SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (13835)6/16/2009 1:39:59 PM
From: pompsander  Respond to of 103300
 
At the risk of again being branded a republican-basher, here is another cogent discussion of the Republican dilemma...one that can't be solved by the boys in power now.
_________________________________________

Texas Could Soon Be a Republican Presidential Nightmare
June 15, 2009 10:09 AM ET | John Aloysius Farrell | Permanent Link | Print
By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The conference on the future of U.S. politics, convened at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday, has come and gone, leaving in its wake more bad news for the Republican Party.

I know. You're asking: "So what else is new?" The GOP has been taking a beating in the public opinion polls of late. What makes this particular set of portends scary for Republicans is that the conferees were not studying mere polling snapshots. They were dealing with demography—long-term trends regarding various voting groups identified by age, race and geographic location. And in politics, demography is destiny.

I'm going to highlight some of the findings as the week progresses. I'll begin today with race.

Here's the bottom line: As the white vote continues to shrink in America, the Democrats are doing a much better job attracting voters of African, Latino and Asian ancestry. Especially in key Electoral College states.

The Brookings Institution's William Frey delivered the numbers.

The Democrats did better last year among white folks. In 2008, Republican John McCain carried the white vote by 12 points, a poorer showing than George W. Bush, who beat John Kerry by 17 points among white voters in 2004. And because so much of the Republican margin among white voters was built up in the South, Barack Obama was able to win 223 electoral votes in the rest of the country (up from Kerry's 62 electoral votes) by winning white majorities in those states.
As might be expected, the nation's first African-American president carried black voters by 91 points, up from Kerry's 77-point victory in 2004. That was important. But also crucial was Obama's margin among other minority voters. He did 16 points better among Latino voters and 15 points better among Asian-Americans than Kerry did in 2004.
And, perhaps most significantly, the current preference shown by minority voters for Democrats is taking place as the minority share of the electorate increases. The percentage of voters who were white slipped between 2004 and 2008, from 79 to 76 percent.
The trends in age favor the party that appeals to all races. About 77 percent of white Americans and 66 percent of black Americans are over 18 and eligible to vote, but the Latino population has a huge baby boom on the way. Some 45 percent of Latino America is still under the age of 18. Even without further immigration, the importance of Latino voters is, proportionately, going to continue to grow.
To be sure, the clout of minority voters has historically been minimized by their reluctance to turnout and vote on Election Day. And, in 2008, white turnout once again led all racial groups. But, here again, the trends favor a party that pitches the biggest tent, and right now that is the Democrats. Turnout for white voters slipped a point from 67 to 66 percent between 2004 and 2008, but in all other groups it climbed. The turnout of black voters went from 60 to 65 percent, for Latinos from 47 to 50 percent and for Asian-Americans from 45 to 48 percent.

What does this mean for presidential elections? Well, let's look at the classic big swing state of Florida. In 2004 and 2008 in Florida, the results among white voters were pretty much the same. Bush carried the state's white population by 15 points in 2004 and McCain by 14 points in 2008. But Obama won black voters by 92 points in 2008 (up from Kerry's 73-point margin in 2004) and turned the Latino vote around. Though Bush carried Florida's Latinos by 12 points in 2004, McCain lost them by 15 points in 2008. And as the Democrats were doing better among minority voters in Florida, the minority share of the electorate was growing. White voters made up 76 percent of the vote in Florida in 2004 and but 71 percent in 2008.

For a party that carries Latino voters by healthy margins, it doesn't take much to tilt a Red state into the Blue or Purple columns. Latinos comprise 21 percent of the population (and 15 percent of the vote) in purple Florida, and 37 percent of the population (and 21 percent of the vote) in blue California. Both went Democratic last year.

The real nightmare for Republican strategists, sifting through these statistics, has to be Texas—which, like California and a few others, is now a majority minority state.

According to Frey's charts, 40 percent of the population in Texas, but only 20 percent of the vote, is Latino. If Latinos continue to vote with the Democrats, and the Dems ever find a way to get them to the polls in Texas, the last of the three great Republican Sunbelt bastions could fall.

usnews.com



To: pompsander who wrote (13835)6/16/2009 1:46:39 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 103300
 
The amount of wishful thinking that's emanating from the continent probably exceeds anything we are seeing on this side of the pond... or anything out of Asia either, for that matter.

(Asia - perhaps conditioned by the Asian Currency Crisis of the recent past - has been quicker off the mark to react, and - despite all the histrionics and America bashing that I guess is traditional over here - we too have been quicker off the mark... quicker to write-off bad debts and quicker with quantitative easing.)

While probably no one deserves truly high marks... America, as per usual, has been acting more flexibly and more rapidly....



To: pompsander who wrote (13835)6/16/2009 5:37:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof1 Recommendation  Respond to of 103300
 
The recession tracks the Great Depression

By Martin Wolf
Published: June 16 2009 19:41
Last updated: June 16 2009 19:41
ft.com



Green shoots are bursting out. Or so we are told. But before concluding that the recession will soon be over, we must ask what history tells us. It is one of the guides we have to our present predicament. Fortunately, we do have the data. Unfortunately, the story they tell is an unhappy one.

Two economic historians, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin O’Rourke of Trinity College, Dublin, have provided pictures worth more than a thousand words (see charts).* In their paper, Profs Eichengreen and O’Rourke date the beginning of the current global recession to April 2008 and that of the Great Depression to June 1929. So what are their conclusions on where we are a little over a year into the recession? The bad news is that this recession fully matches the early part of the Great Depression. The good news is that the worst can still be averted.

First, global industrial output tracks the decline in industrial output during the Great Depression horrifyingly closely. Within Europe, the decline in the industrial output of France and Italy has been worse than at this point in the 1930s, while that of the UK and Germany is much the same. The declines in the US and Canada are also close to those in the 1930s. But Japan’s industrial collapse has been far worse than in the 1930s, despite a very recent recovery.

Second, the collapse in the volume of world trade has been far worse than during the first year of the Great Depression. Indeed, the decline in world trade in the first year is equal to that in the first two years of the Great Depression. This is not because of protection, but because of collapsing demand for manufactures.

Third, despite the recent bounce, the decline in world stock markets is far bigger than in the corresponding period of the Great Depression.

The two authors sum up starkly: “Globally we are tracking or doing even worse than the Great Depression . . . This is a Depression-sized event.”

Yet what gave the Great Depression its name was a brutal decline over three years. This time the world is applying the lessons taken from that event by John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman, the two most influential economists of the 20th century. The policy response suggests that the disaster will not be repeated.

Profs Eichengreen and O’Rourke describe this contrast. During the Great Depression, the weighted average discount rate of the seven leading economies never fell below 3 per cent. Today it is close to zero. Even the European Central Bank, most hawkish of the big central banks, has lowered its rate to 1 per cent. Again, during the Great Depression, money supply collapsed. But this time it has continued to rise. Indeed, the combination of strong monetary growth with deep recession raises doubts about the monetarist explanation for the Great Depression. Finally, fiscal policy has been far more aggressive this time. In the early 1930s the weighted average deficit for 24 significant countries remained smaller than 4 per cent of gross domestic product. Today, fiscal deficits will be far higher. In the US, the general government deficit is expected to be almost 14 per cent of GDP.

All this is consistent with the conclusions of an already classic paper by Carmen Reinhart of the university of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard.** Financial crises cause deep economic crises. The impact of a global financial crisis should be particularly severe. Moreover, “the real value of government debt tends to explode, rising an average of 86 per cent in the major post–World War II episodes”. The chief reason is not the “bail-outs” of banks but the recessions. After the fact, runaway private lending turns into public spending and mountains of debt. Creditworthy governments will not accept the alternative of a big slump.

The question is whether today’s unprecedented stimulus will offset the effect of financial collapse and unprecedented accumulations of private sector debt in the US and elsewhere. If the former wins, we will soon see a positive deviation from the path of the Great Depression. If the latter wins, we will not. What everybody hopes is clear. But what should we expect?

We are seeing a race between the repair of private balance sheets and global rebalancing of demand, on the one hand, and the sustainability of stimulus, on the other.



Robust private sector demand will return only once the balance sheets of over-indebted households, overborrowed businesses and undercapitalised financial sectors are repaired or when countries with high savings rates consume or invest more. None of this is likely to be quick. Indeed, it is far more likely to take years, given the extraordinary debt accumulations of the past decade. Over the past two quarters, for example, US households repaid just 3.1 per cent of their debt. Deleveraging is a lengthy process. Meanwhile, the federal government has become the only significant borrower. Similarly, the Chinese government can swiftly expand investment. But it is harder for policy to raise levels of consumption.

The great likelihood is that the world economy will need aggressive monetary and fiscal policies far longer than many believe. That is going to be make policymakers – and investors – nervous.

Two opposing dangers arise. One is that the stimulus is withdrawn too soon, as happened in the 1930s and in Japan in the late 1990s. There will then be a relapse into recession, because the private sector is still unable, or unwilling, to spend. The other danger is that stimulus is withdrawn too late. That would lead to a loss of confidence in monetary stability worsened by concerns over the sustainability of public debt, particularly in the US, the provider of the world’s key currency. At the limit, soaring dollar prices of commodities and rising long-term interest rates on government bonds might put the US – and world economies – into a malign stagflation. Contrary to some alarmists, I see no signs of such a panic today. But it might happen.

Last year the world economy tipped over into a slump. The policy response has been massive. But those sure we are at the beginning of a robust private sector-led recovery are almost certainly deluded. The race to full recovery is likely to be long, hard and uncertain.

* ‘A Tale of Two Depressions’, June 2009, www.voxeu.org; ** ‘The Aftermath of Financial Crises’, Working Paper 14656, www.nber.org.

martin.wolf@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009