Politics don't make strange bedfellows, he's just not really a Democrat.

Nelson is a pretty right leaning Democrat/centrist (depending on how you look at it). Ben Nelson has always supported tax cuts. He was the only Democrat in 2001 to support the tax cuts, so why would he change now? He has led a movement in the past to make cuts to Head Start, science programs, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, while increasing spending on defense and procurement. He also leveraged his vote on health care to prohibit the use of funds providing for abortions, as well as his whole "government will pay for Medicare in my state" scheme.

The guy is basically a Republican on a lot of issues. He's been endorsed by the NRA, the National Chamber of Commerce, Nebraska Right to Life, and a myriad of other conservative groups.

(And yes, I got all of my facts from Wikipedia.)

9/9/2010 10:14:05 PM

^ Um. . .yeah. Thanks for "educating" me--I'm well aware of Nelson's politics. Funny how you chose to focus only on him.

How do explain the support of Peter Orszag, Obama's former OMB director, for extending the Bush tax cuts? What's he running for? And how do you explain other Democrats either coming out in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts or remaining silent and not rejecting the idea?

As to the "politics makes strange bedfellows" notion, you can take that debate up with history. The concept goes back centuries, probably to Shakespeare's time, at least.

Here's one editorial cartoon depicting the concept from the 1800s:

9/10/2010 2:50:17 AM

You're right, but your choice of Nelson was extremely poor.

9/10/2010 7:02:55 AM

Break out your vuvuzelas kids! The recession is over!

http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html

Quote :

"The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday by conference call. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in June 2009. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in December 2007 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 18 months, which makes it the longest of any recession since World War II. Previously the longest postwar recessions were those of 1973-75 and 1981-82, both of which lasted 16 months"

Obama put the fucking kibosh on the worst recession in 80 years, and in less than 6 months into his first term. wtg Mr. President!

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : :-|]

9/20/2010 11:16:04 AM

Actually, this means that the recession ended back in 2009, so Obama cannot blame the recession for the current high unemployment rate. All that leaves to blame is the regime uncertainty he himself created with runaway government spending and regulatory uncertainty through cap-and-trade, card check, and healthcare overhaul.

9/20/2010 11:23:23 AM

I blame Bush.

9/20/2010 11:53:14 AM

^^^ Where you being facetious? If not, please describe how Obama achieved this.

9/20/2010 12:18:35 PM

PLEASE DESCRIBE!!!

9/20/2010 12:22:01 PM

^ Do you have anything to offer? Or do you swoop into threads simply in an attempt to ridicule?

Feel free to answer the question about the economy. You're so smart and all.

9/20/2010 12:33:58 PM

You have to read between the lines in my posts. There's plenty of insight there if you choose to be open-minded about it.

9/20/2010 12:51:13 PM

So, the answer is no.

9/20/2010 1:19:05 PM

You just don't get it, you poor bastard.

9/20/2010 1:32:02 PM

Don't insult me. Just answer the question, smart guy.

9/20/2010 1:33:58 PM

If I may contribute, for a moment. Hooksaw, while I am uncertain if quantumfred is making his statement tongue-in-cheek since I have not been around enough to get a feel for his political leanings I do still believe the implication some are taking away is clear.

When using certain metrics to indicate the inception of a recession it is entirely fair to use those same metrics as metering stick for when the recession has ended, and based on those metrics the "recession has ended" and has done so under Obama's presidency and in very little time.

However, as a caveat, might I suggest meditatus radix. In the modern day news anything that can be reported is considered as fact until it has been disproved where the story is then swiftly allowed to fade away in the news cycle. Truth, here, is a relative term and if the economy begins to improve Obama's legacy will be that he quelled the recession in 6months; conversely, if things shift downward only then will his policies be viewed as failed.

9/21/2010 8:43:18 AM

And by that definition, the Great Depression ended in March 1933.

9/21/2010 8:50:42 AM

^^ Interesting. But if you'll check this thread, you'll see I have consistently indicated (1) that presidents don't control the economy and (2) that presidents get the credit or the blame for things that happen on their watch, whether they had much or anything to do with the events or not--your very point.

If some here and elsewhere wish to claim, "Hey, this happened on my guy's [Obama's ] watch, so he gets the credit," I can accept this. But don't claim that your guy's policies actually ended the recession in about a five-month period--that's just bullshit.

As you can see here, I have asked for explanations as to how Obama achieved this "end" to the recession in question, and you can also see that no answers were readily available--because they don't exist. Some here will, of course, Google furiously and present a case in the days ahead and going into the midterm elections for Obama and friends to receive some form of credit for this "victory" on paper. I also understand this.

But all of this ignores the fact that, despite the NBER report, economic conditions are not better for many people--this is the position of much of Obama's own constituency and even Obama himself. Furthermore, Obama's opponents have been making the case--with growing evidence to support it--that his economic policies have not only not worked but probably have made things even worse.

9/21/2010 11:29:26 AM

Looks like another one is jumping ship.

Top White House Economic Adviser to Depart
September 21, 2010

Quote :

"Lawrence H. Summers, who for nearly two years has been the architect of President Obama’s economic policies, is leaving the White House to return to Harvard University at the end of the year, the White House announced on Tuesday."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/top-white-house-economic-adviser-to-depart/

9/21/2010 5:58:00 PM

^ i cant believe harvard would take him back after he destroyed their endowment with his reckless investing.


The economy just keeps getting worse and worse and now the news out there says they are about to destroy the dollar.

LOOK OUT, it's only getting worse. I wish I could elect to take my salary in yuan.

9/27/2010 8:27:19 PM

don't you mean gold?

9/27/2010 8:44:11 PM

Quote :

"I wish I could elect to take my salary in yuan."

I'm sure you don't realize how fucking stupid this is. Shit man if you even watched the news you'd know about china's exchange rate.

9/27/2010 11:02:52 PM

Quote :

" i cant believe harvard would take him back after he destroyed their endowment with his reckless investing. "

Why wouldn't they? They now have a (better?) inside track to the very top of government. They'll no doubt leverage that in some way to repair the endowment.

9/28/2010 7:38:50 AM

^mildy retarded post, everyone knows the yuan is being supressed therefore I would get way more yuan than I'm supposed to get in exchange for my overvalued dollar.

When the yuan bursts to its natural level eventually I will enjoy the appreciation, obviously.

9/28/2010 11:08:06 AM

Sorry, can't edit my post on my phone for some reason but I meant to do two ^^'s

Anyway, any rational person would prefer to be paid in an undervalued currency than an overvalued currency.

9/28/2010 11:34:38 AM

well fuck, its fixed, buy it, buy as much as you want, the chinese will be happy to take your dollar.

9/28/2010 12:08:12 PM

I didn't wanna make a new thread so I'll just stick this here...

I've been reading a lot about the high, unmet demand for Section 8 housing and vouchers...and I think I might be coming around to a conservative/libertarian view on this issue. Landlords are charging too much for rent, and people, many of whom work full-time, can't afford housing. That's ridiculous, and the people need relief.

But it seems like the government vouchers are keeping housing costs artificially high. So people end up having to scrounge around for 900 bucks (or whatever) every month and hope/pray to get on Section 8. Really, the rent should be 600 bucks, and Section 8 should be unnecessary.

In a city where there is a high demand for housing, and affluent people are willing to pay a lot for it, how are the working poor supposed to afford it? It's a conundrum for me. So help me out, TWW!

9/28/2010 12:27:03 PM

You don't want currency. Commodities, gold, silver, other natural resources...that's what you want to buy with your dollars. It's been a competitive currency devaluation game, you don't want to get caught up in it.

9/28/2010 12:33:26 PM

It's not just vouchers keeping the price of houses high. Artificial demand has been created by low interest rates, tax credits that encourage people to take out a mortgage, mortgage lenders not doing their homework, and a joke of a credit rating industry. Most of that was brought about the prevailing view that people borrowing a lot of money to live in a house was a good thing.

I don't happen to agree. Many people are in a position to rent, and they're better off. Someone started the myth that housing is an investment, rather than a necessary expense. In any case, the average home price should be much lower. If we removed the props, prices would go down substantially. For the people that thought their house was a "nestegg," that's going to be devastating. These are the victims of the bubble. If we want to get back to a remotely legitimate housing market, it has to happen.

9/28/2010 1:41:51 PM

Rent Subsidies, by themselves, can only increase rents in the short to medium term. In the long-term, rents are set by the price of building materials, land, the prevailing rate of interest, and regulatory barriers. Lots of land cannot be built on and other land has been told what must be built upon it by zoning restrictions. Even ignoring virgin territory, quite a lot more rental space would exist if just existing land owners were freed from minimum parking requirements and allowed to expand and subdivided existing residential space. Land prices are also driven up by government rules pertaining to transportation, as mismanagement of bus service makes increasing density infeasible. Restrictions also exist upon who is allowed to build (union rules, mob interference, etc).

While this explains why renting in New York would cost a tiny fraction what it does now if New Yorkers were set free to expand the supply of rental space, I don't think rents would fall much here in Raleigh, maybe 20% at the most.

[Edited on September 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/29/2010 8:58:11 AM

Quote :

"Dollars, euros, and yen are all just currencies you can price any asset in. Everything is cheap or expensive relative to the currency you hold. Thus if gold is truly a world currency, then the S&P 500 index of U.S. stocks is dirt cheap when priced in it. For every ounce of gold, you can now buy more than five times the amount of stocks you could have ten years ago, as shown below. The tricky question is where this stocks-to-gold ratio will go over the next ten years:"

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-sp-500-gold-2010-9#ixzz111TxuMSh

9/30/2010 10:26:17 AM

Hey you don't have to sell me on gold I bought at $775 and was on here preaching that gospel in 2008 when everyone thought it was a bubble.

I just don't think my company is going to offer that option.

As far as converting my dollars I don't have to because I rarely have more than $1-$2k I'm not dumb enough to keep anything substantial in dollars.

Yes most of my investments are denominated in dollars, but they go up in price to offset most of the dollar decline.

If the euro collapsed over greece scare just imagine what is going to happen when japan defaults next... If their interest rates were to hit 3.5pct they'd immediately be unable to service their debt...

I'd set dollar panic for about 2016 on my alarm clock. What's coming down the pipe is going to make this terrible month look like a walk in the park

9/30/2010 10:37:47 AM

This is less about gold itself than the chimera the the US economy has been since the economic bubble of the late 90s popped. Arguably, we haven't had a stable and sustainable economy since the 1960s.

9/30/2010 10:46:31 AM

The time honored adage "you can't eat gold" is somewhat valid. In a true hyperinflationary episode, which may be coming, people lose faith in the currency. It's not like regular inflation, where the value of the money goes down. People will suddenly begin exchanging their dollars for anything they can. Gold will spike. Silver will go up even more. The price of food and energy will skyrocket. The cost of durable goods, including housing, electronics, and cars, will hit bottom. Gold will be nice to have, because you'll be able to get a ton of stuff with it, but what will be even more important is a supply of food and fresh water.

9/30/2010 12:31:29 PM

We aren't close to a hyper inflationary episode. Not at all. Before that happens we'll have to see another massive round of quantitative easing. Then we'll be able to reassess what the sentiment is. As it is now, we've created a lot of digital money but it isn't finding its way into the economy yet.

9/30/2010 4:56:12 PM

Concise read about aggregate demand/supply (this is a link to a .pdf)

http://tinyurl.com/2e4qprf

10/3/2010 12:14:25 PM

^ thats a great read although im sure its over most peoples heads on this board.

Here is a terrific article that dumbs everything down with metaphors for the common folk.

Quote :

"The Race To The Bottom Long ago, before economic models developed their current levels of sophistication, it used to be that the goal of a government's economic policy was to bring prosperity to its citizens; in other words, to raise the general level of material comfort, while at the same time reducing the amount of toil required to attain that end. However, due to the blather spouted by modern economists, success is no longer measured in those terms. Instead, governments simply look to pump up nominal levels of gross domestic product (GDP), while simultaneously catering to the needs of entrenched political classes. As exports feed directly into GDP, currency devaluation has been widely used as a means to boost exports and therefore achieve 'prosperity.' In this model, selling is an end unto itself. There is no focus whatsoever paid to the obviously negative consequences of currency debasement: diminished purchasing power and lowered living standards. Way back in the 20th century, a nation's currency was viewed much as a company's stock price. The reliability, competitiveness, and growth of a national economy usually translated into a strong currency. This system made sense. Countries that offered the most fertile soil for investment capital or that made products other countries wanted would attract funds from abroad. Demand for the currency of these "blue chip" countries (which was needed to invest or buy locally) would inevitably push up the value of the currency. And so, much as shareholders of successful companies are rewarded by higher stock prices, citizens of successful countries were rewarded with stronger currencies - with which they could buy more goods and services both domestically and internationally, raising their living standards. But all that has changed in recent years. With a strategy that seems to be taken from the playbook of Sam Walton, governments now look to take market share from competitors by lowering the cost of their exports. To do this, they have adopted a beggar-thyself policy of habitual currency debasement. Although such a move may benefit those who buy the products, it is a burden to the country's own workers who, like Wal-Mart employees, have to get by on subsistence wages. While the markets like a low-cost provider, this is not a niche that everyone can, or should, fill. While some will compete only on price, more successful ventures will compete on quality and innovation. For every Kia, there is a Mercedes Benz. Given the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, America's oversized status as the world's biggest consumer, and the influence of overseas export-oriented businesses on their home governments, the falling dollar is a difficult issue for many countries to ignore. And with the imminent arrival of a second round of 'quantitative easing' from the Fed, the big guns of dollar destruction are being locked and loaded. The move looks poised to set off a frantic race to the bottom among global currencies, which will have important ramifications for every investor. Unfortunately, this is one race the United States is poised to win. The goal of those trying to win the race to the bottom is to promote exports and create jobs. However, people don't work simply for their love of labor. They work so that they can earn enough to consume the things they need and want. Under normal conditions, a nation only exports its production, rather than consuming it domestically, to leverage its comparative advantages. If a country can produce one type of good especially efficiently, it can trade that good for other goods it doesn't make as efficiently at home. As a result of this process, its citizens will be able to consume more goods than if consumption had been limited to domestically produced goods. However, when a government debases its currency in order to gain sales overseas, the nation earns less foreign exchange for the goods that it exports. As a result, its comparative advantage is blunted, and its citizens consume less as a result. In other words, as a nation's currency declines, its citizens are forced to work harder for less. If a department store decided to have a sale in which all of its merchandise were marked down 50%, it will surely sell a lot more stuff. However, it would earn a lot less than if it had been able to sell its goods without marking them down. This is how currency debasement works. Similarly, one way for the unemployed to get work is to accept lower wages. Workers will sell a lot more of their labor if they accept 50% pay cuts. However, are they better off as a result? Relative to being unemployed, the answer is yes - but they would be much better off being employed at full pay. Last week, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega made headlines when he mentioned that a worldwide currency war was brewing, with the winner being the nation with the weakest currency. Ignoring the irony of why countries would want to destroy their own currencies, Mantega reasonably warned that the conflict could get out of hand and destabilize the global economy. His comments came in the wake of overt efforts by both the Japanese and Swiss governments to intervene in the foreign exchange market to push down their respective currencies. The politics of currency intervention are actually quite simple. Japan's economy is dominated by large manufacturers that export lots of goods to Americans. The problem is that Americans can't really afford to buy in the quantities that they did just a few years ago. So, instead of looking for new customers with more money to spend, Japanese manufacturers use their political clout to force a bailout of their traditional US customers. Essentially, in order to protect the status quo of their elite, governments are surreptitiously forcing workers to take pay cuts through inflation. Everyone works harder, but the extra effort does not raise living standards. In fact, despite the added jobs, overall consumption will fall. The irony for the United States is that its currency debasement plan has little to do with saving export jobs. We don't have many of those left to save. The government is debasing our currency merely to 'pay' its own bills, preserve bank profits and Wall Street bonuses, allow us to continue buying homes we can't afford, and prevent many service-sector workers from having to find more productive jobs. In return, they will perpetuate an unworkable economic model. So while the US will probably 'win' the currency war, we will definitely lose the far more important battle to improve our quality of life."

[Edited on October 3, 2010 at 9:44 PM. Reason : Schiff for the win as always]

10/3/2010 9:44:22 PM

Interesting read

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/the-10-biggest-myths-about-gold.aspx

10/4/2010 1:39:24 PM

Quote :

"In his latest note, David Rosenberg of Gluskin-Sheff says you should ignore recent data showing that personal income is growing again. Why? Because as the chart below shows, more than ever, personal income is comprised of government transfer payments, not actually real income derived from the productive part of society. But maybe that's no big deal. We're getting older all the time, so naturally things like Social Security are going to comprise more and more of our income. Obviously the recession has hurt a lot, but due to demographics alone, we could see this chart go up and to the right for a long time."

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-government-transfers-as-a-share-of-disposable-income-2010-10

10/4/2010 5:45:53 PM

We're fucked. Likely another 8 years of this crap culminating in one nasty shock to the system and finally the end of this shitty corporatacry we have today.

10/4/2010 10:13:20 PM

And here I thought it was a unionocracy: run for the benefit of government employees.

10/5/2010 8:53:28 AM

This is a must see for those who like real economics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPtFLNq7NWU&feature=player_embedded#!

10/5/2010 6:34:07 PM

I hope that isn't a fucking Peter Schiff video.

10/5/2010 10:01:09 PM

I love these chuckleheads in the MSM. Dow 11000? Is the economy finally recovered? Then the chucklehead economist gets up there and starts trying to come up with good data points as an explanation for the recent rally in the Stock Markets. Then goes on to say "I'm not sure more QE is going to be necessary" completely oblivious to the fact that talk about it (and dollar killing) is precisely why the markets are up. And of course, no mention of the fact that on a dollar adjusted terms, the rally has basically left you with no wealth gain on most of your equities.

10/6/2010 7:10:16 AM

^ why would you blast the peter schiff video and then try to pass off all its main points as your own?

you can't watch a video and steal its contents then act like the video is stupid

10/6/2010 7:22:33 AM

I just got around to watching your link, and I'm not sure how you can claim I took all of his main points...unless by all you mean "the dollar is being debased, looked how much it fell in September" which was his only point in that entire 9:55.

I think Schiff is going to be a good intermediate term contrary indicator. The short the dollar trade has gotten crowded as hell lately, gold/silver has a huge pocket of air above it, and sentiment on daily and weekly time frames for the S&P, dollar, etc are calling for at least a temporary correction.

Granted, the market can stay overbought for longer than we can stay solvent and taking the Fed at it's word has proved to be the trade since March '09 so we can expect the dollar will likely continue it's march south after a shakeout. The problem happens when the market and inflation rallies so strongly into what would be the QE2.0 annoucement that they won't be able to announce as large a package as they'd like, which would result in an immediate 3% down day.

10/6/2010 8:07:16 PM

Stimulus is rockin' it eh?

10/8/2010 7:20:43 PM

Interesting interview with David Stockman:

Quote :

"Stockman, Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985, initially became famous for his zeal in slashing government spending on almost everything except defense. Less government and lower taxes, he fervently believed, would ultimately mean more prosperity for everyone. But he will be best remembered for confessing, in an interview with William Greider for The Atlantic Monthly, his disillusionment with the “supply-side” economic policies that led to soaring deficits under Reagan. “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers,’’ he declared, along with many other criticisms that nearly got him fired."

http://tiny.cc/vykm291sav

10/10/2010 10:01:26 AM

The hubris that politicians think they can do much more than ever so gently nudge the economy and get a positive outcome is why we are where we are. These are people that have typically had everything handed to them and now all they want to do is grab more power, to feel like they did something. It takes a real strong leader to say "I don't know, let me just stay out of the way (effectively, putting myself out of a job)". Both sides do it, its just the matter of what flavor they want to serve.

I really do believe at some point were going to hit the wall where politicians can't continue to placate the populous with money generated via debt creation. Once we hit that wall, the people will be forced to wake up (because they won't be able to eat) and we'll get a new awakening. It's going to take awhile, but I think we get there because on this go round, we don't have a war and a destroyed non-US industrial base which we can prosper from.

10/10/2010 12:59:57 PM

The leader that does that will be hated for it. He or she will essentially be playing the role of "the mean dad" that says no when the kids beg for something at the store. I'm positive that it will not be a happy, peaceful shift towards a real economy. People will kick and scream the entire way.

When all this bad debt is finally allowed to clear from the market, I'm worried about who will be there to rebuild. Are we going to see this spun by leaders/media that this it was another failure of "free market capitalism?" We can't allow that to happen.

10/10/2010 1:56:46 PM

Quote :

"The leader that does that will be hated for it. He or she will essentially be playing the role of "the mean dad" that says no when the kids beg for something at the store. I'm positive that it will not be a happy, peaceful shift towards a real economy. People will kick and scream the entire way."

I disagree. Right now, our economy is owned mostly by banks and the military industrial complex. Our populous doesnt really understand that. What they understand is we are continually at war (against a tactic no less) and the risk of job loss is great. I think most people will appreciate the honest truth that they have been lied to for decades and the fix isn't going to be easy. SS benefits for our generation will have to be reduced, retirement ages raised, and entitlement programs cut. In return, the largest banks will be forcibly split and limits on their size will be imposed. The wars will be stopped. And the central bank will have to operate in the open or be eliminated. Powerful people that committed fraud have to go to jail. And...the cure for the economy may take a decade or more.

Quote :

"Are we going to see this spun by leaders/media that this it was another failure of "free market capitalism?" "

Hopefully what will be told is that greedy people did risky things and then we socialized their losses and we'll never do it again.

10/10/2010 7:46:57 PM

^ I really think you are overestimating the intelligence of our population.

If you look at it historically the likely outcome is that the US goes through ~20 years of pain or so before they finally default and our country is allowed to start over fresh.

The biggest thing in our favor is that with the information age many more people have access to information to understand what is happening... I still doubt that will be enough.

Watch the republicans roll in Novemeber but then the politicians will still fuck the citizens and continue to rob our nation blind (albeit not as badly as the Obama maniacs have done)

10/10/2010 9:55:14 PM