OT: 2008 Elections

[JRod]

I was very impressed with both candidates last night in the Dem. debate. Glad to see they both realized that the backstabbing and bickering wasn't doing either of the too much good (although I feel it hurt Hillary more) and the were very congenial towards each other.

I guess I'm probably more bothered by that than anyone. So two weeks ago, the Clintons made a concerted effort to take down Obama. The media injected race, Obama played along. Some snipes were traded and today they are best friends.

I'm tired of the fakeness. They only pulled back because it wasn't working not because they believe that civility is the way to go. If it was working then Billy Bob would still be out on the campaign trial taking shots at Obama.

Fake nice bothers me more in politics than coming out with full blows. When politicians are fake, you don't know what they hell they are going to do. You can be honest yet civil but I didn't see that, I think this was just fake nice because so many states are in play.

It was a calculated ploy just like the attacks of that last two weeks.

I think a McCain - Obama contest, because Edwards is out, is the campaign this country desperately needs to heal itself. If it's Romney - Clinton, I think instead of having an illegal immigration problem, we are going to have a emigration problem.

[FatPitcher]

Sorry, but a political campaign enabling a country to heal itself sounds way too touchy-feely and collectivist for me. And it's not like there was ever a problem-free era that the country can get back to as it "recovers," just times when present and future problems didn't concern us as much.

As far as the specific candidates go, I think many of the more left-wing Democrats want Obama to win because they see Hillary as symptomatic of the Democrats' failure to further a "progressive" agenda in the 90's and in 2007, not because Obama is a particularly well-qualified candidate. And they want to see McCain win because he's the Republican who agrees with them most and comes out against Bush the most, not because of any special healing qualities he possesses (unless, of course, you measure someone's beneficial qualities by how much they agree with you).

I'd be OK with either of them winning--Obama because I hate how politics nowadays is all about political scoreboard, and McCain because I hate wasteful government spending and because I think immigration should be liberalized (no faster way to overwhelm and destroy the welfare state).

[RobVarak]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

Damn these corporations who keep generating wealth, jobs and value for their shareholders!! If only there were some way that the little guy could benefit from profitable corporations. Say, some sort of exchange where they could actually purchase owernship in those godless bastard entities. Or better yet, what if those corporations actually hired people?

[XXXIV]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

Damn these corporations who keep generating wealth, jobs and value for their shareholders!! If only there were some way that the little guy could benefit from profitable corporations. Say, some sort of exchange where they could actually purchase owernship in those godless bastard entities. Or better yet, what if those corporations actually hired people?

Exxon uses robots and martians do do all the work.

Good to see though that some people still read Karl Marx.

[JRod]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

Damn these corporations who keep generating wealth, jobs and value for their shareholders!! If only there were some way that the little guy could benefit from profitable corporations. Say, some sort of exchange where they could actually purchase owernship in those godless bastard entities. Or better yet, what if those corporations actually hired people?

Ya good ol trickle down economics. Ahh the 80s, the prosperous decade.

[RobVarak]

Ya good ol trickle down economics. Ahh the 80s, the prosperous decade.

Back to undergrad for you, Comrade That's not trickle down anything, it's economics 101.

You are joking, I assume? Or have we really reached the point that we are wishing for large corporations to fail for some reason? Of course if we properly redistribute the wealth from corporate coffers, only fat-cat, white, rich Republicans will suffer. All those employees of the corporation themselves as well as the satellite businesses will all be able to find new jobs drilling for ambrosia and harvesting good wishes...

[Jackdog]

Ya good ol trickle down economics. Ahh the 80s, the prosperous decade.

Back to undergrad for you, Comrade That's not trickle down anything, it's economics 101.

You are joking, I assume? Or have we really reached the point that we are wishing for large corporations to fail for some reason? Of course if we properly redistribute the wealth from corporate coffers, only fat-cat, white, rich Republicans will suffer. All those employees of the corporation themselves as well as the satellite businesses will all be able to find new jobs drilling for ambrosia and harvesting good wishes...

WTF is wrong with you Rob? Don't you know the oil comes right out of mother earth ready to go right into our tanks. These guys are f***in us big time!! I am not about to give up a few pizza's a month and cut back on my next gen gaming purchases to buy gas to get to work.


Jack.
Gas prices in the United States are much lower than prices in many other countries. People in most European nations like Italy and the UK pay 5 to 6 dollars a gallon. In comparison 3 bucks a gallon doesn't seem that bad.
Granted the tax on gas over there is very high so people drive cars that don't burn a lot of fuel and are more evironmentally friendly. Not us. We burn fuel like a crack addict with a 20 dollar rock and a new pipe.

According to MEMA. Americans drive 2.5 TRILLION miles a year. To put that in prospective. The earth is revolving around the sun at supersonic speeds,but it would still take the earth 14,000 years to travel the 2.5 trillion miles we drive in this country every year. Every day we suck up 178 million gallons of gas in this country. Profits are going to be had. With that comes jobs and growth. I am cool with that.

By the way taxes play a part in our cpg as well. Here in the US the Federal Gas Tax is 18.4 cpg. Then tack on the tax of whatever state you live in. Georgia is 7.5 cpg. Plus a 4% sales tax. I suspect that will go up as well.

IMO until we produce our own gas like some African(Nigeria,38cpg) and S American(Venezuela,12cpg) countries we will continue to get f***ed by the producers of oil in the Middle East. We need to stop hugging tress and do our own thing. Otherwise we are OPEC's bitches for years to come.

[wco81]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

Damn these corporations who keep generating wealth, jobs and value for their shareholders!! If only there were some way that the little guy could benefit from profitable corporations. Say, some sort of exchange where they could actually purchase owernship in those godless bastard entities. Or better yet, what if those corporations actually hired people?

When energy companies prosper because of high oil prices, whatever wealth they gain is more than offset by the drag on GDP growth which those high prices cause.

Whatever new jobs are create by those companies are more than offset by lost jobs or fewer new jobs in other industries which consume a lot of energy or by reduced consumer spending which affects yet other industries.

There are several reasons cited for high prices (remember that within the past 10 years, oil was as low as 1/5 of recent highs) but one is that the oil industry (which includes the national oil companies like Aramco) has failed to develop enough new supplies.

Some critics say that for all the billions invested by the industry on new fields, it hasn't invested enough and/or hasn't gotten a good enough ROI. So high prices may be partly due to their ineffectiveness.

Of course there are other issues which could be touched on, like the political influence buying to undertake certain policies which arguably are against the public/consumer interest or allegations of price gouging (prices at the pump do not always track prices of oil).

[RobVarak]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

Damn these corporations who keep generating wealth, jobs and value for their shareholders!! If only there were some way that the little guy could benefit from profitable corporations. Say, some sort of exchange where they could actually purchase owernship in those godless bastard entities. Or better yet, what if those corporations actually hired people?

When energy companies prosper because of high oil prices, whatever wealth they gain is more than offset by the drag on GDP growth which those high prices cause.

True, to be sure. But that is dwarfed by the damage that would be done to GDP if the profitability of oil companies and the attendant businesses was not growing.

Some critics say that for all the billions invested by the industry on new fields, it hasn't invested enough and/or hasn't gotten a good enough ROI. So high prices may be partly due to their ineffectiveness.

Possible. But one must also take into account that there is not a true open market for oil exploration and exploitation. Political and environmental factors retard the ability of an oil company to get maximum ROI. Now granted, the oil companies may exacerbate this problem by trying to leverage the situation, but I'm not saying that oil companies are without fault

I'm not trying to cheerlead for the oil industry per se. I'm just trying to call out what I feel to be rampant anti-corporate blather. I'm not ignorant. I know that a lot of this is just an outgrowth of the political and popular culture in which we live, and exists in large measure becaue of actual corporate malfeasance. That's no excuse, however, for foolishly condemning corporations for being successful corporations, or ignoring the enormous benefits which successful corporations impart to the economy...and that's just what happens in so many discussions of this sort.

The economy is a lot more complex than the good/evil, Big Business/little guy dynamic that so many morons, populists and the media portray. It would do a world of good if people would think about the way things actually work before repeating some anti-corporate trope.

[Inuyasha]

Sunday morning news reports are saying Obama has pulled even in California.

Wco : Are you scared now brotha?

[Jackdog]

The economy is a lot more complex than the good/evil, Big Business/little guy dynamic that so many morons, populists and the media portray. It would do a world of good if people would think about the way things actually work before repeating some anti-corporate trope.

Co-sign.

[JRod]

Are you channeling Reagan now?

Trickle down economics is exactly what you described. At first it was to stimulate the economy, we need to give tax cuts to the rich because money they generate (stock market, corporations) will spur on other business and get back down to all of us.

Take out the tax plan and you just described trickle down or supply-side economics. Oh well the corporations are rich therefore, Joe Sixpack is going to well-off. Wal-Mart makes billions so it's workers are all driving BMWs. Yes there are companies that generate large profits and are generally progressive regarding the benefits they offer their employees. Google being one of them. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a progressive company. They make money off volume and cheap labor, both in production and workforce.


Why is it either or? No one is saying that anyone wants Exxon to fail? The problem here is the hypocrisy of record profits, proclaimed world shortages and record gas prices. On top of that, there have been no added refineries in the US in, I believe, the last 20-30 years. Crude is seeing all-time highs because of the uncertainty in OPEC nations. Yet, it seems the price of crude is not determined by supply/demand but on the whim of a future market. A scare in one production chain can cause a "run" on the price of the barrel. Finally you have a US car market, based of a 1950s gas price model not a 2008 model.


Oh one other thing, as you say, if only the little guy could invest in the market to make money off large corporations. Huh? The middle income bracket doesn't have disposable money to throw at the stock market. Yes many people invest and do quite well, but the idea that all they need to is invest is a f***in condescending attitude that I can't stand.

Geez if only the poor or the middle class worked a little harder they would have money to invest and they wouldn't be such a burden to America.

[pk500]

John:

You make some valid points, but there also are a hell of a lot of middle-class Americans who have fallen into the "buy, buy, buy, we are measured by our material worth" trap that consumes this country.

They have spent themselves into incredible debt so they can have that 50-inch plasma, that $40,000 SUV, that $350,000 house, that $8,000 vacation, etc., etc. and try to keep up with their wealthier friends or live the life of the Parises and Britneys and Simmons and Hefners that they see on reality TV or MTV. They continue to spend, yet their income won't come anywhere near covering the expenses. If even half of that excessive, irresponsible spending was channeled into investment, they'd be much better off right now.

But what's sexy about an IRA, mutual fund or 401K when I can put that Panny Plasma on my wall, with a kick-ass 5.1 surround sound setup underneath it right now and pay for it later? Who cares when that guy is making $35,000 per year with two kids? He has plastic, baby! Plus that tax refund is coming in four months!

There also are countless middle class, debt-burdened Americans who jam expensive fast food into the pieholes of their ever obese kids, the same kids who beg for and get that PS3 so they can sit in front of a TV all weekend. And those parents wonder why those kids are getting sick and need expensive medical treatment.

I understand that there are millions of Americans who are truly hurting, faced with low incomes and struggling to cover basic expenses or trying to pay big medical bills caused by non-lifestyle-related illnesses. Those are the people who need our help, not the segment of middle-class America that has been fiscally irresponsible for too long in the never-ending chase for material goods and now is looking to Uncle Sam for a bailout.

That's why the tax refund is such a short-term, nearsighted fix for the U.S. economy, the equivalent of a can of Red Bull. How many people who get that $600 are going to use it for investment or to pay off mounting debt? Not many, I would think. They're going to head to Best Buy or to a new car dealer and continue to spend, just like they do when they get Uncle Sam's income tax refund every spring.

That $600 tax refund might provide a quick jolt for the economy, but it does nothing for the long-term credit crisis engulfing America.

I remember when I was a kid in the early 70s, most area banks were called savings & loans. That's a misnomer in 2007, because who the hell in America saves anymore? Again, not many.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

John:

You make some valid points, but there also are a hell of a lot of middle-class Americans who have fallen into the "buy, buy, buy, we are measured by our material worth" trap that consumes this country.

They have spent themselves into incredible debt so they have have that 50-inch plasma, that $40,000 SUV, that $350,000 house, that $8,000 vacation, etc., etc. and try to keep up with their wealthier friends or live the life of the Parises and Britneys and Simmons and Hefners that they see on reality TV or MTV. They continue to spend, yet their income won't come anywhere near covering the expenses. If even half of that excessive, irresponsible spending was channeled into investment, they'd be much better off right now.

But what's sexy about an IRA, mutual fund or 401K when I can put that Panny Plasma on my wall, with a kick-ass 5.1 surround sound setup underneath it right now and pay for it later? Who cares when that guy is making $35,000 per year with two kids? He has plastic, baby! Plus that tax refund is coming in four months!

There also are countless middle class, debt-burdened Americans who jam expensive fast food into the pieholes of their ever obese kids, the same kids who beg for and get that PS3 so they can sit in front of a TV all weekend. And those parents wonder why those kids are getting sick and need expensive medical treatment.

I understand that there are millions of Americans who are truly hurting, faced with low incomes and struggle to cover basic expenses and pay big medical bills caused by non-lifestyle-related illnesses. Those are the people who need our help, not the segment of middle-class America that has been fiscally irresponsible for too long in the never-ending chase for material goods and now is looking to Uncle Sam for a bailout.

I remember when I was a kid in the early 70s, most area banks were called savings & loans. That's a misnomer in 2007, because who the hell in America saves anymore? Again, not many.

Take care,
PK

Yatzee!! Couldn't agree more.

I was able to sock away a pretty decent chunk of change while I served this country for 22 years. At best I made 37,500 a year. At the worst 12,000. Granted we had paid medical and food rations,but we were by no means rolling in the dough. Carol had a decent job when we were at a duty station for longer than a year. We tried to save most of her earnings and poured those into IRA's. It was hard but we did it.

Carol and I waited until we were in our early 30's to have a child. That helped as well.

People would be surprised if they looked at what they spend on things they could do without. That is money that can be invested and if they are disciplined and patent it can pay off nicely.

[wco81]

True, to be sure. But that is dwarfed by the damage that would be done to GDP if the profitability of oil companies and the attendant businesses was not growing.

I'm not quite following this. I don't know how big a portion of the US GDP which the oil industry represents. They've been having some of the most profitable years ever.

But they were doing okay when oil was closer to $20 than it is to $100.

I'm not sure how many workers they employ for instance, compared to the beaten-down auto industry. And like I said, the factors which make the energy industry more profitable are the same ones which make other industries less profitable.

If for every $10 or $20 increase in the price of oil, GDP growth is decreased by .3 % for instance, that decrease probably dwarfs any incremental increases in the profits of the oil companies.


On the larger point of whether corporations being in good health helps everyone, corporate balance sheets are healthier than they've ever been. But one of the economic phenomenon of the past 5 years or so is record profits but comparatively modest job growth.

Plus most big companies these days are multinational, so their fortunes aren't as closely tied to the economic fortunes of one country. A lot of those profits either remain overseas or are invested overseas, especially in the case of oil companies.

[RobVarak]

Are you channeling Reagan now?

Friedman maybe, but probably not Reagan.

Oh one other thing, as you say, if only the little guy could invest in the market to make money off large corporations. Huh? The middle income bracket doesn't have disposable money to throw at the stock market. Yes many people invest and do quite well, but the idea that all they need to is invest is a f***in condescending attitude that I can't stand.

I'm calling bullshit on this one, John. The middle class in this nation fails when it comes to taking care of their own business. And it's not the fault of big business, politicians or the Illuminati. It's their own damn fault.

"Middle class" is an incredibly ambiguous term. There is an excellent survey of the methods used to draw reasonable conclusions about the term here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class). Indeed the "middle income bracket" can be determined several ways, but for the sake of discussion lets go with the Census Bureau's figures of between 25k and 75k. The ends of that spectrum are enormously different from each other, but according to other Census stats it's quite obvious that based on cost of living 75k is not an insignificant amount of income.

I'd suggest that the upper half of that range is really what we think of as middle class, in that it's housholds that have at a slightly positive amount of income as compared to cost of living. As pk indicates, the question then becomes what does the middle class do with their disposable income? I think the numbers don't equivocate on this point. People do not take advantage of their 401k opportunities, deferred income laws or other investment opportunities. This is egregious and an almost fatal missed opportunity.

Then they compound their mistake by running up credit card debt. You can blame the banks I suppose, or the retailers, or Madison Avenue, or even quite novelly the actual debtors. That's your personal decision. But they don't save, they don't invest and they don't plan. I'm not suggesting they "throw money at the stock market." But if kept their debt down they could invest in the basic retirement opportunities that are available to them, they would indeed earn money on the basis of the corporate earnings that have everybody recoiling in such horror.

I've spent the last 12 years of my life doing estate plans for people of every economic profile, and my personal experience matches the data. It's not uncommon to see households with income in the mid 100's struggling more than others in the 60's for exactly this reason.

I'm sorry, but if it's condescending to suggest that the middle class should stop charging their f***in lives away, learn to put money in 401ks, SEPs, IRAs etc and make some damn money off of these profitable corporations, then guilty as charged.

I'm not saying they're not working hard enough. Hell, as far as I'm concerned we're all working too damn hard. But people dont' think about what they do with their money.

The discussion gets particularly interesting at this point. What do you suggest we do to assist those who are able to earn enough money to invest, but unable to maintain a reasonable financial profile because of consumer debt? Let me guess! Raise taxes to penalize those who have worked to earn more, invest what they have and don't spend like drunken sailors! That's an outstanding way to simultaneously incentivize spendthrift behavior even as you penalize financial success.

[XXXIV]

I have a 401 k....and so does everyone else where I work...From top to bottom.

Is this SP 500 part of the stock market? yeah I thought it was...

[RobVarak]

On the larger point of whether corporations being in good health helps everyone, corporate balance sheets are healthier than they've ever been. But one of the economic phenomenon of the past 5 years or so is record profits but comparatively modest job growth.

Plus most big companies these days are multinational, so their fortunes aren't as closely tied to the economic fortunes of one country. A lot of those profits either remain overseas or are invested overseas, especially in the case of oil companies.

To some extent though, the modest job growth is also an outgrowth of the fact that the job market in the US is nearly optimal at this point. Increases in efficiency and the multi-national nature of most large corporations mitigate against a direct proprotion of corporate profits to job creation, of course.

Your first point is well taken, but our differences may be difficult to work out without some more numbers. My sense is that poor finacnial performance by the oil companies would translate to a significant hit on the economy as a whole, but the exact magnitude of that impact compared to high oil prices is difficult to ascertain. It's an academic argument in extremis, however because we can't expect the oil companies to engage in anything but profit-maximizing behavior anyway. I suppose that if it fits with your belief system, one could argue thta government could intervene to impose some sort of limits, but that is the slipperiest of slopes...

PS This is way better than subjecting myself to Superbowl Pregame, btw.

[kevinpars]

Call me cynical, but when we ended up in 2000 with a president from Texas who worked in the oil industry and a vice president from Wyoming (who spent most of his time in Texas working in the energy business) should we be surprised when the oil/energy business is going great guns 8 years later?

Let's not forget that long before Bush talked about our "addiction to oil," Cheney's energy plan in 2001 pointed out that: "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Sound for who?

[XXXIV]

Call me cynical, but when we ended up in 2000 with a president from Texas who worked in the oil industry and a vice president from Wyoming (who spent most of his time in Texas working in the energy business) should we be surprised when the oil/energy business is going great guns 8 years later?

Let's not forget that long before Bush talked about our "addiction to oil," Cheney's energy plan in 2001 pointed out that: "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Sound for who?

I dont doubt that Bush and Cheny had their own agenda...but call Me cynical ...I think they all do...

All the same garbage...If anyone really thinks anything will be truly different no matter who is president they are fooling themselves...

[wco81]

Both parties raise large sums of money from big companies.

And unfortunately, that is the price of entry, especially this year with this "national primary" in a couple of days where the only way to reach voters is to do a lot of TV advertising.

That is why the rhetoric about changing the way things are has some resonance. But most of the candidates who've reached this point are dependent on that money so they're not going to attack lobbyists or big companies.

The attitude of politicians and political parties to big businesses is interesting. About a hundred years ago, the "trust busters" made their mark under the administrations of McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft.

All three presidents, along with John Sherman, were all Republicans.

[kevinpars]

No question about it - if Clinton wins, the only change will be that the special interest groups will be a little different.

[greggsand]

How I voted today:

http://www.zod2008.com/

[RobVarak]

Well, Kennedy and Kerry really brought home the bacon for Obama in Mass. I hope that trotting out the old SOB does him more good with the Superdelegate fight that may be brewing than it did with the people of the Commonwealth.

[wco81]

I think CNBC said so far that Obama has won 10 out of 17 states.

The trend lines look good for Obama, who looks to have gained his share of white voters, females and Latinos compared to two weeks ago.

Obama has a slight lead in delegates and may split CA.

Next 6 primaries will be more spaced out and he can do more retail politicking and build up momentum, which wasn't as easy to do with Super Tuesday states.

In January, he out-fundraised Clinton 3 to 1.