Random Thoughts

It's time Oct 30th 2008 From The Economist print edition America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world ... For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead. ... _________________________________________ The New York Times endorsed Obama, as did The Chicago Tribune and The LA Times . Next up, The Wall Street Journal ??? It would be not be beyond the realm of possibility

I have become quite fond of EnviroInks.com , a company that sells aftermarket printer cartridges in an environmentally friendly way, at less than half the price you would pay for them elsewhere. They reuse the empty cartridges you send them back and they give you recycle credit that you could use on your next purchase. Plus, every shipment includes multiple bags so that you can send them old cartridges and cellphones. I love the company for its overall business model. I have had little interaction with their customer service but I suspect it is pretty awesome. Before I forget, let me put my full endorsement of EnviroInks.

... and ME.

In January 2008, I remember people in the U.S. freaking out about Merrill Lynch and Citigroup being buoyed by sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East. Obviously, people had predictably turned paranoid and protectionist at a time when it was assumed that there were options that would not jeopardize American national interests. Of course, these events give the already anxious and fearful population more of a reason to think America is declining. I personally found it ironic that these sovereign wealth funds are allowed to finance the U.S. federal deficit, but people get outraged when these same funds invest in iconic American institutions like Merrrill Lynch. Anyway, the public is fairly ignorant about these issues, so the reaction is not all that surprising. What I wanted to raise in this post is how the American public would react if sovereign wealth funds jumped in to rescue the American financial system instead of the U.S. government reluctantly passing a $700+ bi

Obama and McCain had at one point both agreed to take public financing in September 2007 if they were their respective party's nominee. At the time, they were both long shots to get their party's nomination, but oddly enough they have both made it to the general election. As for their promise to take public financing, McCain decided to keep his promise while Obama opted to finance his campaign through his own fundraising. In doing so, he became the first ever presidential candidate to forego public financing during the general election. In February 2008, McCain started criticizing Obama for not keeping his promise to take public financing. How legitimate are McCain's accusations? That's what I wanted to discuss. According to The New York Times campaign finance page , Obama and McCain raised $401m and ~$150m, respectively, prior to earning their party's nomination. The public financing package is $84m over two months (Sept-Nov). For McCain, whose averaged $7.

In my previous posts, I have argued that democrats have simply been better stewards of the economy in the past, particularly in the last 60 years. Tax-and-spend Liberal My Ass Politics of the Federal Minimum Wage Democrats Have Kept Unemployment Low Democrats care about poor people Truth About Economic Performance of Political Parties In this post, I will discuss a recent graphic that further consolidates the view that the US economy has performed better under democratic presidents than republican ones. As I have noted before, there are many factors that affect the performance of the US economy aside from who is in the White House. Those factors notwithstanding, the whole narrative of a good economy under democratic administrations had been consistently true. Tommy McCall provided a stark graphic at The New York Times called Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants . In there, he compares the performance of the stock market (S&P 90 * S&P 500) during Democratic and Republica

What annoys me most about the presidential campaign is how every candidate and surrogate dumbs down everything to a few campaign talking points. The very intelligent candidates and highly accomplished surrogates never answer real questions and always choose to revert to their stump speeches. That would be acceptable in a Third World nation with a literacy rate of 50%, but not in America. The dumbing down is an insult to the highly engaged and worried public that is looking for solutions.

During times of great economic crisis and debate, the opinions of economists are as important as any other groups. The Economist did a great service to its readers by surveying as many prominent economists as they could and here is what they found out. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither . This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that ; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. On our o

Barack Obama has been my candidate of choice from the beginning. I have outlined a few of the reasons I support him . One I didn't mention is the issue of foreign aid. As I discussed earlier, US government's foreign aid as a % of its GDP is one of the lowest for any developed nation. Economic Aid to Developing Countries - The Stats To make it worse, much of the aid is given to two sources: Military and economic aid to Israel and Egypt to keep some peace in the Middle East Colombia, Peru and Bolivia to fight drug The tiny bit that is left goes to countries where the US has foreign policy interests. The aid is used for political leverage. Here is where Barack Obama comes into the picture. He has said that diplomacy and restoration of American image in the world would be the pillars of his foreign policy. One way to improve America's image in the world is to provide more foreign aid, particularly one that is not directly used for political leveraging. Obama promised