFTC. D-F has diluted the power of banks to act as originator, exchange and regulator.

And the deficit? The deficit is a reflection of Bush having 2 wars while running huge subsidies for the wealthy. The top 1% are so powerful because Bush gave them an effective tax rate of 35% when the last time the US fought 2 wars simultaneously (WWII) the effective tax rate was 90% for the top 1%. Factor in the worst economic crisis in 100 years and you have created the perfect storm. To fix it, retirement age must be postponed, efficiencies must be made in all areas of government expenditure and taxes must be raised.

Don't blame Obama, blame the GOP for this stinking mess....

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

Under Obama's watch, poverty has spiked in the last 4 years ... Obama has been tied to more misery than has been experienced by Americans in natural disasters.

Obama was President for only 9 months during which time he clumsily passed an $800 billion so-called 'stimulus' --with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Did you remember that President Empty Chair tripled the US deficit with his careless out-of-control spending in only his first year in Office? This, with money he borrowed from Red China.

Did you know that President Empty Chair has already added $6 Trillion to our US National Debt? This, with money he borrowed from Red China. He still has nothing to show for it!

President Bush didn't "have" two wars; only one, Iraq. (The American homeland was attacked on 9/11 by Islamo-terrorists) ... But did you forget? --President Empty Chair started an illegal and unconstitutional shooting war in Libya.

In any event, how is it that gas prices were over 100-percent lower under President Bush whilst he prosecuted 2 wars? 

/I have no cause for optimism until Pres. Empty Chair is fired.

Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

Look, the guy officially took office 2nd January 2009. Stop blaming him for an apocalyptic bubble which took 8 years to make and popped before he took office.

Let me say I don't think Obama is perfect, I don't like aspects of his policy - auto-enrolment and the pink vote. I am not a Democrat. I am just anti-Republican for some very good reasons. I wouldn't care if Obama retired and the Democrats ran somebody else, just as long as Romney doesn't win.

All the debt we are collectively in was the fault of the banks cosy relationship with gov and regulators - a relationship made possible by wealth and political connections, a relationship 99.9% of ordinary people do NOT have.

Obama had no choice but to spend, many economists think he didn't spend ENOUGH. Nobel Prize winner Krugman is amongst these. He is an economist, I like him. He says "the stimulus plan was too small, it didn't even cover one third of the spending gap". One of the primary reasons it was too small was because of GOP opposition. They even threatened to bankrupt America and hold Obama hostage over increasing the deficit - actions which the GOP waived through every year under Bush. This GOP treason resulted in the US being downgraded, below the UK for feck sake. Can you believe that? The US less credit-worthy than the UK? Why is this a reality? It has nothing to do with America's ability to repay, rather the inability of Congress to show the will to do so. GOP all over it, 100%. This costs the US some $75 billion a year in interest, every year until the US regains AAA.

Now maybe YOU don't think the US has been in 2 wars, but all those civilians who have died in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will argue otherwise. Don't be so Nazi in your assessment of other races. The US kills more civilians every year than her combined enemies kill soldiers, never mind mainland civilians. Paying for wars is expensive but also very profitable for military contractors. We all know the military is a GOP love-child so military expenditure equals big wins for GOP donors and supporters. This is why we went to war with Iraq. It wasn't to liberate Iraqis, it was to exercise the military machine, exert influence in the region and secure safe passage to future oil exclusivity, most notably with the exclusion of Russia and China.

I have only cause for despair if a GOP candidate takes office. There will be further selling out of the Constitution for profit, a more grievous depletion of our natural resources and further pain for the bottom 90% of Americans. Get rid of Obama if you want just don't replace him with the devil, thanks

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

First of all, Obama clumsily created a second apocalyptic bubble; (Barry doesn't learn from history, so he simply repeats it!)

Secondly, banks can't be faulted for anything -- Congress ordered them to create the housing bubble (and why 'Barney's Frank' & Chris Dodd aren't in jail is astounding to me).

Third, Krugman is not an economist; Ronald Reagan was an Economist --and he created the national prosperity to prove it.

Don't be so childish; stop your immature Nazi name-calling.

You can't admit that President Empty Chair started an illegal and unconstitutional shooting war in Libya ... And, by the way, Obama is using Predator Drones in Pakistan. Are we at war with Pakistan, and I missed it?


Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

If Pakistan was using drones on US soil would the US be at war with Pakistan? I think so.

Reagan was an economist? Someone get the white coat for this fool. Reagan destroyed the American manufacturing infrastructure and started the decline that took 30 years to bring America to its knees.

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

Krugman is an economist? He's never even run a hot dog stand ... Someone get the white coat for this fool.

President Reagan's free markets resulted in millions of new American jobs, exploding personal incomes and broad national prosperity, and, most importantly, optimism for our nation.

However, President Empty Chair’s approach is just the opposite – more taxes, more government and job killing regulations – all in pursuit of his own Marxian-ideology.

/History majors, pay attention.

Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

Economics and finance can be a totally separate field from business. Just because you know how to run a business does not mean you know anything about finance or economics.

The problem with America is the perpetuation of bullshit like "Reagan's free markets resulted in millions of new American jobs, exploding personal incomes"

Reagan allowed Wall Street to gut the US car manufacturers. Neutron Jack slashed millions of jobs, closed plants in the US and permanently transferred manufacturing overseas. A FACT is that the income of ordinary Americans, the bottom 90%, has been decreasing in real terms since Reaganomics in the 1980s. Google this fact. No ordinary person's income has increased since the 1980s, it has been nothing but a steady DECLINE.

Check out the effective tax rates when America really was successful, you will see effective tax rates for top earners were almost triple what they are now. Taxes MUST be increased to pay for all the crap that makes people wealthy - like infrastructure, the military, political power - things that do not come for free yet are almost exclusively used to facilitate further wealth explosions for the top 1%. They can't even be bothered to pay for the stuff that makes THEM money, never mind the crap for poor people.

Finally, Marxism is another common misconception. Marxist theories merely point out the problems with Capitalism. Never did Karl Marx, while he was growing old in suburban England, ever offer a viable alternative to Capitalism, nor indeed did he ever try and de-rail Capitalism. Marx believed while Capitalism was fundamentally flawed, it still had much to offer the world and was a better system than any other, including communism. Wikipedia will no doubt corroborate all of these assertions.

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

You sound just like Obama (who's never had to meet a payroll or even balance a real working budget).

If you know how to run a business then you know that you don't spend your way out of the red. You control spending; and not with taxation.

Wikipedia? --nothing but a liberal blog with an agenda. Lately they've cleaned up their historical slant against things they don't like, but they're not an authoritative source; they're only a free source.

Marxism "merely" points out problems? Do your homework. Then you would know that Øbama has been paraphrasing the doctrine of Karl Marx, whose maxim is, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's called theft.
Marxism = theft.

There is little distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism and Øbama's democrat-Socialism. They all irrevocably results in state tyranny.


Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

"you don't spend your way out of the red"

Well there is the difference between business and economics/finance. Business operates in the real world (shops, manufacturers etc) whereas economics and finance consider politics, the weather, wars and history, mathematics, science and mood.

Most (I would say at least 3/4 professional) economists would concur that under a fiat monetary system, when the Fed can print infinite amounts of new cash, the way to combat the early symptoms of recession is fiscal stimulus. Spend, spend, spend until you fix the underlying problems (buy back all the crap the banks made prior to 2008) and genuine structural reform can perpetuate market recovery. The price is inflation and real losses for consumers if wage increases don't keep pace with inflation. This is why under a fiat system you should have strong unions. If workers are left in the cold this will start the ball rolling on another problem somewhere down the line. When it seems basic GOP policy is anti most unions, well, doesn't seem like they are the party to vote for to give jobs and decent wages to ordinary Americans.

Under a neo-liberal capitalist philosophy which one might see practised in financials/the Fed/Treasury it is better for business to have a large, cheap, flexible workforce. This is not the "American Dream" as you envision it, rather it is keeping jobs in the US by making them low-paid and good for migrant workers, robbing them and everybody else of decent wages. Incidentally this is a real Marxist theory, that Capitalism thrives when the "Capitalists" can maximise profits when the labour pool is saturated and they can pay low wages - i.e. high unemployment and migrant workers are good for bosses, not for employees, who make up most of the population.

Yes auto-enrolment is a socialist policy and I don't much like it. When you see how bad the deficit problem is though you can't start complaining when Obama does something to secure it's future viability. Then again, if the GOP hadn't been so "anti-Marxist", maybe the US would already have a National Health Service, like all those other backwards, socialist countries - you know, the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Japan......

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

You're an admitted marxian-apologist. That says it all.

A fiat money system represents nothing more than a form of hidden taxation. When the government can print money at will, it's identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints funny money. There's no worse way for Americans to find the value of their dollars eroding by the Fed's printing presses, and Bernanke, with Obama's blessing, loves printing money.

I'm reminded of a great Conservative of yesteryear:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." --President J.F.K. (1917-1963)

/History majors, pay attention.

Illuminati19 in reply to Lonewolf Ethos

It's a paradoxical truth that you write under the name "Lone Wolf Ethos" when in fact you toe the line so very neatly for your GOP taskmaster.

Fiat currency, even when the Fed prints money, is not a hidden form of taxation if you have a liberal government and strong unions - 2 anti-GOP policies. Printing cash is also very different from counterfeiting as counterfeits do not count towards inflation (they don't exist).

I will state that ordinary Americans have seen their wealth decline since 1980. I suggest you look at this graph and ask yourself whether or not you notice any correlation between being too friendly to the rich and choking the middle classes...

It might also be worth noting that the 400 richest people in the US, who make an average salary of ~ $345 million, pay an effective tax rate of ~ 16.5%. This is the same ETR that a household with combined income of $250K pays. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are 100% responsible for this dynamic. Someone who makes $345 million a year pays the same tax rate as someone earning <<1% of this figure? Scandalous.

You should also look at the marginal tax rate:

And the growth in employment relating to MTR:

Before coming to the inevitable conclusion that low taxes on the rich create large deficits and unemployment for ordinary Americans. Please open your eyes and stop voting for a party who will DECREASE taxes on the rich and INCREASE taxes on the poor. A lack of a national health service is a STEALTH TAX ON THE POOR. A lack of decent schools is a STEALTH TAX ON THE POOR.

You like history? Do you like Abraham Lincoln? How about Alexander Hamilton? Jefferson? Well Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence and the foundations for the US Constitution by being overwhelmingly influenced by an Ulster-Scot, a man by the name of Francis Hutcheson, whose most important theory is that of "moral sense" - an evangelical Christian philosophy stating that men have 6 senses:- Sight, Hearing, Touch, Taste, Smell and the ability to tell right from wrong.

Hamilton is of course the father of the Fed and also taxes and he described taxes as "Necessary and Proper" before Lincoln introduced America's first personal income tax in 1861.

So 3 great Americans who did not agree on everything all agreed that taxes were necessary and proper. In the era when ordinary people had the most influence over Congress, tax rates on the top 1% were high. Since 1980 when Reagan handed the keys of the White House to corporations and elitists, the tax rate of the top 1% has fallen dramatically, the middle classes of America have been in decline and the deficit is WORSE than it was during WWII.

Explain to me how you can support the GOP's policies when history teaches us tax breaks are a gift to the wealthy and the death of ordinary Americans?

Lonewolf Ethos in reply to Illuminati19

First, I am not a member of the GOP, nor has any political party ever been my taskmaster.

Therefore as usual you don't know what you're talking about. ... I don't run with the pack.

Secondly, I never said taxes weren't "necessary and proper".

Third, fiat currency has always been a drag on our economy; consult American history.

Fourth, higher taxes have never reduced the deficit. Governments always spend everything they take in, and therefore increase deficits. ... Furthermore, the 2003 Bush tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts; but you don't remember. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest increase in American history.

Fifth, today unions are nothing more than an arm of the democrat-Party. Unions have proven to be nothing more than a lethal drag on the American economy. It's very easy to understand if you simply observe how public sector unions are creating local and state bankruptcies. Democrat-controlled unions are American cancers.


/^lord Odin^\

Romney Won! Yay...

But this isn't a football game. Before celebrating that "you'r guy" won, you should be spending all your time up to the election to decide if he really IS "you'r guy".

Romney want's to say & be anything and everything to get elected.
He wants to close the presidency deal like he is landing a fat client in one of his board rooms.

To him the Presidency is just another Trophy in his showcase, for most middle class people it is their life.

So, the elections boils down to.. who can you really trust?

These things absolutely don't matter to some of the people who have done very well for themselves.

"To him the Presidency is just another Trophy in his showcase, for most middle class people it is their life." How do you know? Has he told you? If no, then what information is forming this view? Have you thought to determine if the source of this information might have a bias and if so, should you be careful in evaluating it? One positive from the debate is that Obama supporters have been more keen on fact checking. Perhaps taking the "I think, therefore I am" approach to sift through facts would be instructive when evaluating Obama's track record and misrepresentations that substitute style for substance--something Obama generally do quite well.

One point lost in the debate by those who brush off the fact that Obama was outclassed or appeared under-prepared...doesn't this matter? Supporters use underpreparedness as an excuse. Isn't preparedness a reflection of the individual? If you're at work and fall flat on closing a deal or a sales pitch, do you use the "I didn't try" excuse or "I wasn't prepared"? Would you remain employed for long if you did? Either the president was out of his league in the debate or didn't take it seriously enough. Either charge reflects poorly on his ability to run this country, albeit for different reasons.

The following facts/information:

-> From the 47% comments behind closed doors it is reasonable to assume what he thinks of about middle class, hispanics, blacks, Elderly people etc.

-> That he changes his positions/policies depending on his audience

-> He has innovated in tax evading techniques and wouldn't dare to show taxes and even after all kinds of manipulation he was only able to get his takes upto measly 13% that too after giving away 2 mil to charity for absolutely no reason

-> Decided to exploit a US senator's death to his advantage

-> Blatantly lies to 58 million people on National television and plans to get away with it.

I based my opinions on these unrefutable facts as a thinking person.

I did say that Romney won the debate, so you can stop harping over that. thoughts on said "facts" (used loosely):

--47% comments were merely stating a fact regarding political strategy. It's no secret that everyone running for president strategizes on where to focus their attention to win the most votes. I accept the fact that I won't see Obama and Romney doing lots of campaigning in Mass and they'll be doing lots of it in Ohio. This is what any "thinking person" would do.

--Where specifically did Romney change his policy?

--Paying the lowest tax rate allowable by law is common-sense. It's not tax evasion, but a flaw of the system. Paying higher for the sake of doing so makes little sense and could be in breach of duty to partners/shareholders, etc. It's the system that needs fixing.

--Exploiting a US senator's death to his advantage? That statement is a bit irresponsible and has no basis.

--I have yet to find a lie in the debate from Romney. On the other hand, Obama's figures when adding up Romney's tax cuts were based over 10 years--a fact he conveniently omitted when trying to add an exclamation to his statement.

JohnR22 in reply to ThePleasurePrinciple

THe guy is a Leftist. The repub nominee could be the reincarnation of Lincoln and he would say EXACTLY the same things (liar, "rich guy", doesn't care about me, etc.).

THere's about 40% of the people who vote Dem regardless of reality, so wright them off. The swing voters are the only ones who matter at this point, and the guy who posted the anti-Romney screed aint one of them.

Illuminati19 in reply to /^lord Odin^\

Great post, sums up exactly what Romney is and exactly how the GOP and Tea Party seem to have brainwashed almost half of all Americans.

Romney was part of the scam with UBS and Credit Suisse. You can't use the defence of "ThePleasureprinciple" and say "it's not tax evasion, it's the system" when the system was designed and approved by the same people you are defending with this moral argument. How blind can you be? Fine UBS and Credit Suisse, good. Fine Romney by taking back the proper legal tax deductions for a man with his income, BETTER.

When is someone going to hit these GOP supporters over the head and say "HEY, PEOPLE, these guys are giving tax breaks so billionaires pay 1-10% tax. How much tax do YOU pay?" Well you complain about state benefits for people. The GOP (and Democrats) give state benefits to companies posting several billion dollar profits, worth billions more. Scandal and lies are the way of the GOP. The economy, the wars, the past and expectations for the future, all utter B S.

Peter Miles

Romney's mad dash to the center, starting at the first debate, is truly profound. Yet another flop flip to add to the countless other flip flops he has performed throughout this campaign. I agree with the president - the Romney at the debate was hard to recognize when you listened to his proposals.

Romney even changed his mind about the 47%. Until yesterday, without an apology, the 47% comments didn't really qualify as a gaffe - we could assume it was a policy statement. But the new centrist Romney decided it was best to distance himself from himself.

Too bad. I might have supported a center-right Romney. But this transformation is too late for me. I suspect it is too late for most voters - and for Romney to win in November.


Key takeaway from the debate. Obama taking 10 seconds to tell Lehrer that he had 5 seconds left before being interrupted. Quite an ROI on time Obama.

I can only imagine how many people are being employed in an Obama government organizing their organizers or debating about debates (insert joke here)

Wow - adhominem. You really are cheap arent you. I thought it was fully justified considering the way Romney stormed over his time limits and refuses to be told much less actually move on to other topics. If Romney can't be moderated in a debate, what makes him a president who would listen to the people? See i can play this game too.


If either candidate will have no real mandate for the change they seek (which I believe to be true), then how do you reckon a Romney-administration will be able to repeal DFA, and health-care reform?

JohnR22 in reply to dwmaloney

Exactly. Even if the repubs manage to take the Senate, the Dems will still have the fillibuster. So, Romney will not be able to make major roll backs in anything Obama has done; all of the Left's hysteria is just fear-mongering to get their Base to the voting booth.

That said, the next president will have to work across the aisle to get anything done. Romney has a track record in MA of doing exactly this. Obama has a track record of 100% failure over the last four years. I'd bet on Romney.


Any 1 individual has the decked stacked against them when trying to pick winners and losers in an economy. There are so many dynamic forces that shape the market that will determine what projects will be successful and those forces interact with one another in such a way that cannot easily be foreseen and accounted for ahead of time.

While it's palatable to think of everything in 2 dimensions -- i.e. pick winners in solar, wind, ethanol (admittedly ethanol not Obama's pet), etc., the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head and sunk costs, reputational capital, pride, etc. brings about a tendency to force the square peg in the circle hole. In technology this would be horrifying -- perhaps we'd be Netscape Navigator, AOL IM for our online social activities and playing "snake" on our Nokia. But in other industries, it manifests itself in more subtle ways. Ideas are great, but they need to be subject to the rigorous test of the market continuously...unfortunately it is an inherent flaw of any one individual to hold onto these ideas in such a static manner v. always retaining the option to start from scratch the next day and be willing to blow up your old idea that you've invested time, energy and resources in to do so (think RIMM as a company). This inherent individual shortcoming is carried out so elegantly in by the market and if nothing else keeps everything interesting.

With all of this said, based on his grasp of the economic issues, the last person I would want to take a gamble on in being the "nutty professor" in having the final say in approving/choosing projects is BO. I hear he stinks at it (apologies for the Simpsonsesque pun).

Sorry but your comment seems to say much about nothing. What are you basing Obama's economic prowess on? The fact the US economy is stagnant? The US is lucky to be stagnant, believe me. Buffet has been planning for a 2017 recovery since 2009 and the IMF reckons another decade. Why? All the crap the banks concocted from 2000-2008 is still out there and blocking the flow of credit to business and consumers. So the Fed is buying the crap back at $40 billion/month. This is interesting as arguably "clearing houses" were the solution to the GD in the 1930s. Now there is a GD expert in charge of the Fed and he has set up a clearing house to sieve toxic CDOs from the balance sheets of major financials. A point to consider and which I bang on about often, is that a major clearing house already exists (ICE) and has been malfunctioning since its inception, while still managing to post a profit as a company.

Oh and "any 1 individual has the deck stacked against them" could not be further from the truth. George Soros is an old man who skipped the recent vogue for complex financial products priced using statistical models. Mr. Soros has made more money BY HIMSELF than the entire investment banking divisions of RBS and Barclays (2 of the worlds' largest) since 2008 (he pays himself around $3 billion annually).

There are many ways to pick winners. One of which is assured political continuity. So you invest in a solar firm with guarantees that future contracts (say re-fitting US military bases) will be given to this firm. This information is not efficient (i.e. the market as a whole is not cognizant of this deal) and so you plough your cash into certain projects based on insider information. Of course you can attempt to guess the same information using information that IS efficient, such as collaborations with universities/Nobel Prize winners, the firm's financial details, macro and micro economic conditions, however, if this info is truly efficient everything you know will already be reflected by the share price (the expectation of future cash flows).

You can also play a numbers game, of course, such as running a delta-neutral strategy with the expectation of picking up the risk-free rate. Then you start to run into the problem that there is NO risk-free rate. That the ratings given out by credit agencies may be inaccurate, that there are other inefficiencies in the data flow (such as directors hiding losses or proprietary trading on their own stock).

Those who win and those who lose are separated by nothing other than those who have the best information and those who follow the crowd. The only way to get an informational monopoly is by surreptitious means - i.e. insider political influence. This is why firms lobby Congress and Parliament and why their lobbying results in increased firm performance (excess returns relative to non-lobbying/low-lobbying firms). If you are not a part of that world or able to structurally alter the market by being an originator (such as setting LIBOR, creating derivatives which you know more about than the market does) then you are a fool playing against the house and destined to lose. It's all about being connected and being connected means being a leader in a financial institution/large industry or being a politician. The GOP encourages this dynamic as it makes both them and their supporters wealthier than anyone else. To get a level playing field and give people a chance of making informed investment decisions, we must smash the symbiotic relationship between big business and our governments.


It's a matter of fact and an old story that in periods of economic turmoil and financial difficulties charlatans, agitators,double-dealers, swindlers, mountebanks, supposed saviours and Messiahs of all kind and variety, are sailing before the wind, have their proper time and find a great number of followers, ignorant, foolish, innocent and simple-minded people ready to lend an ear to their tall stories, lies, fairy-tales,f alsehoods, fictions, magic order to be taken in....led by the nose....on the wrong track.For the time being Obama, is trying to play this role in a certain.... persuasive way...

/^lord Odin^\ in reply to longman333

If I didn't read the last statement i would've thought you were talking about Republicans.

This is what you called 'pulling a Romney'.

Say it first so that no one can say it to you!

Btw.. Romney won toss and elected to go second.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange -28 mins ago
The Economist explains: How can a goalkeeper save a penalty?
The Economist explains July 10th, 21:01
Guns and consequences: What are the costs of gun ownership?
Democracy in America July 10th, 20:31


Products and events



