Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Jas Jain Predicts Obama 2nd Term

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: American Politics: Why Obama is likely to Get Re-Elected
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:57:04 -0800
From: Jas Jain

American Politics: Why Obama is likely to Get Re-Elected

 

I put the chance of Obama's re-election between 60-70%, currently, but as the campaign progresses it good go even higher than 80%. Only Paul and Romney poll competitively against Obama, but Paul is extremely unlikely to get the Republican nomination and if does by some miracle his character would be destroyed between the nomination and the vote. Zionists, big supporters of the Federal Reserve and Israel, who have the most to lose by Ron Paul presidency, would make sure that he is not elected. Obama people would love to run against Newt with his heavy baggage. He is already helping Obama's re-election by his attacks on Romney. Santorum has a very narrow base in the general election even if the religious "Christian" conservatives coalesce behind him. With friends like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who needs enemies? These two "entertainers with shock effect," according to a conservative publisher, generate the most negative feeling amongst the rest of electorate. Rick Perry has already self-destruct and he would be out next.

 

Obama's re-election would be another gift of the Republican Party to America. His election in 2008 was the first gift of the Republican Party. For one, very bad fiscal, monetary, regulatory, and tax policies of GW Bush, Greenspan and Bernanke led to the predictable crisis of 2008. Second, by nominating John McCain, an old man without any charisma and no record to speak of other than a moderate bipartisan legislator, a la Bob Dole. Older a candidate more political baggage he carries and he is less in tune with the times in terms of attitudes that have changed dramatically over the past two decades. Rick Santorum, the youngest in the race for Republican nomination, is older than Obama and he is out of touch with the general attitudes despite his young age.

 

Brand Obama

The Reagan brand had a very different basis and was suitable for different times than Brand Obama. Obama is the least experienced man ever elected as the POTUS. There was very little to attack him in terms of failures of past polices and he was out of the spotlight until 2004. He has been very careful, for the most part, since then and most of his economic policies, especially the tax policies, are closer to Reagan and GW Bush! Obama-care is a minor issue for the economy. He even reappointed Bernanke, a GW Bush appointee, so as not to get any blame for the bad Fed policies that have continued. Clinton and Obama are the only presidents elected who were younger than 50 years since JFK. Gingrich, Paul and Romney are at least 14 years older than Obama and have lot more of past history, a big negative when it comes to the attack ads that do work. Obama's race also shields him against certain types of attacks. While Ran Paul, an old white Christian man, can be attacked as an anti-Semite, bigot, extremist, racist, you name it, without any repercussions to the attacker as long as they come from non-candidates. In this respect America of today is a very unfair and unequal country.

 

No Matter Who Wins in 2012 the Taxes Would Go Up and the Spending Would Go Down

That is assuming that Ron Paul cannot win. Obama, with big help from Republicans, has milked the tax cuts and spending increases to the max, to increase his re-election chances, and there is nowhere to go but in the opposite directions beginning in 2013. The ratings agencies would force the hands of the politicians. The lowest taxes and highest spending since the end of the WW II, as % of the GDP, cannot last for long and we are at the end of the rope. Republicans better hope that their guy doesn't win the presidency because they don't want to be known as the party of tax hikes. Romney, more of a practical man than an ideologue like Newt Gingrich, would agree to tax increases as the only prudent course because there is only so much he would be able to do in terms of spending cuts. 10% of the GDP is lot in terms of spending cuts to balance the budget. Even with tax increases and spending cuts, to the tune of 3-4% of the GDP each, can't balance the budget because the economy would be knocked into a recession if the budget deficit were reduced below 6-7% of the GDP. The fix is in and Americans would have to live with higher taxes, govt spending cuts at all levels, and a prolonged recession to boot. That is what happens when a country lives beyond its means for too long.  Stupid people never take preventative actions in time to avoid disasters. Stupid people have led America because these are the only kind of people that can garner power under the current system. The vote made me do it!


Jas


Friday, January 13, 2012

Ben Bernanke on Housing Market in 2006

No worries back in 2006 by Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner.  Below are excerpts from No worries back in 2006 and Transcripts show Fed slow to see fallout from housing bust.
"in his second meeting as chairman of the Federal Reserve in May 2006, Ben Bernanke heard a Fed governor warn about the nation's mortgage market. But Mr. Bernanke described the cooling of the housing boom as a "healthy thing."

 "So far we are seeing, at worst, an orderly decline in the housing market," he said."
This what housing did after that statement:

In September 2006, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then a Fed official, expressed confidence that "collateral damage" from housing could be avoided.

However, by June, Bernanke was expressing more caution, saying the slowdown in housing was "an asset price correction" that bore watching.  
"Like any other asset-price correction, it's very hard to forecast, and consequently it's an important risk and one that should lead us to be cautious in our policy decisions."
By the September meeting, Bernanke sounded even more concerned about the impact on the broader economy from the slowdown in housing.
"I don't have quite as much confidence as some people around the table that there will be no spillover effect." 
By contrast, Geithner, who was then president of the Fed's New York regional bank, expressed more confidence that the economy could weather the troubles in housing, saying the issue would be the impact on consumer and business spending.
"We just don't see troubling signs yet of collateral damage and we are not expecting much,"" Geithner said at the September FOMC meeting.
The discussion by the members of the FOMC, the Fed board members in Washington and 12 regional bank presidents, gave no indication that any of them foresaw the devastating impact that the collapse of the housing bubble would have.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

CHF vs USD: SNB Frau Hildebrand - Swiss National Bank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Someone Took My Advice On Selling Swissie (CHF) and Buying Dollars (USD)
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:28:12 -0800
From: Jas Jain

Someone Took My Advice On Selling Swissie (CHF) and Buying Dollars (USD)


That someone is the wife of the head of Swiss National Bank (SNB), Herr Hildebrand. She bought $517K with Swissie in August and made a tidy profit of 75K CHF when Swissie was brought down by the actions of SNB. At the peak one could have bought one USD for 0.7 CHF, which is now at .95 CHF, an increase of 35%. Of course, no one could have timed the top, but a 25% gain was there for the taking to diversify out of very dear CHF and into the unloved USD. Fair value for CHF, at $1.05 currently, is $0.85. However, when currencies reverse the trend they never stop at the fair value. Swissie has at least 35% more to go down against the USD over the next few years if historical trends are any guide.


The well-connected Swiss, Frau Hildebrand, made money, while poorly connected and badly informed holders of CHF missed out on once in a lifetime opportunity to move into dollars and even Euro. The worst informed, or the most ignorant, investors are those who were very bearish on the long-term US Treasuries and on the USD 6-9 months ago. There were lot of shysters on financial TV and in newsletter writing business who were making money peddling the bad advice.


Jas




Suggested Reading


=>Article: How to Get the Best CD Rates
=>Article: Beware of Annuities
=>Info: Best Mortgage Loan Rates