Who will be elected President in 2012?

PP67 · Post by **PP67** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:50 pm

Should be interesting...

TripleB · Post by **TripleB** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:03 pm

My prediction of the popular vote in the general election:

40% Obama
25% Paul
35% Romney

I predict Romney will win the Republican primaries and Paul will run as an independent and take a healthy slice of the general election pie.

I despise Obama's politics but I'm all for him winning because I want to retire early and be a leech on society. I'm banking on healthcare reform holding so that I can live off investments in early retirement and get subsidies for health insurance.

I don't "want" to be a leech on society, but I'm certainly not going to bust my ass only to be considered wealthy and pay huge taxes. I believe currently levels of taxation are inappropriately high, even with the "Bush tax cuts" and I'd prefer not working, and living modestly, to working very hard, and paying a ton in taxes so I can afford to buy a new car every 3 years.

Go Obama!

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:21 pm

TripleB, you are too much!

TripleB · Post by **TripleB** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:48 pm

Reub wrote: TripleB, you are too much!

Thanks Reub!

Ad Orientem · Post by **Ad Orientem** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:11 pm

I'm sorry to say it but I think Zero will get reelected. And while I think he will get more than 40% of the popular vote, I think he just might set a record for winning the lowest percentage of popular vote while still getting elected. Although Lincoln in 1860 might be tough to be beat. I will have to check out the voting records for that rather crazy year.

Post by **MediumTex** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:27 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: I'm sorry to say it but I think Zero will get reelected. And while I think he will get more than 40% of the popular vote, I think he just might set a record for winning the lowest percentage of popular vote while still getting elected.

Obama is a MUCH better at campaigning than governing.

I think he will be much harder to beat than many people realize.

Although Lincoln in 1860 might be tough to be beat. I will have to check out the voting records for that rather crazy year.

I believe it was the Republican nomination process in which Lincoln got very lucky and somehow convinced the supporters of the top three Republican candidates to make him their second choice if their preferred candidate couldn't seal up the nomination. Thus, the fourth most popular candidate in the field is the one who actually got the nomination.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:05 am

I think Paul and Johnson will split Romney's Republican vote and thus lose to Obama.

MG

brick-house · Post by **brick-house** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:21 am

My bet would be Obama in an easy victory over Mitt Romney. My vote is for Ron Paul. This is a poll of one, but there is no way I am voting for the Chicken Hawk Republican establishment.

AdamA · Post by **AdamA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:46 am

brick-house wrote: My vote is for Ron Paul.

I like Ron Paul in that I think he is the very rare politician who is sincere in his beliefs and actions.

I wonder, however, what the reality of a Ron Paul presidency would be. His policies equate basically to austerity measures. I'm not so sure how these would actually work.

Any opinions?

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:26 am

Ron Paul's support for employee ownership of companies is very good thing IMO. His advocacy for not bailing out the banks would have meant that the economy would not now be saddled with trillions of dollars of debt since much of that debt would have defaulted away back to thin air. The problem is though that not all of the debt would have immediately gone in a flash. It could linger on, stifling the economy for many years. His austerity would make it hard to pay back what debt there was even if there was less debt kept whole.

AdamA · Post by **AdamA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:28 am

stone wrote: Ron Paul's support for employee ownership of companies is very good thing IMO. His advocacy for not bailing out the banks would have meant that the economy would not now be saddled with trillions of dollars of debt since much of that debt would have defaulted away back to thin air. The problem is though that not all of the debt would have immediately gone in a flash. It could linger on, stifling the economy for many years. His austerity would make it hard to pay back what debt there was even if there was less debt kept whole.

So, practically speaking, what would that mean for the average person, in your opinion?

By the way, love the manned space travel comment from the other thread. Hilarious, and strikes me as true.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:42 am

AdamA wrote: I wonder, however, what the reality of a Ron Paul presidency would be. His policies equate basically to austerity measures. I'm not so sure how these would actually work.

Any opinions?

He would be extremely limited in acting on his "wacky" beliefs, but I imagine he can do what he believes with the military as Commander in Chief. Everything else is pretty much up to the Legislature. Rank-and-file Republicans are statists, not libertarians, so it would take a compromise with both Republicans and Democrats to get anything eliminated. Can you imagine the rallying, protesting and rioting throughout the nation if he dared touch Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security? If, heaven forbid, he found a way to put us back on the gold standard, it would be the Great Depression II overnight.

MG

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:48 am

Adam, I really don't know. It might cause a 1930s type depression but perhaps things are slipping that way anyway? If there were fire sales of factories, farm land etc and people then bought them and because they were cheap could run them profitably and employ people then perhaps his carnage might work

In a way making rich people lose their fortunes due to an unprotected depression is much the same as handing out money to everyone else. Of course he might not do what he says. Obama hasn't has he?

Machine Ghost's comment explains why presidents don't do so much I guess. Andrew Jackson and Roosevelt made waves for better or worse didn't they?

moda0306 · Post by **moda0306** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:52 am

I think Ron Paul would have more affect than we think. 2 supreme court nominations, sec chair, and fed chair could be huge.

A gold standard, as mg said, could make up for all the other wacky stuff that would actually have to get through congress. If Ron Paul were looking like he might win for some reason, I'd definitely rethink my portfolio.

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:05 am

Depressions in the 1800s did take a while to resolve didn't they? Trying that now might be a lot more dramatic because there is so much more private sector leverage built up that would have to collapse down. Also now there is the added weirdness of risk free bank accounts. That might prolong the agony. I wonder whether a depression such as Greece is now suffering might occur. Sweden managed to swiftly resolve their banking crisis in the 1990s but they were not Ron Paul like except that they showed the banks no mercy. They protected bank deposits but let the bank corporate bonds and stocks take the full loss. Sweden also has massive government spending that is immune from private sector grief.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:08 am

moda0306 wrote: I think Ron Paul would have more affect than we think. 2 supreme court nominations, sec chair, and fed chair could be huge.

A gold standard, as mg said, could make up for all the other wacky stuff that would actually have to get through congress. If Ron Paul were looking like he might win for some reason, I'd definitely rethink my portfolio.

Lets see...

He could elect Judge Richard A. Posner to the Supreme Court. That would be awesome.

He could elect James A. Baker to the Fed and peg the dollar to gold and buy and sell reserves to maintain that fixed price peg. But I don't know how that would manage to work since the Fed is run by Politiburo not a single person.

He could elect someone not from Wall Street to the SEC that would combine the SEC and CFTC together and standardize on principles-based regulation.

MG

Ad Orientem · Post by **Ad Orientem** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:49 pm

brick-house wrote: My bet would be Obama in an easy victory over Mitt Romney. My vote is for Ron Paul. This is a poll of one, but there is no way I am voting for the Chicken Hawk Republican establishment.

Ditto.

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:28 pm

MachineGhost wrote: He could elect James A. Baker to the Fed and peg the dollar to gold and buy and sell reserves to maintain that fixed price peg. But I don't know how that would manage to work since the Fed is run by Politiburo not a single person.

Does the US have anywhere near enough reserves of gold or foreign currency to acheive such a peg? Is the idea that the sales tax and the government spending cuts would stall consumption of imports and so cut the trade imbalance to the point where the USD stopped devaluing?

Ad Orientem · Post by **Ad Orientem** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:41 pm

stone wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: He could elect James A. Baker to the Fed and peg the dollar to gold and buy and sell reserves to maintain that fixed price peg. But I don't know how that would manage to work since the Fed is run by Politiburo not a single person.
Does the US have anywhere near enough reserves of gold or foreign currency to acheive such a peg? Is the idea that the sales tax and the government spending cuts would stall consumption of imports and so cut the trade imbalance to the point where the USD stopped devaluing?

Neither the US nor any other country has enough gold reserves to create a viable gold backed currency (i.e. one with convertibility). While the population of the world has increased several fold since the 1930's (when the last true gold standard was abandoned) and the number of nations with their own currency has increased exponentially, the supply of gold bullion has not significantly increased. The practical obstacles makes me doubt that we will ever see a hard money system again. But if we do, my guess is it will be based on silver, not gold.

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:04 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: Neither the US nor any other country has enough gold reserves to create a viable gold backed currency (i.e. one with convertibility). While the population of the world has increased several fold since the 1930's (when the last true gold standard was abandoned) and the number of nations with their own currency has increased exponentially, the supply of gold bullion has not significantly increased. The practical obstacles makes me doubt that we will ever see a hard money system again. But if we do, my guess is it will be based on silver, not gold.

Where is the gold bull market going to end though? It doesn't seem crazy to me to imagine that real interest rates will remain negative for the forseeable future and gold will keep ticking up and the entire fiat world will go into a sort of Japanese zero interest rate, zero growth state. Doesn't that all extrapolate into gold attaining a value that plateaus out where the value of global gold is much like the value of global fiat money?

Basically despite all the efforts to avoid it, the world could revert to an inadvertant gold standard currency

AdamA · Post by **AdamA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:28 pm

stone wrote: Depressions in the 1800s did take a while to resolve didn't they? Trying that now might be a lot more dramatic because there is so much more private sector leverage built up that would have to collapse down.

Also, there are a lot more people in the world now, so a global depression would mean a lot more suffering for a lot more people than in the 1800's.

AdamA · Post by **AdamA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:37 pm

stone wrote: In a way making rich people lose their fortunes due to an unprotected depression is much the same as handing out money to everyone else.

But in another way it's not like that.

Letting the wealthy lose money in a depression is a way of saying, "we don't have the resources for this right now."

Handing out money is basically saying, "we don't have the resources for this right now, so we'll steal them."

stone · Post by **stone** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:56 pm

Adam, either way relative wealth gets somewhat evened out. The end result might end up being much the same.

Wonk · Post by **Wonk** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:04 pm

Couple thoughts...

Re: Election

I'm a Ron Paul or no one kind of guy. Count me in the same camp as brick house and AdOrientum where I'll never vote for another RINO, chicken hawk Republican again. F those guys and their fascist policies. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my scorched earth policy with the Republican party. I'd rather see another 5 Democrat presidents drive the country into complete chaos quickly rather than drag it out over time like establishment Republicans would do. Romney needs Ron Paul's voters to beat Obama. He won't get them. I doubt RP goes 3rd party but I doubt he endorses any of the other empty suit clowns either. My guess is Obama wins 45-40 with the remainder going to Gary Johnson & RP on the write-in.

Re: Gold Standard

There is absolutely enough gold to go back on the gold standard. It's a matter of price. If the Fed were to conduct open market operations and set a gold purchase price at $3000, eventually the market price of gold would reach 35% of M1, which is a benchmark achieved in the last 2 monetary resets in the U.S. Alternatively, the U.S. could simply confiscate(because it's an emergency, of course) all 6000 tons of internationally-owned gold held in U.S. vaults and go back on the gold standard at $1725/oz. Think people hate the U.S. now? Pull a stunt like that and they'll like us even more.

If the U.S. were to attempt to go back on the gold standard at $1600, it's true that it would be massively deflationary and cause a depression. Such an example can be found when countries went back to the pre-WW1 gold price after printing vast sums of money to pay for the war. If you are going to devalue the currency, you cannot maintain a fixed gold price at pre-inflationary levels and expect things to go well.

I go hot and cold on the gold standard. I know if we were to re-establish the gold standard, the political class would eventually break it--most likely over 40 years or so. So what's the point? In a fiat system, those with financial education can protect themselves from purchasing power theft by purchasing gold. If gold ownership is outlawed as it used to be, protection is much more difficult to obtain.

murphy_p_t · Post by **murphy_p_t** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:55 pm

RP supporter here.

I predict that Mitt is NOT the GOP nominee. I'm guessing Newt gets the nod.