QuoteOriginally posted by: traderjoe1976Not +1.+2Excellent! Can't wait to watch the results coming in after 8 pm tonight.

Binary betting wth. Short if you think Obama will win the election

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisQuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarNo. Here as elsewhere, this democracy offers voting as a right, not an obligation.People who do not exercise their right to vote, even though they are not obliged to, they dont really deserve any democracy. Lets deport farmer to North Korea or Burma.Well, OK.But how do you make it mandatory? What is the punishment for failing to or refusing to vote?Might be better to focus on free and fair elections that offer actual voting choices. And candidates that do not get shot on the eve of the election.Some so called democracies are not even at that stage yet.On a lighter note, look what the Russians did in their first few elections.Beer Drinkers Party?Fine, for a kind of stiff finger at the new system.But is this your voting utopia?I think you find that most well functioning democracies have 3-5 political parties, maybe a few more on the fringes and they form coalition governments.When I was working on European politics and economics in grad school, I spent quite awhile looking at the various parliamentary systems and you find Italy, with 21+ political parties - how well does that work?

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisLets deport farmer to North Korea or Burma.That's a fine idea. But given I've not registered to vote, you won't know out of what airport to buy the plane ticket.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisLets deport farmer to North Korea or Burma.That's a fine idea. But given I've not registered to vote, you won't know out of what airport to buy the plane ticket.Can you get Wilmott in downtown Pyongyang?

QuoteOriginally posted by: edouardQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: edouardPersonally, I'm okay with the US and Mexico becoming a single countrythey are 2 very different countriesi acknowledge this. but that doesn't matter.look here in Europe, 26 countries tied together forming a social, economic, and political entity.you must have heard on this.and, that works really well.you must have read this in the news.ahhhhhlolIf there were a "north american union" with a currency the amero, pretty much the entire population of mexico would move north and the US as we know it would cease to exist

QuoteThere are different explanations why this recession is so long. Some say it's the socialist Obama with his regulations that drag down businesses, too much government spending, and all. Others say it's all because of private sector deleveraging and overall lack of demand, so instead of stimulating unneeded investment via lower taxes and lighter regulation or whatever one needs the government to step in and spend more to compensate for lack of private spending. I am not sure who is right but the second case seems much more plausible to me.Yes, there are different ways to stimulate economy. You just not reading what i already said. Obama have stepped in and have spent $6T over budget already, didn't he? It's all government spending, isn't it? It's more than a third of cumulative overspending of US government over its entire history. It's biggest spending ever and slowest recovery ever in any measure. You still think it's "much more plausible" it'll work if he just does more of it? Why don't you believe your lying eyes? There must be some data, theory, or something bigger than "it seems" that you are not telling me.Quote.. except I am not sure how hiring more teachers is a bad thing.Well, i am not sure either, that's the point. No one showed that the problem is too few teachers. So why hire if you are not sure? I am not sure that free pot wont help students, why not buy some and distribute?

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteThere are different explanations why this recession is so long. Some say it's the socialist Obama with his regulations that drag down businesses, too much government spending, and all. Others say it's all because of private sector deleveraging and overall lack of demand, so instead of stimulating unneeded investment via lower taxes and lighter regulation or whatever one needs the government to step in and spend more to compensate for lack of private spending. I am not sure who is right but the second case seems much more plausible to me.Yes, there are different ways to stimulate economy. You just not reading what i already said. Obama have stepped in and have spent $6T over budget already, didn't he? It's all government spending, isn't it? It's more than a third of cumulative overspending of US government over its entire history. It's biggest spending ever and slowest recovery ever in any measure. You still think it's "much more plausible" it'll work if he just does more of it? Why don't you believe your lying eyes? There must be some data, theory, or something bigger than "it seems" that you are not telling me.I can offer a guess where it went. A lot of that went into various unemployment benefits, given the state of the economy he inherited it's hardly surprising. Some is due to raising health care costs and unfavorable demographics. And you know, given that money grows exponentially, things like "a third of cumulative overspending" sounds like more of the scare talk. Anyway, given negative real interest rate and a lot of people willing to buy the US debt, why not borrow more and spend on constructive things?

QuoteOriginally posted by: EBalAnyway, given negative real interest rate and a lot of people willing to buy the US debt, why not borrow more and spend on constructive things?It is not negative 99.99%. In some hypothetical future scenarios, that money will have to be paid back. Why do you characterize business investment - such as hiring and training employees - as "unneeded," whereas the government paying those people to learn how to sleep to 11:00 and convert foodstamps to cash is "constructive?"

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: EBalAnyway, given negative real interest rate and a lot of people willing to buy the US debt, why not borrow more and spend on constructive things?It is not negative 99.99%. In some hypothetical future scenarios, that money will have to be paid back. Why do you characterize business investment - such as hiring and training employees - as "unneeded," whereas the government paying those people to learn how to sleep to 11:00 and convert foodstamps to cash is "constructive?"I am not characterizing anything, I just said that one possible explanation is that it is lack of demand that makes businesses unwilling to hire employees right now. By constructive I mean building infrastructure, investing in education, research, etc, stuff that private businesses are unable to do on their own, not some redistribution scheme.

Without anything else to chew on, where are the exit polls? According to the story linked on drudge, the quarantine came off at 5:00. My guess is that the polls are so stupid, the news organizations don't take them seriously enough to report them as news.

QuoteOriginally posted by: EBalI am not characterizing anything, I just said that one possible explanation is that it is lack of demand that makes businesses unwilling to hire employees right now.Demand is only strong or lacking when balanced against cost of supply. You posted that lower cost, in the form of lower tax and lower regulation, would cause investment to meet demand, but that such investment would be "unneeded."

Anyway, the 1% with all their damn spaceships and IT systems, seem pretty damn good at investing. Compared to the government, who promised to pay 9 union guys to stand watching while 1 digs a hole, but ended up giving it to Obama campaign bundlers, who blew it on worthless solar parts from overseas.

QuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarWell, OK.But how do you make it mandatory? With one word. Education.

QuoteAnd you know, given that money grows exponentially, things like "a third of cumulative overspending" sounds like more of the scare talk. Debt growth exponentially, so does gdp. Under Obama debt to gdp grew more than 50%. Plot FDEBTOTA index on bloomberg, it went from 40.5 to 67.7. It hasn't been there since end of 40th. Is it scare talk?QuoteAnyway, given negative real interest rate and a lot of people willing to buy the US debt, why not borrow more and spend on constructive things?Well, sir -- it depends. US refinances debt constantly. Today's 10 year treasury is 1.75% yield, average over last 60 or 30 years is 6%, that is a spread of 4.25%. Assuming that US refinances it's debt just 4% higher than now means addition of $640 billion dollars every year. Question is, will those constructive things generate cash to pay for it? Help me out, tell how and why aren't they doing this now. Also, how are you going to pay back principal without growing GDP? Interestingly, at the same moment of truth someone will need to bail the Fed that is sitting currently on almost $3T of paper backed by tiny capital. Assuming duration of 5, that is pretty conservative, Fed will need at this moment about $3T * 0.04 *5 ~ $.6T more capital to keep deposits that it has now. Where is this capital coming from? Other than that everything is kosher in the kingdom of Denmark, i agree. As was described in that children's song, "Все хорошо, прекрасная маркиза..."