Free Republic

I think your analysis is excellent, and arguably more important than the polls. Starting with your baseline point #1, that the 2008 election provides a floor for Romney. Does anyone have any evidence that 2008 McCain voters would now switch to Obama??? That number is very close to zero.

I can elaborate on a couple of your other points, although it is somewhat anecdotal.

First, McCain scared a lot of women. Some women I know that voted for Obama (and are now embarassed by it), state that their reason was that McCain seemed to want to go to war too much. He scared them. I did not see it, but it is an interesting observation that women did. Romney does not scare women, he reassures them. Indeed, his campaign seems to know this and his performance during the last debate seemed to reassure many. So, the women vote is moving towards Romney strongly compared to McCain 2008.

Second, your point 12: Obama has lost much of the youth vote. I have two kids in college and they tell me that the Obama magic is largely gone. Interestingly, the person that attracted the most youth vote enthusiasm on campus was Ron Paul. As much as many do not like Ron Paul, it seems we will have to give him credit for attracting a lot of youth to the Republican / Libertarian party. Many of those libertarian youth voters will move to Romney now (some will vote for Gary Johnson). But, none are going to vote for Obama.

This is exactly right.

The financial crisis was caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market: they were the underlying securities that caused the large banks to be insolvent. Subprime mortgages were those mortgages given to people at levels beyond their ability to pay. Interestingly enough, it applied to the poor and upper middle class alike. That is why there are so many of these “McMansions”.

The reason for the subprime mortgages was that banks were forced to provide these loans by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was initially passed under Carter and expanded under Clinton. The problem was amplified by Fannie and Freddie, who purchased these loans. The banks did not want to make them, because they correctly realized that they represented a risk. So, Fannie and Freddie bought them up, repackaged them, and sold them to the investment banks. The problem was further amplified by the Fed, which provided the liquidity to fund these mortgage loans directly, particularly with very low interest rates. Indeed, all of the QE3 monetary expansion is through the purchase of mortgage securities. These programs made the subprime mortgate market HUGE.

The problem was further amplified by the use of derivatives by the large banks, which used the mortgages as the underlying security. The derivative market is measured in the 100s of TRILLIONS, largely by having multiple dependencies on the same underlying (mortgate) securities. The crisis was amplified further by the repeal of Glass-Steagle (sp?), which allowed the merger of the commercial banks with the investment banks, creating the “too big to fail” banks. Glass-Steagle was repealed under Clinton too.

The ineluctable conclusion is that the financial collapse, which then lead to the recession, had nothing to do with tax policy, of Bush or anyone else. It had nothing to do with fiscal policy, of Bush or anyone else. It had nothing to do with GENERAL regulation policy (except Glass-Steagle), of Bush or anyone else. Indeed, Bush made attempts to get Congress to regulate Fannie and Freddie for precisely this reason; they saw the problem coming simply because of the sheer magnitude of the problem. However, they were opposed by the democrats who wanted the continued financing of home ownership for poor people. It was also the democrates that repealed Glass-Steagle and also passed the Community Reinvestment Act.

I am truly frustrated that this meme that the recession was caused by Bush is continually pushed AND IS NOT COUNTERED BY THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN. (I am no fan of Bush, but it is still nonsense).

Thank you for your excellent post.

I agree.

In addition, I believe that Romney will be a much better president than many give him credit for. Fundamentally, the criticism of Romney is that he does not hold any principles (particularly conservative principles), but makes choices based on expediency. A difficult assertion to argue against.

However, Romney is a businessman, and as a businessman he thinks business. And businesspeople think in terms of opportunity and risk. I believe Romney senses a huge opportunity here.

Obama as ruined the economy in large measure because of his leftist ideology. Indeed, many democrats understand this. However, he cannot back down now. So, the extreme regulation and anti-business rhetoric continue. The tax increases go forward.

Romney realizes (IMHO) that this presents a grand opportunity to fix the economy: drop taxes, simplify taxes, stop wasteful spending, cut regulations, cut regulations some more, and finally, be friendly towards businesses.

Business people also think risk. The amount of cash sitting on the sidelines by American businesses is the greatest in history. Businesses are not expanding because of risk: they are legitimately frightened of Obama. It is a simple risk-reward calculation. Obama does not understand this. Romney does.

Romney may just hit one out of the park.

It is unfortunate that many social conservatives are so focused on the social issues, that they cannot also factor in the economy.

Great article. I agree about the description of the end state and the preparations necessary.

I would argue though, that gold is still an excellent investment under these conditions.

The reason is that the end-state description does not determine how we get from here to there. I believe that one of the intermediate steps will be massive monetarization by the Fed. Even more massive than we have already had. It is the only way to “pay” the derivative debts and keep the financial system from total implosion.

Of course, the results will be like an Argentinian inflation, (which took about 18 months to become the full bore hyperinflation).

And, gold will do very, very well. Better than anything else.

If I am right (always unknown for the future), it will be possible to buy food, land, water purification, and ammo before the total collapse.

I can only tell you what I do, and the basis.

It is a broadly held position, and it is mine, that silver will increase more than gold as a percentage. Therefore, in general, silver is better.

However, there is a problem with silver. Typically, the percentage premium you must pay for silver coins is considerably higher than for gold coins. Typically: 40/1600 = 0.025 for gold and 4/31=~ 0.13 for silver. Therefore, you need a greater increase in silver than for gold to make a profit. Now, you can get around this by buying silver bullion bars, but then you must file the 1099 forms. Alternatively, you can buy silver from someone like BullionVault and get the full exposure without the large commission, but then you have “paper silver”.

My approach is diversification.

I own mostly gold coins (1 Oz Eagles) in my Gold IRA. I also own silver bullion bars in the IRA as well (it is reported by the bank anyway). For my personal holdings, I own gold Philharmonics. Then, I own silver through BullionVault.

Finally, one problem is that the silver takes up a lot more space. There is no way to fit a reasonable amount of silver in a safety deposit box.

Of course, you should further diversify in lead, land, food, and purification.

Regards...

As one more measure of how completely ridiculous this is, about a week ago on FR was a thread about the University of Alabama report that the lower troposphere was actually colder now than a decade ago.

This is incredibly significant.

There can be NO global warming at ground level. Even the warmists (well the scientific warmists) understand that. If you integrate the radiative transfer equation properly, global warming HAS to occur at the lower troposphere. (The rest of the world then would heat up from convection under their model). But if the lower troposphere is getting colder, then the rest of the measurements are meaningless.

Full stop. The data are in. The theory is fully discredited by direct observation.

This is a little unsettling as it is BEFORE the primaries.

Perhaps I should wear a tin hat, but could the Demoncrats be using this to support Gingritch knowing that Republicans support the TEA party?? A clever way to influence, perhaps, the primaries and select a candidate they prefer.

/End tin foil

I won’t tell you what you should do, but I will say what I have done and continue to do.

I have purchased gold and silver. Lots of it.

It is easy. There are great distributors that will accept a bank transfer and will ship you coins or bars at just over spot prices. There are also firms that allow you to purchase gold that they keep for you. I use BullionVAult, but there are others.

Many argue that this is not effective when TSHTF. I respectfully disagree. The crisis has been growing. It doesn’t happen instantaneously. Gold is so liquid that I can convert to cash and other necessities within hours. Then you can buy food, ammunition, etc.

This happens in stages IMHO. So, the first stage is to protect wealth.

Anyway. Do as you wish. I have and I am content with my choices.

Kindest Regards, sir

Excellent article. The problem is clearly with our government policies. I work for an international organization that does scientific and engineering work. We have people from all over the world. We hire engineers and scientists. Guess who make the best engineers?? By far, it is Americans. And it is not just Americans such as me that think so. Americans are in demand by managers of all nationalities. Interestingly, the most competitive are the French, South Koreans, and Russians (you wouldn't think so, perhaps). Among the worst? Germans, Japanese, Chinese. Perhaps my data set is small, just a few dozens. But, it seems to be pretty apparent. So, if we have the best engineers and scientists, man for man, why are these other countries taking our manufacturing????