The New Jersey Democratic State Committee was so gleeful over the way things turned out last night that they purchased an ad on PolitickerNJ that popped up full screen this morning even before you entered the site.
Showing Governor Christie’s face superimposed on a photo of Mount Rushmore, the ad crowed, “Congratulations, Governor … On Marking ‘History’: New Jersey Still Solidly Blue” and linked to a Letterman-style Top 10 list on the committee’s blog, The Bray.
NJ Spotlight, the Star Ledger and even Fox News called the midterm election a big win for Democrats in New Jersey.
“The Republicans lost all the key races that they targeted and where Gov. Chris Christie campaigned,” wrote NJ Spotlight in its election roundup this morning. It quoted Ben Dworkin, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University:
It is a very disappointing night for Gov. Christie. He outraised the Democrats by millions of dollars. He put his high approval rating and his personal reputation on the line by going on network television in New York and Philadelphia. And in the end, he wasn’t able to even keep the status quo in the legislature, much less win the several seats that Republicans might have expected given his efforts.
Gov. Christie, who heads up to New Hampshire today to show his support for Mitt Romney at the GOP debate, was silent about the election on his Twitter account.
I don’t think Christie would be nearly as popular if he had a Republican Legislature to deal with. The very things that people seem to like him for — that he’s a bully who “tells it like it is” — don’t really work when he doesn’t have an enemy.
And if the Republicans won and had a full-screen pop-up ad, Christie would be called a bully.
Funny, huh?
But if the Dems think that holding on to the Legislature is a Christie repudiation, they better watch out. When the numbers come it, I bet we’ll find an incredibly low number of folks turned out– many Union folks and other Dem stalwarts- all motivated voters in an off year election.
Kinda hard to think a low-turn is indicative of the State’s mood.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/voter_turnout_low.html
Kinda hard to think a low-turn is indicative of the State’s mood.
If Republicans can think Christie winning in 2009 is indicative of the nation’s mood, I think the Democrats are entitled to think last night is indicative of the state’s mood.
Or it could be as simple as people voted Republican last time based on their promise of creating jobs. Instead of creating jobs 350,000 have been lost nation wide and they’ve wasted time redefining rape and chatting about In God We Trust.
Huh?
Christie’s win came right after the historic Repub take-over of the House in a state that went for Obama! Yesterday’s election may turn out to be one of the lowest turnouts ever.
So while I understand the need to find something to counter my post with- this ain’t it. Yesterday’s election doesn’t mean anything because no one really cared enough to vote. Let’s talk after 2012. I’m sure NJ Residents will take the time to vote in that one.
Christie’s win came right after the historic Repub take-over of the House in a state that went for Obama!
No, it didn’t, it came before. But that still means nothing. Every single presidential election in recent memory — every single one — is followed by the losing party winning governor in NJ and VA. It says nothing about the mood of the country.
It’s not all about responding to your post prof.
Yesterday I was stunned reading some of the issues being voted on around the country and thought that won’t get passed no matter the party behind it. Like making it a criminal offense to have a miscarriage – way to go Mississippi, did anyone think that would pass?
I’m sure voter turn out was low – but I think it’s going to have been low for all parties.
“Yesterday’s election doesn’t mean anything because no one really cared enough to vote.”
—except for the sticky little fact that the results of the election are valid and the candidates voted in get those jobs.
so, yeah, it did kinda mean something…
No, jcunningham, election results only mean something when prof says so! Don’t you get it?
Shows you can fool most of the people a lot of the time.
“…no one really cared enough to vote.”
Some people did care enough to vote. Apparently, this didn’t include those people that would have preferred a Legislature more aligned with the Governor.
Willingness to vote – or a lack thereof – is a part of the “mood” of the electorate.
…Andrew
prof, there is no need to “counter” your post when it is predicated on a factual error.
Chris Christie was elected governor in November of 2009.
Republicans gained a majority in the US House in November of 2010.
Yesterday’s election — in fact, EVERY election — means plenty. That you don’t recognize that, along with many others who don’t bother to vote or who explain away the results when they aren’t to their liking — is a shame.
And here’s what the good prof had to say two days ago:
profwilliams
8:39pm on Monday, November 7, 2011
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
- Rush, “Freewill”
The governor put some effort and money behind defeating senator Gordon, and lost that effort in one of NJ’s few competitive districts. No amount of spin will disguise the result.
Focusing on making NJ government services more efficient and delivering better value for the taxpayers will pay off for whichever party can deliver the goods. The bills are coming due for promises made to people 10, 20, or 30 years ago. No amount of spin will cover that, either.
Prof, when all Christie’s televised bragging couldn’t net him a single legislator, that has to mean something.
Nationally, I’m happy Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce — the architect of the nation’s most draconian immigration laws — got booted in a recall.
It’s a good day to bray.
Plus, that idiotic “personhood” initiative got shut down in Mississippi, and the anti-union law got repealed in Ohio!
You’ve got a couple of days less than a year to get all of the revelry in. After that, when the denizen’s of the People’s Republic are wailing bitterly and rending their garments in the aftermath of potentially the biggest Republican landslide victory, all will be right with the world, the post-Obama world, that is. It will be like emerging into the sunlight after having to ride out this vainglorious experiment in statism for the past four years. Then the Obama years can join the Carter years in the dustbin of history, never to be spoken of again, as we right the ship and sail on to prosperity, individual liberty and freedom!!
I dutifully voted yesterday because I wanted to help re-elect a man who was not getting the support of his own party because he will stand up against the party line when he feels he should. While I was there, I also voted for every other Democratic candidate on the ballot just to say “The Hell With You” to the Party of NO. Republicans in Congress are singly motivated to block everything and anything that would make the President look the slightest bit better. They are doing this with complete disregard for the people that are hurt, the jobs that are lost, and the poor people who get poorer (but not the rich people who get richer). They are trying to force Obama out of office and they are leaving large swaths of scorched earth in the effort. But it is not in their powers to remove Obama from office: it is in the voters’ powers to remove Obama — or anyone else — from office. And that includes all the Republicans who have linked their arms together with Karl Rove in this self-destructive plot to trash our country and blame it on the Democrats. C’mon, folks: the Party of NO is the party that sold our butts to the big banks, corporations, and insurance companies in the first place, then saw to it that those instituions were bailed out with taxpayer money. Now all they want is to finish the job and completely do away with any oversight other than self-policing. The answer is simple: tell the Party of NO “No. You can’t!” That has an eerily familiar ring to it somehow…
Prosperity??? Hah! We’ll quote your predictions next year, Deadeye. Meanwhile, Scott Walker’s next.
Deadeye old son, you continually show yourself to be a stranger to reason but God help me, I like you anyway. You seem a good soul, and articulate.
I didn’t see any revelry on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter. There is some satisfaction in seeing Christie taken down a peg, but he’s still the governor.
As for whether Obama will be defeated well, that remains to be seen. Certainly not by Cain, or Bachman, or Santorum, or Huntsman, or Gingrich, or Perry. Perhaps by Romney. If so, the world will not end, the country will not disintegrate. The ship of state will sail on.
It is you and your lot who seem to enjoy the doomsday scenarios, the statism charges, etc. I have far more faith in the country and its people than you seem to evidence.
And while Obama may indeed be turned out of office, it most assuredly will NOT be by “the biggest Republican landslide in history”.
Unless, of course, the president starts to act as nutty as his current crop of opponents.
as we right the ship and sail on to prosperity (just like during the Bush years!), individual liberty (except for the gays. And the insufficiently religious) and freedom (from taxes for the very wealthy!)!!
Sorry folks. Trying to find “meaning” in yesterday’s election is a fool’s game. Too few voted. So while, yes- obviously- the election stands regardless of turnout, forgive me if I don’t see “meaning.”
An off-year election with low turn-out is not new. Historically the one seat Dem pick-up is insignificant. Granted, some that Christie campaigned for lost, but still. Finding “meaning” in that is really reaching.
For Christie, the only election that will matter is when his name is on the ticket. (And to my mistake with the dates: the point still holds– after voting for Obama, NJ voted in Christie.)
Glad Bob Gordon won though, he’s a great guy!
And to my mistake with the dates: the point still holds– after voting for Obama, NJ voted in Christie.
Ah, yes. Once again, the only meaning that exists is provided by prof. No one else attempt to find meaning, people! PROF HAS DECIDED.
Good try, prof.
Christie cares about elections that don’t “feature” him.
That’s why he worked against the redistricting. That’s why he campaigned for his folks. If you really believe that he doesn’t care about any election unless he’s running, then you apparently believe that he’s even more egomaniacal than his detractors do.
So, you don’t see “meaning”. Those who are sworn in and who will take their seats do see meaning. And those who live in the state and will be affected by policies and laws debated and passed by those people will see “meaning” as well.
Good for you that you live above all of that, and can choose which elections REALLY count, and which don’t.
Obama won’t be defeated by a Republican. Hillary will be “drafted” to run and win.
Cro, I just felt like a little bomb throwing to liven things up. I share your view of the contenders.
Mike, Answer honestly: Are you better of than three years ago? Bush did much to lay the groundwork for this morass that we’re in, but the path out out the wilderness isn’t that envisioned by the current administration.
Kevin, We can only hope…
“Kevin, We can only hope…”
For what………JOBS!!?
oddly enough i think obamas fate rests squarely on the shoulders of the super committee. if he maintains his current position and the party of “No” maintains theirs then we end in a stalemate again.
The country voted for a man that was supposed to transcend this divide however wide it might be. Despite a few weak successes (they are weak relative the real problems facing the country, jobs and national debt) he has done nothing but divide, has changed washington for the worse, and what really gets me is cut taxes which is part of the reason this is so hard to begin with.
He is weak, vote him out.
Interesting stay, that according to you the logjam and division in DC is due to the president. I would suggest that a 9% approval rating for the Congress is an indicator that most hold legislators, many of whom have put all else aside in their quest to defeat the president, at least equally responsible.
I agree that Obama has not been as strong as he should have been in many respects. I also think that the current field of GOP candidates is an embarrasment to the party of Reagan.
The difference between Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and Occupy Republican Congressional Areas (ORCA), both of which are creating massive traffic jams, is that the ORCA group is more liable to have the heated steering wheel option in their vehicles.
I think the current crop of GOP candidates is an embarrassment to the entire country. Just a few decades ago these people would have been dismissed as fringe hacks – or is that unhinged hacks? – and here they are being discussed in earnest by the mainstream media. It’s surreal.
Mike, Answer honestly: Are you better of than three years ago? Bush did much to lay the groundwork for this morass that we’re in, but the path out out the wilderness isn’t that envisioned by the current administration.
Of course not, I’ve lost thousands in home equity, just to give one metric. But as you say, Bush laid the groundwork. And all I see from the current crop of Republicans is the same old blueprints that got us into this mess.
Very very good, Conan!
You heard it here first. There is no way on God’s green earth that Obama is getting re-elected. Period. End of story. He is clearly out of his depth. There is an yawning chasm between his ideology of central planning and government micromanagement of virtually everything and the realization that the private sector needs to be allowed the freedom to re-trench and grow the economy organically. The policy of picking economic winners and losers based upon some pre-ordained perceptions of their long term social or ecological benefits is not something that we have the luxury to further entertain. Yes, we’re attempting to recover from a period of excesses and abuses; however, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of stultifying the private economy and incentives to job creation. Civil servants and teachers and municipal employees are vital to the function of society, but at the end of the day, their role is a supporting one. They are not direct wealth creators, and without the revenue stream from a vibrant and diverse economic base, we cannot afford their services and the current level of entitlements due them. Sadly, that’s where we are today. Stop vilifying and impeding the wealth creators, otherwise the future will be dimmer for all. Sure it would be great if we could flip a switch and instantly address all social and economic inequalities, but we live in the real world and need to be on firmer economic footing before trying to achieve Nirvana.
100% agree jerseygurl, and its sad that this group represents the supposed BEST of the republican party!!! What a joke.
cro, I 100% blame Obama. Low congressional approval ratings and seemingly insurmountable partisanship were givens and he and the country knew that going in. We elected Obama with the HOPE, that he would CHANGE that dynamic as he promised! What did you think everyone would roll over for him? As a community organizer with basically no political experience, no diplomatic experience, no business experience, and no military experience and no real leadership experience we had NOTHING else to go on. He promised to CHANGE Washington and did not.
Then he fumbled, he was naive, he was soft, and he exhibited a host of non presidential characteristics. What I dont understand is why so many who voted for him (I did) still defend him (I dont). Its like they still have that 2008 fever despite all of his failurs. Take your blinders off! For christs sake he cut taxes!!
Its a shame we can’t replace him with Hillary.
“There is no way on God’s green earth that Obama is getting re-elected. Period. End of story.”
“Whoever tries to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Albert Einstein (Direct wealth creator!)
Why, stay, would “insurmountable partisanship” be “givens”?
This was not always the case. Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill. Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich. That you and yours feel that it is a given that folks from one party will NEVER work with another is a big part of the reason why we find ourself in this mess.
Of course you blame Obama 100%. That is what simplistic and partisan people do. It has to be someone’s fault, totally and completely. It can never be any more complex than “he did it!”.
It is not at all surprising, reading your posts, why we get the people we do.
the private sector needs to be allowed the freedom to re-trench and grow the economy organically.
“There is little hope for us until we become toughminded enough to break loose from the shackles of prejudice, half-truths, and downright ignorance.”
Who knew Martin Luther King was talking about the plight of the bankers!
“Low congressional approval ratings and seemingly insurmountable partisanship were givens and he and the country knew that going in. We elected Obama with the HOPE, that he would CHANGE that dynamic as he promised! ”
Insurmountable partisanship is….insurmountable. I don’t think anyone expected the party of NO to be quite so extreme and so determined to be sure to wreck the government, wreck the country, basically do anything to be sure Obama would be a one term president. Obama may not be perfect, but there is plenty of blame to go around on the side of the party of “Just say no!”. Obama is not perfect, and he’s made mistakes, but I cannot think of any other president who has had to govern under such extreme financial conditions, while two wars are being waged in an age of instant news and angry crazy pundits spreading lies about his personal history and his legitimacy to serve while being stonewalled by the other side.
The policy of picking economic winners and losers based upon some pre-ordained perceptions of their long term social or ecological benefits is not something that we have the luxury to further entertain.
The government “picking winners and losers” (otherwise known as investment) has been going on for our entire history. Look at the pharma industry. The internet itself is a product of government investment. How ironic!
Stop vilifying and impeding the wealth creators, otherwise the future will be dimmer for all.
The Bush tax cuts are still in place. Something like 30 major corporations paid absolutely no taxes last year. The ones that do pay, do so at some of the lowest effective tax rates in the first world. Other than calling them bad names (poor millionaires!), I don’t see how much we’re impeding anything.
But let’s definately vote in a Republican. They’ve got all the answers that have been proved not to work already. But wait! Their new plans are even better, like Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which gives the rich even more of a tax cut! No economist thinks its a good plan, but heck, its simple! Or Perry’s plan, which relies on handing over more of our land to oil companies.
No hubris in that statement CRO. I just cannot fathom that Obama will not be challenged from within his own party after such a universally abysmal performance. As to the current crop of GOP hopefuls, their ranks are being winnowed appropriately as the debates continue and their views and competencies are put on display. Notice the relative absence of Sarah Palin lately, even though she wasn’t ever a declared candidate? Someone electable, with broadly resonant views will hopefully emerge.
And about the taxes… We’re not going to tax our way into universal prosperity. Some people make more money than others. It’s not always fair, but why begrudge the fellow that took the hard classes, ran up the student loans, and became a doctor while you contemplated your navel and now shuffle paper in some white collar factory. They pay more in taxes on a relative basis. Their deductions are capped by AMT… Their expenses are far higher. Those expenses are monies that flow directly back into the economy to pay for goods and services. You don’t need some tortured Keynesian formula here. People with money buy things. When they stop buying things, stores and restaurants close and their employees suffer. Is it a collectivist society that some of you envision? Those aren’t the principles upon which this country was founded, and outside of a small group of progressives, no one wants equality of outcomes as the driving principle of government. Life isn’t always fair, but in this country people have always had the freedom to pursue their dreams. They were willing to work hard. They weren’t whiners, and they didn’t have some sense of entitlement.
Mike, Government “investment” is free of politics and based on sound economics, right? You might want to read up on some of the recent shenanigans in the renewable energy business lately, where we’re in a race to the bottom with the Chinese. I need to stop now because I actually have work to do and this has been an exercise in procrastination for me that must be put to an end. Also, I was hoping to stop by the Fisker auto showroom later. You know, those great electric cars that we, as taxpayers, subsidized the manufacture of to the tune of over $500bln. Yes, they’re being built in Finland because we didn’t have the facilities or skilled labor to do it here. They’re really cool. Leonard DiCaprio has one I think.
We’re not going to tax our way into universal prosperity.
Ok. However, its worth noting that during the last big boom in the 90s, taxes were much higher. Its equally true that cutting taxes has not been shown to stimulate the economy. Even Reagan was a deficit spender.
It’s not always fair, but why begrudge the fellow that took the hard classes, ran up the student loans, and became a doctor while you contemplated your navel and now shuffle paper in some white collar factory.
Nope not always fair. Everyone who works hard should be rewarded with a better life. But increasingly, the deck is stacked against anyone who wants to improve their station in life, working hard or not. Income inequality is the highest its been since the 1920s. Middle class wages have been stagnant for 30 years. 400 Americans own more wealth than 50% of the bottom combined. The rich will always get richer, but in our economy, its gotten out of hand.
No one wants a collectivist society. I don’t think we want one without a middle class either.
Yes, they’re being built in Finland because we didn’t have the facilities or skilled labor to do it here.
Wait, are you suggesting investments in education or training? Isn’t that there Finland place full of Reds? You’re liable to lose your red-blooded American card talkin fancy like that.
Deadeye: A recent poll of small business sponsored by the National Federation of Independant Business (a right-wing tool if ever there was one) indicated that a majority of small businesses do not regard either taxes or regulation as an impediment to their business: the biggest problem for small businesses (who are the real job creators — not the “wealth creators” you defend) is low customer demand.
Blaming Obama for micro-management is a red herring. Until housing is stablized the economy isn’t going to improve. The remedies: requiring banks to write down their loans and process their foreclosures in a timely way, with transparency and with due diligence, are unpalatable to banks and their champions such as yourself. It was a a total lack of regulation and oversight that got us into this mess.
No, Einstein. We have BOTH the facilities AND the skilled labor pool in this country. Thats the point. Biden presided over a big ceremony at an auto plant in Delaware that was meant to be the production facility. That was the deal. They just took our money and made the decision to build the cars in Finland, where they have neither. Then there was the solar panel plant in MA that moved to China, and on and on. Go figure. And it was $500mm, not bln, thankfully…and it’s Leonardo DiCaprio, for anyone out there with their red pens.
They just took our money and made the decision to build the cars in Finland, where they have neither.
So wasn’t that the “wealth creators” fault, not the governments? Or should the government have imposed “impediments” on this business in order to get our money? Isn’t that kind of the issue with the financial bailouts?
Kit, You make some good points, especially about housing and principal reductions. Certainly perceived demand is absolutely critical: however, the the climate of uncertainty about future taxes and regulation need to be factored in heavily. With certainty and demand you can stomach the taxes.
Fact, Obama brought nothing to the table in the way of experience of any kind but that was ok because that was not why we voted for him. We voted for him because he was going to change washington, it was no secret that this was a tall order.
But ok he failed there, at this point I at least expect him to stick to his guns because the party of no maybe sometimes cant be reasoned with. But what does he do? He cuts taxes, has to pass a halfa$$ healthcare bill using reconciliation, and he squanders the opportunity to really reform the way wall street works (we got dodd frank which does nothing and has no teeth)…
WHYYY he is not more universally recognized as a failure is beyond me. I get the opposition he faced, I get that the economy is tough, and I understand congress is not functioning. However in the face of all those things he still underperformed. Lets recognize that. This country made a huge mistake re-electing bush in 2004 (probably the worst mistake ever)…. Once again the writing is on the wall, this guy has to go because even if you agree with his core beliefs and principles he doesnt have the balls to support them, fight for them and actually turn them into policy that will help this country. That simple.
why begrudge the fellow that took the hard classes, ran up the student loans, and became a doctor while you contemplated your navel and now shuffle paper in some white collar factory.
Doctors? You mean the beneficiaries of pay-as-you-go healthcare, which is driving costs through the roof at little benefit to patients? Yes, they’re hard working, deadeye, but they also get paid too much because the system is gamed that way. They know it, they see the writing on the wall. It’s unsustainable.
But docs are the least of it. What about those clever people on Wall Street, who shuffle money around uselessly–perhaps even dangerously–make millions doing it, and pay taxes at capital gains rates? Should we unshackle them further and let them “grow the economy organically”?
WIthout a strong middle class with a lot of disposable income there is no demand. Housing is part of the problem. So are the stagnant income numbers. The “creators” as some people like to call them – whether it’s wealth, jobs or whatever – do NOT magnanimously hire staff because they’re sitting on piles of cash. They hire when demand exceeds current output. And the very wealthy spend a smaller percentage of their income and they are a very small segment of the economy in terms of overall spending. Taxes have never been the “job” killer they’ve been made out to be. A stable job market, a stable housing market and pay checks that enable people to have some money left over to buy goods and services is what will stimulate the economy.
And “roo is right. There’s a lot of money shuffling that contributes little to anyone other than the few who manipulate it to their advantage while paying cap gains instead of income tax, even though that is the sole source of their exorbitantly insane income.
JG, I agree. A “strong middle class” is really all we should be focused on. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to facilitate a stronger middle class.
Im thinking home px’s drops another 20% based on where they currently are as a multiple of median national income, not even accounting for foreclosures and the supply glut.
Question is how do we achieve a stronger middle class? Dems say spend more govt money but this doesn’t really create long term sustainable jobs but rather temporary bumps in whatever industry the govt decides to spend money on. Cutting taxes is wrong too.
I don’t have the answer, i don’t even have a suggestion, this a very very hard structural problem to solve. Our inept govt stands zero chance in its current form of solving it.
Disclosure: I am short the U.S.
As disappointed as I am with Obama’s apparent passivity, I can’t imagine
that returning to the Republican agenda of lower taxes and less regulation (except, of course for immigration) can be the right direction for the country.
Health care reform, however flawed and limited, is a major step forward, and a major accomplishment for Obama.
Finance reform, however limited, is a major step forward for consumers who, until the banks figure out new ways to fleece people, have limits on their overdraft fees and to retailers who saw their swipe fees reduced. This is an accomplishment for Obama.
The pursuit & eradication of Osama Bin Laden is considered an accomplishment for Obama.
“Oh, no, you can’t take that away from him….”
i generally agree kit, although i wouldn’t call cutting taxes passive. That was actively supporting a republican agenda. Thats not good.
Something might be a step forward but if not as big a step forward as it should have been its still a failure.
I agree on osama, he actually has made very significant progress in the two disasterous wars we are fighting. I commend him there.
I think romney offers an interesting alternative to obama (seems level headed and moderate enough to entertain all ideas, i like the idea that he is somewhat flexible on all issues) …. read a little about him, he is a pretty hard working guy…
I also think he would offer tax reform which is what we need, its not as simple as cut taxes or raise taxes…the whole system needs to be reformed and democrats seem unwilling to do that
its great that you think dodd frank was an accomplishment… awesome that debit card fees are lower but those were never posed a systemic risk.. if one can still do a synthetic bespoke trade on “name your structured product” that act was a failure …. fannie and freddie still taking tax payer money and did you see the ceo just got a $1 million bonus??? thats crap, but then again not surprised the ol barney wants to protect his own mistakes…
I guess i just hold my prez to higher standards… maybe im naive
You can’t tar everyone that works in finance with the same brush. Taxpayer guaranteed funds should not be used for speculative purposes whether it be proprietary trading at J.P. Morgan, or governmental entities guaranteeing loans to companies whose business models have never withstood the scrutiny that a rigorous capital markets approach would provide. Arguably Solyndra would have benefitted from having been more traditionally vetted by the capital markets.
The Wall St. model went off the rails when traditional investment banks largely ceased to be partnerships, and became publicly traded entities. Partner’s who have their own capital at risk tend to be far more circumspect about how it is deployed. Neither is Investment banking a haven for underachievers. It is one of the most exemplary meritocratic industries. If you fail, you get fired. That’s it. The vast, vast majority of bonuses aren’t guaranteed.
You can crap all over the Wall St. crowd, but without the taxes that they pay into our local coffers, the tumbleweeds would be blowing down our streets.
Precisely what is wrong with being able to do a “bespoke trade” with a well capitalized and willing counterparty that has adequately reserved for the risk??? It’s a little too late to put the CDS genie back in the bottle.
“It’s a little too late to put the CDS genie back in the bottle.”
Germany didn’t think so, Deadeye. And a lot of Americans, including Warren Buffet (who calls them a “financial time bomb”) agree.
Warren Buffet, FYI, has an enormous derivative portfolio. That was a powerful statement that bears some qualification. Just like calling for higher tax rates on earned income when the majority of his is in dividend form and taxed at a far lower rate…
The big derivative issue to keep an eye on now is CDS on European sovereign debt to which French and German banks have significant exposures. The big question is what will constitute an event of default, and consequent payout on the CDS protection. What are the net exposures and where do they lie? This is a big part of the Greek contagion argument.
If Greece defaults, than as Warren Buffet says “We’ll all see who’s been swimming naked.”
I think there’s been a lot of skinny dipping.
whats the adequate amount for a total return swap on a bond in the belly of a CDO^2 structure??? thats my point, no way of knowing. so do we overestimate?? thats fine with me, it kills the trade but maybe it should. my point is that obama in an effort to appeal to mainstream media and those who just hang on populist soundbites banned prop trading and reduced debit card fees because americans understand those words even though these things had nothing to do with the crisis… he ignored a lot of larger systemic issues, but whatever, his supporters wear blinders and they all say “wellllll he is not the best but i think he is doing a darn good job given the circumstances”… way to not do any research or think for yourself obama fans
on a lighter note check this out, if this doesnt ring of ol bushy i dont know what does…..JG, to your earlier point, I would take karl marx over rick perry.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000056443
Stay, The answer to your question is: whatever the counterparties agreed to. First a slight premium to cash, then huge upfronts and running payments after the first mover advantage was lost. The thing with a synthetic mid/lower credit CDO^2 you basically always had a CDO as the seller and and one of the usual suspects as the buyer. Unlike something more conventional this is one example where the protection buyer didn’t lose much sleep thinking about novations or unwinds. He was going to get paid, and soon.
You can’t tar everyone that works in finance with the same brush.
Oh, god forbid! Those poor things, to be tarred so! Actually, I was referring to compensation at hedge funds specifically.
Anyway, deadeye, how can you even complain about people being tarred with the same brush so soon after referring to your interlocutors as people who have contemplated their navels and “now shuffle paper in some white collar factory”?
When it comes to simpleton views of the world, deadeye, you are right up there with the best.
The World According to Deadeye:
1) Masters of the Universe
2) doctors who fix tennis elbow of Masters of the Universe
3) losers
4) poor people (invisible)
This notion that unless we allow Wall Streeters to rape and pillage without encumbrance society will collapse into chaos is horsepuckey.
deadeye, the point is there exists a host of trades and areas of concern that can be improved upon (some by eliminating legislation some by adding it) and dodd frank didn’t do it. It is one the most misinformed pieces of legislation ever and the system is no safer because of it. I think you would agree it is hurting liquidity in certain markets and proving incredibly costly to implement not just for banks. It is in this way I was highlighting it as yet another failure of the obama administration. Those who have blinders on and only hear the buzzwords he throws out when talking about its successes think this was a good thing despite not touching fannie and freddie or solving the rating agency problem. Bumper sticker politics embraced by all!!!
Same thing with health care. BUTTTTTTTTT, he killed Osama!!! He is awesome, lets re-elect him!
Stayhyphy, just curious, what percentage of these transactions are “bespoke?” I assume you mean by “bespoke,” transactions done by participants who don’t have to register with the SEC or CFTC as participants under the new rules under Dodd-Frank.
A simpler way to ask I guess, what’s your take on the numbers of transactions that would go unregulated under the new rules because the
participants don’t have to register?
I’m just curious. While I don’t think Dodd-Frank is the end all be all, I do know that by the amount of screaming done by the bankers, it does have some teeth.
by bespoke i mean custom, nothing to do with regulated or not. a client wants some sort of exposure and broker dealer provides it. the bankers are screaming is because it is incredibly costly to adhere to a host of new regulations that will ultimately hurt liquidity and hurt the ability of a broker dealer to provide certain client services either because of cost, or it cant hedge itself, or it can’t conduct reasonable market operations that would let it make markets effectively.
if you are making markets or trading nearly anything in block form you have to register with the SEC, in fact your ex-wifes mother in laws second husbands dog probably has to register as well. the regulation is extensive, super super super extensive…however I dont think makes our system any safer at all…which is scary. It is the typical democratic answer though, shotgun approach/more legislation is always good… I would counter with, lets craft sound policy not just a lot of policy…but it is easier to get vote by crafting a lot of policy, and attaching simple buzzwords to it like “fee” and “capital” that americans can understand and repeat like puppets.
sigh………
Stay, I agree.
Roo, I just re-read my post. When I mentioned navel gazers, I should have said “the” rather than “you.” I wasn’t trying to be insulting. My definition of that group would be those that never sought to excel, yet now expect economic parity with those who worked their way into well paid positions, whatever the industry.
Stayhyphy, I believe Senator Franken’s bill to change how rating agencies are selected is in a mandatory study period– after which time (next year) if the SEC hasn’t pinned down anything wrong with it, it becomes a regulation.
“Senator Franken’s bill to change how rating agencies are selected” Now we can all sleep easier now that he’s on the case. Now we’ve got comedians writing financial legislation and people think thats a Good thing…Really?
May I remind you of ‘Bedtime for Bonzo’? If you can embrace a C-rated actor
as one of the greatest presidents, then you can accept a pretty good senator who has given up comedy for public service. After all, comedy requires more skill than shilling for GE in front of a drama you’re not even appearing in.
Listen, Franken never had a recurring role on LAW AND ORDER like Senator Thompson, but he WAS funny!
I appreciate the apology and clarification, deadeye. You can be disarmingly gracious, I’ll grant you that. I’m sorry to be so aggressive. But you aren’t saying anything that disproves my point, that your worldview is extremely narrow. I believe you believe that the value of a person’s life is directly proportional to his monetary compensation. That’s true, isn’t it? So there’s really nothing to discuss, is there? We have a fundamental failure to communicate.
I am a VERY well-educated man, so I understand these terms being tossed around by deadeye and stayhpy.
But I realize that most of you dolts haven’t attained that level of sophistication. That’s why yez are all losers who don’t work on Wall Street!
But I’m willing to help out. I know both stayhpy AND deadeye, and I filmed them at a sort of impromptu financial give and take, where these terms are explained in layman’s language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2wcOLMBT9w
I used to shop at the Red Apple on B’Way and 83rd after work and was regularly in line with Al Franklin and Ed Bradley in the early 80s. If I had to pick one as a potential senator…
You’re wrong Roo. That’s not the way I think at all. I’ve just been involved in finance for a long time and met a lot of people whose intellect, creativity, and integrity I respected, and many more about whom I felt strongly the other way, to be charitable. I don’t judge a book by it’s cover,and I don’t ask people what they do for a living in social situations. My friends are economically all over the map.