Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Soultrader

US Election: Obama Vs McCain

Who will win the US election?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win the US election?

    • Obama will win
      15
    • McCain will win
      3


Recommended Posts

Parker and Stone had to have created two versions. I hope they make the other one available someday.

Yeah, I hear they have episodes on some schedule, but then within a week, can produce new ones based on current events. They could have just bet on Obama winning (and had a backup in case he didn't), or truly created two shows for both results.

 

edit: Then again, they poke fun at his grandmother dying, which was Monday. Damn they're fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While he's entitled to his opinion, I don't know that I'd call it "very understanding". The Republican experiment of the last forty years hasn't exactly been a screaming success. If Obama's approach is a recipe for failure, then I guess the Founding Fathers got it all wrong to begin with.

 

By recipe for failure, I'm talking about the phenomena based on pandering to hope. The world is very complex and few things move in a straight line, except disappointment. This doesn't mean Obama will fail, I don't think he will. But many people who were wrapped up in the idea of change and hope, could be disappointed in the years to come. Obama did well to sell security and hope to his base (the youth) and that's what won him the election. Bush did the same thing, he energized his base and won both elections. A huge majority of people vote based on emotion, and Obama's way of speaking, and his campaign for change did a great job to spark emotion in his favor. If McCain ran a more disciplined campaign, and had a vision, I firmly believe he would have won. McCain dropped the ball when it came to the economy, so bad that it hid the mistakes Obama made. Obama's organization on the ground was also much better, he even beat the Clintons at their own game. So in a sense, Obama is a political genius.

 

I do think Obama will be a good president. I think his diplomatic approach on foreign affairs will boost our image and get more accomplished with the aide of the EU and UN. I think this will be a true test for Democratic demand-side (or Keynesian) economics. But most importantly, in times such as these, I think Obama will be able to inspire the people. So while many problems will remain unsolved (not because of him, just the nature of the problems) his ability to inspire will allow for many people to love and hate him. I also think he will listen thoroughly to his advisors, and those against him, before making decisions. His nature to stay calm during a crisis (even the WSJ made this claim) will benefit his ability to make sound decisions. So while he may raise Brownsfan taxes, I think the country as a whole will benefit. And hopefully in the next 4-8 years the Republican party will re-establish itself, with a better vision, and hopefully learn from their mistakes.

 

Maybe Karl Rove was right, a war and economic downturn would force most of the partisanship in Washington to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one were to agree that Obama "pandered to hope", surely that is preferable to pandering to fear, suspicion, hatred, and intolerance.

 

And if Republicans agree with you that "selling security and hope" to his base is what won him the election, it is unlikely that they will re-establish themselves in four years, or eight, or perhaps ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=DbPhoenix;51774

And if Republicans agree with you that "selling security and hope" to his base is what won him the election' date=' it is unlikely that they will re-establish themselves in four years, or eight, or perhaps ever.[/quote]

 

Republicans don't agree with me on that; Plato wrote that in The Republic. I'm sure Machiavelli mentioned it too. It's a common way to gain (or preserve) power over others. You sell security in an insecure world, and people will follow you. Leaders have been doing that for hundreds of years, not just Republicans and Democrats.

Edited by james_gsx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, the markets are not thrilled that Obama won.

 

;)

 

Who suggested that? Smart cookie.

 

 

Again, you're smarter than that Chris. Now, everyone knows if McCain won this same thing would have happened and you would have called it a technical move.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8538&stc=1&d=1226035478

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8539&stc=1&d=1226035478

 

I'm starting to sense I'm just going to piss everyone off in this thread. So maybe I should stop posting.

spynov6.jpg.2b15d33da32962c74620d5a0a01933c3.jpg

spyvol.jpg.c568e7ddf0537b74f2ca3b3b16e76f6c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that the market is not thrilled about Obama, I think now that the focus on elections is over, now it's back to earnings and economy that takes the front seat again. That means, the crisis ain't over, not that the Obama or McCain will make the crisis go away overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if its been mentioned, but markets are statistically more inclined to move higher under democrat presidents than repub. That was first noted in 1950's (analysis of stock market trends was the book I think - a classic) and has been true ever since, or so I've read - haven't actually tested that one.

Markets do climb the "wall of worry".

Torero's right, this was a case of sell on the news. I doubt the markets would have rallied from an low volume overbought condition should McCain have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you're smarter than that Chris. Now, everyone knows if McCain won this same thing would have happened and you would have called it a technical move.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8538&stc=1&d=1226035478

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8539&stc=1&d=1226035478

 

I'm starting to sense I'm just going to piss everyone off in this thread. So maybe I should stop posting.

 

I disagree gsx. I honestly believe that if McCain won, the markets rally; and they fail on an Obama win. That's what I thought and I'm sticking to it.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a little off topic but I hope Obama actually addresses the root of what caused this financial problem. I threw something together for my friends and family about what caused this crisis and attached it here. The first half of it is me explaining some things I'm sure you are all aware of, the 2nd part actually digs into the crisis.

Crisis1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.