Jim Cramer Is So Full Of It: Panic! No, Don't Panic!

Four years ago on a fateful Monday morning in early October Jim Cramer was telling us if we needed our money in five years we'd better get out NOW. The market tanked that day, even though TARP had been signed the Friday before. The market kept tanking for 3 more weeks, in part because of Cramer's own televised statement on October 6, 2008. The market stabilized after that for a while, and then the market tanked some more in March 2009, and then came roaring back because of Federal Reserve interventions to the present day. Long term investors who stayed all-in through all that until now aren't quite fully redeemed from five years ago, but from four years ago they are, and then some. I'd rather still own the same stocks at this level in excess of 1400 today than have listened to Jim Cramer after S&P 500 at 1100 on Friday October 3, 2008 when George W. Bush signed TARP into law and sold into a sea of frickin' fallin' knives! The market has rebounded 27 percent nominal since that time, and if you missed that Jim Cramer owns some of the blame. 

And now Jim's telling us to be patient in October, the month of "the willies", and start buying in earnest in January? Fear motivated Jim Cramer four years ago. Today? Not so much.

OK Jim. Whatever.

Steve Malanga Thinks Romney Flips To Tax Deduction Caps To Avoid A Bloody Fight

Here, for Real Clear Markets:

Pressed to explain last week how he would lower tax rates without sacrificing revenues, Mitt Romney suggested that he might cap tax deductions at $17,000 per return. This was entirely different from his earlier suggestion that he'd eliminate some of our dizzying array of tax deductions in pursuit of a simpler and more economically efficient tax system with lower rates but fewer write-offs.

In his latest proposal for reform that started out as a way to simplify our tax system, Romney would make it more complex. The political virtue of this new approach is that it lets him preach lower rates without identifying specific deductions he'd eliminate, and therefore without incurring political opposition from interest groups that fight to protect those deductions. But it's a stretch to call this tax reform as it's generally understood.

You will read the rest of the article in vain looking for any discussion of the fact that when the much vaunted lower tax rates which came in the 1986 tax reform disappeared under Clinton, the deductions which went away in 1986 were no longer present to protect taxpayers from the full force of the those rate increases.

The presence of many deductions in the tax code represents the political success of the American hatred for taxes. They constitute rear guard actions, reactionary impulses if you will, against an otherwise intractable imposition of unconstitutional coercion and immoral inequality before the law. It is unjust to charge some taxpayers more than others.

Tax reform as we know it is a fool's errand for conservatives. Reagan, Kemp, Bushes I and II and now Romney are all to one degree or another really liberals with respect to the tax code, dancing around the fact that the income tax itself was the innovation in American history. They play with the details, protraying their proposals as conservative now and again, without ever coming to the root of the matter that the introduction of the income tax was a revolutionary impulse and was itself just one in a series of many radical changes foisted on the American people during the Progressive era.

When conservatives in our time begin to roll back those assaults, then we may legitimately speak of "reform". Until then, Romney's waffling between eliminating deductions or capping them is significant only to people without a long view of the matter.

ObamaCare Is Already Destroying Full-Time Jobs

The Orlando Sentinel has the story here, about how Darden Restaurants, with 185,000 employees nationwide, is beginning to limit hours to under 30 per week in order to avoid the requirement to provide affordable care under ObamaCare:

Analysts say many other companies, including the White Castle hamburger chain, are considering employing fewer full-timers because of key features of the Affordable Care Act scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Under that law, large companies must provide affordable health insurance to employees working an average of at least 30 hours per week.

Pretty soon, we'll ALL be working TWO part-time jobs, all because of ObamaCare, and buying lousy health insurance through the exchanges instead of getting it at work.

Way to wreck everything, Brownie!

Another Reason I'm Not On Facebook

It saves me the trouble of de-friending you.

Every Christian A Smith And Wesson

Huuuuh!

Government Uses ZIRP To Help Itself, And Screw You

Government interference with interest rates is punishing savers like never before, but allows the Feds to pay record low rates on the US Public Debt it racks up in obscene fashion. The zero interest rate policy effectively nullifies returns from savings which older investors rely on for income in retirement.

The official policy of our civilization is to abort the young before they ever see the light of day, and to impoverish the prudent out of existence. 

Government has now suppressed interest rates to such an extent that the $16.2 trillion US Public Debt in fiscal 2012 effectively costs the Feds a paltry 2.2 percent to carry.

Meanwhile they continue to pile on ever larger sums owed, and never pay off even so much as one thin dime of it.

Mitt Romney is right to call this immoral:

“In my view, it’s not just bad economics; it is immoral for us to pass these burdens on to coming generations.”

Not Even Fox News Catches Romney's Debate Gaffe

The answer to EVERYTHING is 42.

How many days has it been since the debate? Five? And still no one has caught Romney's gaffe equating Spain and the US, except little ole me?

Romney still hasn't corrected himself. Why would he when he's soaring in the aftermath of the debate of a lifetime?

Obama didn't catch the mistake, of course. He's too stupid about economics, with or without his teleprompter.

Jim Lehrer didn't catch it either (no surprise there--I don't think he's ever caught anything, not even a fish. Well, maybe a cold.).

And no commentary I am aware of has caught the mistake made by Romney.

And it is a big one.

Fox here spends a whole column on it, focusing on Spain's perceived insult, and of course the Spaniards aren't going to point out the mistake, even if they knew what it was. Would you, especially if it destroyed your sudden new-found equality with the most powerful nation on earth?

This is really depressing. The failure to catch the mistake indicates how deep the ignorance of economics is in the world today.

Here's the mistake, once more, as quoted, but unnoted, by Fox:

"Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government,” Romney said during the debate. “I don't want to go down the path to Spain."

The mistake? Romney meant to say 24 percent, not 42. If he really meant 42, what relevance does warning about going "down the path to Spain" contain if we're already there?

Historically America has spent around 18 percent of GDP on average on government. Obama has ramped that WAY UP . . . by 33 percent in just four short years. That is fundamentally alarming because the expenditure is abnormal . . . and all borrowed.

But if America were already spending 42 percent of its GDP on government, we'd already be Europe with all its sclerotic problems. Life here would be much different than it is, more like what Obama wants it to be. Maybe that's why Obama hasn't said anything about it. The reason we are still so strong as an economic force in the world is that we are relatively much more free of such a burden as Spain endures, and the rest of Europe endures for that matter.

It's something of the utmost importance which we should all be discussing right now, but that the guy who holds the most promise for keeping us from such a fate as Spain's has flubbed the opportunity to discuss it in such spectacular fashion makes me pretty pessimistic about the future.

If you don't understand the problem, you won't understand the solution.

h/t Nita 

Obama's Version Of Afroman's "Because I Got High"

It's like I don't care about nothing man

Roll another joint, ooh la da da da la da da la la da da

I was gonna start an economic boom, until I got high

I was gonna stop and end the doom, but then I got high

This country is still a tomb and I know why

(Why man?)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I was gonna cut the price of gas before I got high

I coulda drilled and kicked some ass, but I got high

(Uh uh la la da da)

Now the voters are takin' a pass and I know why

(Why man? Hey hey)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

(Go to the next one, go to the next one, go to the next one)

I was gonna git down to The Oval, but then I got high

(Oh oh)

I was gonna work on a campaign slogan, but I got high

(La da da da da)

So it's jus' "Forward" from Joe Stalin and I know why

(Why man?)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I was gonna find me a new church before I got high

I was gonna drop that Muslim lurch, but then I got high

(No you wasn't)

That Arab Spring won't bear research and I know why

(Why man? Yeah)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I wasn't gonna bail out the bankers, but I was high

(Uh, I'm serious man)

I was gonna jail all the wankers, but I was high

(Uh)

Now I'm just an old Dodd-Franker and I know why

(Ha ha ha, why man?)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I was gonna pay for the bills I wrote until I got high

(Say what? Say what?)

I wasn't gonna gamble all our gold, but then I got high

(Uh uh)

Now the debt load's sinkin' the boat and I know why

(Why man?)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I was gonna give you the public option, but then I got high

(Ooh, I'm serious)

I was gonna make it much cheaper too, but then I got high

(Oh)

Y'all'll be screwed before I'm through and I know why

(Ah, trying to shut off, ha ha ha)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I transformed the entire country because I got high

(Go go go)

I made every last road bumpy because I got high say

(What? Say what? Say what?)

It'll soon be third-world-dumpy and I know why

(Why man? Yeah yeah)

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I'ma stop singing this song because I'm high

(Raise the ceiling baby)

I'm singing this whole thing wrong because I'm high

(Bring it back)

And if I don't sell one copy, I'll know why

(Why man? Yeah)

'Cause I'm high, 'cause I'm high, 'cause I'm high

La la da da da da la da da da shoobe do be do wa

Skibitty do da da da la get jiggy with it scubbydooby wa

(original video here)

Colorado Election Model v. Rasmussen

The latest and last prediction before the election from a state-level economic model by The University of Colorado, here, shows Romney winning in November with 330 electoral college votes to Obama's 208:

The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama is predicted to win Michigan and Nevada.

Rasmussen differs in that he has Obama strongly carrying New Mexico, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, as of tonight, and Romney strongly polling in none of the states he's supposed to carry according to the Colorado model.

Rasmussen also shows Obama narrowly polling ahead in Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada.

Assuming those 6 states go for Obama, along with Michigan, that would put North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Florida in Romney's column (narrowly), totaling 267 electoral college votes, just shy of the needed 270 if the rest of Rasmussen's map is correct.

Obama taking Wisconsin and Ohio and Nevada would give Obama 271 to win if the rest of Rasmussen's map is correct.

That result would mirror the year 2000 contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, only flipped this time favoring the incumbent Democrat Obama.

Why Should Government Support Home Ownership? Babies Need Nests!

America should support home ownership because babies need nests. Babies are future taxpayers. Babies are the future.

Is it any coincidence that in the wake of the housing debacle and the employment depression birth rates have now tanked to record lows?

No nests, no jobs, no babies.

Time has the story here:

[I]n 2011 . . . the general fertility rate (63.2 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) was the lowest ever recorded; the birth rate for teenagers ages 15 to 19 declined; birth rates for women ages 20 to 24 hit a record low; and rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women dipped. Some birth rates remained unchanged, like those of women in their late 40s. Only women ages 35 to 39 and 40 to 44 are more likely to have babies now than in the past.

The Gold To Oil Ratio Is 19.79

Meaning relative to gold, oil is STILL on sale.

They don't think so in California this weekend, but it's true.

Gold would need to fall to $1,350 the ounce to right the ratio at the current price of oil, a 24 percent decline.

Or oil would need to go to $118 the barrel at the current price of gold to right the ratio, a 31 percent increase from the current price near $90. 

Rasmussen Polling Shows Romney Improving, Obama Still Winning

Rasmussen's electoral college map shows Romney now polling slightly ahead in Florida and Virginia, but Obama is still ahead in Nevada, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire to win it.

Ohio is key in that math, where Romney is narrowing the gap. Everything else remaining equal, Romney capturing Ohio would snatch victory away from Obama.

Romney's strong debate performance already seems to be shifting narrow polling in his direction.

RCP Puts Ohio Back Into "Toss Up" Moving Obama Back To 251 EC Votes

See the map here.

Private Sector Employment Has Fallen 2% In Four Years

Data and graph available here.

In other words, 2,260,000 fewer work in private industry than did four years ago.

Four Years Ago, Total Non-Farm Employment Was Higher By 2.832 Million

Data and graph available here.

The 2% decline in total non-farm employment is the nominal decline which ignores the growing size of the US population, and thus of the workforce, over the period. A healthy economy grows sufficiently to absorb new workers added to the population. Since 2008 US population has grown by over 3%.

The Number Forced Into Part-Time Work Exploded 38% In Last Four Years

View the data and graph here.

In other words, 2.4 million more work part-time today because they must than four years ago.

Four Years Ago, Part-Time BY CHOICE Was 2.7% Higher Than Today

View the graph and data here.

In other words, there are about one half million fewer working part-time by choice compared to four years ago.

Four Years Ago, Full-Time Employment Was 3.7% Higher Than Today

View the data and graph here.

In other words, 4,470,000 full-time jobs existed on September 1, 2008 which do not exist today.

Part-Time Employment Surges Over 7 Percent In One Month

Part-time for economic reasons surged from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September.

Unemployment Drops To 7.8 Percent, Just In Time For The Election

After 43 straight months of unemployment over 8 percent, and an average of monthly reports of 9.0 percent for the entire Obama presidency, the absolute worst record in the post-war period, unemployment has suddenly fallen by 0.3 points in one month from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September.

Just in time for the election!

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here:

The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing but changed little in most other major industries.

The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1 and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by 456,000 in September.