Republican nominations - Page 419

On February 09 2012 09:07 Savio wrote:
If you don't think Mitt Romney is going to win the GOP nomination consider:

1. He is still polling better nationally than any other candidate and seems to be getting relatively stronger (upward trend):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

2. He has a large delegate lead already (more than twice as much as either of his opponents and more than both Gingrich and Santorum combined).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

3. Newt is peetering out and overall, Santorum has still had less than half as many people vote for him than Romney.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html

4. Romney is most likely going to win the next two state nominations
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/az/arizona_republican_presidential_primary-1622.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html

5. After those 2 primaries, he is the only candidate who is truly prepared for Super Tuesday vote in March.

6. He is the only candidate who from the beginning planned and prepared for a long grueling nomination process. There will be little blips of momentum for Santorum and Gingrich but overall, neither has much of a chance.

7. Santorum just had a good enough night to stay in the race. Gingrich won't be leaving anytime soon because he is Newt Gingrich. This means the opposition will remain splintered.

8. If you wanna see what people are putting their money on (historically better at predicting outcomes than polls), just look at Intrade. It is a prediction market where you wager on outcomes and lose money if you are wrong and get money if you are right. Lots of money goes through it. They use relative prices of shares to come up with what buyers consider the "chance" of candidates winning are.

Romney: 80% chance to win (this is suprising low. Its been in the 90's for a while. Likely to go up after the next 2 primaries I think)

Santorum: 7.5% chance to win

Gingrich: 3.5% chance to win

Paul: 1.5% chance to win.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=19



TL:DR
Romney will be the GOP nominee. Don't doubt it.

On February 09 2012 08:19 ixi.genocide wrote:


I would love to see the math on this

On February 08 2012 22:26 Derez wrote:


What?

Most gay marriages are more stable and gay couples have incomes that are generally above the median income in a country. Santorum's stance has nothing to do with 'stable families', it has to do with him disapproving of a certain lifestyle. He's a bigot and a moron, there's no need to try and make it into something else.

On February 09 2012 09:22 SerpentFlame wrote:

I agree that Romney will probably win, but Intrade just yesterday had Romney with a 97% chance of winning the Colorado caucus. I think the more interesting story arcs are how much damage the GOP is going to do to itself in the primary process, and whether Ron Paul will win any of the primary contests (apparently he is looking pretty good in Maine caucus).

On February 09 2012 09:34 vetinari wrote:


GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports.

Y= C + I + G + (X - M)

An equivalent way of expressing GDP = consumption + taxes + savings.

Y = C + T + S

C + T + S = C + I + G + (X-M)

T + S = I + G + (X-M)
(S - I) = (G-T) + (X-M)

(S - I) = net savings. If positive, then net private sector wealth is increasing.

(G - T) = government deficit

(X - M) = net exports.

Therefore, in order for the private sector to accumulate financial wealth, the government must run a deficit equal to the desired private sector savings rate minus net exports.

Let us assume that the private sector wants to be a net saver at 3% of GDP, and net imports are running at 5% of GDP.

Therefore, the government needs to run a 8% deficit in order to satisfy the private sectors desire for accumulation of financial assets. If net exports are at 5%, then the government needs to run a 2% surplus.

On February 09 2012 09:39 Savio wrote:


A long primary can sometimes be bad. But sometimes it can be good. Remember the primary between Hillary and Barack? That was a very close primary and lasted a LONG time. Didn't hurt Obama at all. There have been other long ones that were beneficial at all. I actually don't think this primary will be that long. I think it will be pretty obvious who is the winner by early March (on Super Tuesday to be precise)

On February 09 2012 09:49 Savio wrote:



A few things.

1. You are calling (S-I) private sector wealth. I'm not sure why you are doing that. S is domestic savings. I is domestic investment. I can be very high with a low S as long as we have foreign countries investing in our country (which we DO and have always had) which is maintained by a TRADE DEFICIT, not necessarily a GOVERNMENT deficit.

In order for us to maintain a high level of business investment in the face of a low domestic savings rate, we are required to have a trade deficit.

2. "S" is domestic savings only. That is why it fits into our GDP equation. I is domestic investment. S would equal I if we did not trade with the rest of the world. If I is greater than S (which it is), then we are running a trade deficit. If S is greater than I then we are running a trade surplus.

So I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe you were confusing your "government deficit" with "trade deficit". There is nothing that says that we must run a government deficit in order to have significant domestic investment in our country. In fact we had a government surplus for much of the 90's but we still had a trade deficit because we need it to maintain our domestic investments.

WASHINGTON -- The news accounts have been consistent: Rick Santorum's stunning triple victory on Tuesday in caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a nonbinding primary in Missouri have "upended" the Republican presidential race and "raised fresh questions" about Mitt Romney's "stubborn weakness," his relatively limp support from the conservative GOP base.

While the television networks did not conduct exit polls for Tuesday's contests, survey data from previous primaries and caucuses generally confirm the same troubles for Romney that Santorum's wins spotlit. Less clear is whether those weaknesses clear a path for Santorum to defeat the former Massachusetts governor and win the Republican nomination.

The results in the eight contests so far demonstrate two continuing difficulties for Romney.

The first is his apparent problem with very-low-turnout caucus states. Romney has lost in three of the four caucus states to date, but has won two of the three primaries that did apportion delegates. The caucus states produced turnouts ranging from 1.2 percent of eligible adults in Minnesota to 5.4 percent in Iowa. The primary turnouts have been much higher, varying from 12.8 percent in Florida to 24.9 percent in New Hampshire. The nonbinding primary in Missouri, which Santorum won by a wide margin, produced a turnout (5.7 percent) almost as low as the Iowa caucuses.

On February 09 2012 13:21 vetinari wrote:


(S - I) is net private sector savings. Basically, its the change in the amount of cash that the private sector is hoarding. If its positive, then the stock of non-circulating money is increasing. If its negative, then the stock of non-circulating money is decreasing.

Second, if I > S, that does NOT mean that we are running a trade deficit. A trade deficit only occurs when M > X.

(S - I) = (X - M) + (G - T)

No doubt, you are thinking of the equation in the form of I = S + (T - G) + (M - X). However, the causation runs the other way. Investment is not financed by saving. Its financed by profits and borrowing (which doesn't come from savers. the money is created by the banks). Investment determines whether there will be a government surplus, permits the level of savings to increase (due to more income flowing through the system), and the trade deficit is determined solely by the exchange rate and competition.

(and the exchange rate, should in theory be determined by relative interest rates and inflation. LOL.)

On February 09 2012 15:30 NationInArms wrote:
Not sure if I should have posted this here on in the funny pictures thread, but I saw this thread first:
+ Show Spoiler +

On February 09 2012 14:43 Savio wrote:


I finally figured out what you are trying to say. You are talking about the Twin Deficit Theory in Macroeconomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_deficits_hypothesis

...Where it is hypothesized that government deficit can crowd out investment. But you've downplayed the role of the trade deficit. The wikipedia article has the full derivation and explanation.

Basically what it all boils down to is:

Savings + TradeDeficit = Investment + BudgetDeficit.
or
BudgetDeficit = Savings + TradeDeficit − Investment.

Meaning if the Budgetdeficit increases then either savings must go up (unlikely in America), the trade deficit goes up (very likely), or investment must go down (also could happen).

But it's not like all the brunt is carried by a drop in inventment. You can't ignore the trade deficit and you shouldn't treat it as if it is a constant. It is probably the most flexible of any of the variables we are dealing with. If the trade deficit goes up by the same amount as the budget deficit then investment doesn't have to drop. But ya, it is theoretically possible that the government can "crowd out" domestic investment by holding a budget deficit.

I'm in favor of eliminating the budget deficit. I think that would be good. But if I hear anyone complaining about the trade deficit, I just facepalm and move on. There is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit...in fact in the US, it is necessary to maintain our investment levels as we have shown.

EDIT: Also note that the MAIN outcome of the Twin Deficit Theory is not that investment drops with a governement deficit, but "the understanding of why an increased budget deficit goes up and down in tandem with the Trade Deficit. This is where we derive the appellation the Twin Deficits: if the US budget deficit goes up then either household savings must go up, the trade deficit must go up, or private investment will decrease."

Mmmm, more Ron Paul propaganda. You posted it in the right place, because it's annoying, not funny.

On February 09 2012 16:11 Khelben wrote:


It is annoying to everyone who is/has been ignoring him for years.

On February 09 2012 16:11 Khelben wrote:


It is annoying to everyone who is/has been ignoring him for years.

On February 09 2012 16:34 Probulous wrote:


No it's annoying because it is repeated ad nauseum and isn't new. Honestly this thread has become a ron paul campaign page. It is fine when people express their opinions on ron paul as a candidate but this stuff is just spam really.

On February 09 2012 15:52 aksfjh wrote:

Mmmm, more Ron Paul propaganda. You posted it in the right place, because it's annoying, not funny.

On February 09 2012 21:34 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:


I'd call it meme posters more than propaganda because most of those posters are actually facts.

On February 09 2012 16:08 vetinari wrote:


The thing is, I'm not talking about the twin deficit hypothesis. I consider budget deficits (for a government that issues its own fiat currency) and trade deficits to be a good thing. Despite monetarism being complete bunkum, I'm going to give this one to Friedman: trade deficits are a good thing, as what you exchange is bits of paper you can print at any time, for real, actual things. China holding a trillion in securities is actually a good thing, because otherwise they'd be using the USD to buy US assets.

No, what I am refering to is the desire by companies and households to accumulate net financial wealth. The private sector can only increase its net financial wealth by obtaining currency. It cannot create it, as money creation by the private sector is accompanied by an equal liability. The desire to accumulate net financial wealth, when private debt exists, can also be given another name: deleveraging.

S - I represents the change in net financial wealth over the period.

Savings and investment aren't determined by budget deficits/surpluses, or trade deficits/surpluses. Rather the desired level of savings and investment determine the state of the trade deficit and budget.

I'd say that savings/investment are the easiest for the private sector to alter. The private sector cannot control the budget, nor can they control the trade deficit. However, they can control how much they save (if they consume less, they save more), or how much they invest (put all projects on hold).