US politics and economics
ARGH.
I can't believe the March 4 nominating contests decided nothing. Well, I suppose there is McCain being officially crowned the Republican nominee, Huckabee dropping out, and Bush's endorsement of McCain. But that just makes the travesty of the Democratic nomination race even worse. Clinton won the big states of the night (and the tiniest one) though Obama kept up quite well. They still split states down the middle, just unevenly enough to give Clinton the advantage. As my Obama campaign e-mail informs me (those are annoying btw, always trying to solicit money from me :P) Clinton gained 187 delegates and Obama got 183. The next major nominating contest isn't until April 22, virtually two months from now. They need to settle this soon (sooner than April 22, if I had my way) because McCain is building. He has all the time now to sit and watch Clinton and Obama blow each other up.
Meanwhile, I'm just worrying my head off about the American economy which is in a recession. (People think it's in a recession therefore it is.) I read this piece in the NYT comparing the current US economic recession with the one in Japan in the 90s (the writer terms it as Japan's lost decade, that's how bleak it was). I find myself extremely wary about what the Fed is doing, and I think the op-ed piece I linked to speaks to it. Playing with the interest rates isn't going to be enough; we've got to invest in the country: rebuild infrastructure (and create new jobs in the process).
I also think we should do something about the budget deficit (which Bush worsened through the war). But how to go about it? What does it mean in terms of the Iraq war? A quick pull out will help no one, but a prolonged stay is no good either (On a side note: McCain! I'm still balking from the fact that he reneged on his tax cut stance. Grrr...) And what does this do to the feasibility of Clinton's universal health care plan? (I'm as pro-universal health care as any human being with a properly functioning heart, but I can't see it working during a recession. Besides, the universal health care plans of Europe come with their own problems: long cruel waiting times, heavy tax burdens and possibly-related-or-unrelated high unemployment rates. I must confess myself a fan of Singapore's heavily subsidized plan which keeps agency in the hands of the people, even if they are an autocratic state that would kill you for smuggling drugs.)
The above op-ed also mentions consumption. -___- This is what the Fed is dealing with, of course: they're sending out free money next month (I think) to bolster the economy. The op-ed describes American consumption as "unsustainable" which I do agree with. It means a weak dollar in the future which will suck. (As if we don't have a weak dollar as it is! I still remember the days when the Canadian dollar was roughly worth half a US dollar. They apparently surpassed us months ago while I wasn't looking. Last week, I think, the US dollar hit lows against the euro and the yen.) I suppose this is more incentive to move to Europe. Even if it is a bad time to move there. I gotta check out the speculation going on with the exchange rates, one of these days.
Back to elections, the op-ed from Maureen Dowd in the NYT today described how our lovely friends "are growing more fierce in charging that women who let Obama leapfrog over Hillary are traitors." Shame, seriously. Those kinds of people make me want to vote for Clinton even less.
I can't believe the March 4 nominating contests decided nothing. Well, I suppose there is McCain being officially crowned the Republican nominee, Huckabee dropping out, and Bush's endorsement of McCain. But that just makes the travesty of the Democratic nomination race even worse. Clinton won the big states of the night (and the tiniest one) though Obama kept up quite well. They still split states down the middle, just unevenly enough to give Clinton the advantage. As my Obama campaign e-mail informs me (those are annoying btw, always trying to solicit money from me :P) Clinton gained 187 delegates and Obama got 183. The next major nominating contest isn't until April 22, virtually two months from now. They need to settle this soon (sooner than April 22, if I had my way) because McCain is building. He has all the time now to sit and watch Clinton and Obama blow each other up.
Meanwhile, I'm just worrying my head off about the American economy which is in a recession. (People think it's in a recession therefore it is.) I read this piece in the NYT comparing the current US economic recession with the one in Japan in the 90s (the writer terms it as Japan's lost decade, that's how bleak it was). I find myself extremely wary about what the Fed is doing, and I think the op-ed piece I linked to speaks to it. Playing with the interest rates isn't going to be enough; we've got to invest in the country: rebuild infrastructure (and create new jobs in the process).
I also think we should do something about the budget deficit (which Bush worsened through the war). But how to go about it? What does it mean in terms of the Iraq war? A quick pull out will help no one, but a prolonged stay is no good either (On a side note: McCain! I'm still balking from the fact that he reneged on his tax cut stance. Grrr...) And what does this do to the feasibility of Clinton's universal health care plan? (I'm as pro-universal health care as any human being with a properly functioning heart, but I can't see it working during a recession. Besides, the universal health care plans of Europe come with their own problems: long cruel waiting times, heavy tax burdens and possibly-related-or-unrelated high unemployment rates. I must confess myself a fan of Singapore's heavily subsidized plan which keeps agency in the hands of the people, even if they are an autocratic state that would kill you for smuggling drugs.)
The above op-ed also mentions consumption. -___- This is what the Fed is dealing with, of course: they're sending out free money next month (I think) to bolster the economy. The op-ed describes American consumption as "unsustainable" which I do agree with. It means a weak dollar in the future which will suck. (As if we don't have a weak dollar as it is! I still remember the days when the Canadian dollar was roughly worth half a US dollar. They apparently surpassed us months ago while I wasn't looking. Last week, I think, the US dollar hit lows against the euro and the yen.) I suppose this is more incentive to move to Europe. Even if it is a bad time to move there. I gotta check out the speculation going on with the exchange rates, one of these days.
Back to elections, the op-ed from Maureen Dowd in the NYT today described how our lovely friends "are growing more fierce in charging that women who let Obama leapfrog over Hillary are traitors." Shame, seriously. Those kinds of people make me want to vote for Clinton even less.