Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Jul 11 10:37
Date Joined: 24 Feb 08
| Topic/replies: 62,054 | Blogger: FXDUX's blog
If we're going to have a US Presidential thread, it might as well be named after the person who's going to win the Presidency next year.

Perry will announce his candidacy fairly soon, and my guess is that shortly thereafter Sarah Palin will endorse him. People who are at the moment supporting Palin, Santorum and Cain will move to Perry, and the conventionalists who like Romney's executive solidity but not his fiscal record will move across also. Hardcore Bachmann fans will stick with her for a while, and her campaign will be sustained by a decent showing in Iowa, but in time they will reality-check themselves out of the Congresswoman's camp and into the thrice-gubernatorial hotel.

Rick Perry will campaign on his record of presiding over the creation over half of all American jobs in Texas over recent years. Obama's poll and approval numbers are crashing in the face of a dire economy. The latest Gallup poll showed Obama losing to a generic Republican by 47 to 39. It is said that elections are won from the centre, but Obama will not be able to run from the centre; his record in office is hard-left and big, big government. The GOP will not be putting up the centrist Romney, whose healthcare plan inspired Obama. They will be running the hard free-market Perry. The election will be about a stark choice between free market values tested in America's most successful state economically, versus socialist command economics tested by a White House incumbent presiding over national economic deterioration.

The joker in the pack is potential widescale war in the Middle East.

William Hill are today the first of the bookies to get with the program on Perry; they have cut him to 5/1. Ladbrokes had him at 14/1 last week; he is down to 9/1. If you can get Perry anywhere close to double figures you will be doing well. It won't last. He is headed for a uniform 5/1 and then lower. By election day on the back of relentless poll leads, he will be shorter than Obama.

Rick Perry will win the US Presidential Election.
Pause Switch to Standard View President Rick Perry, sworn in...
Show More
Report TheMadness August 19, 2011 1:12 PM BST
"All I know is that the northern european model has proved the most succesful since WWII"

Says who?
Report five leaves left August 19, 2011 1:20 PM BST
Says me.

The evidence in terms of things like drug abuse (legal and illegal), crime rates, health outcomes. Both mental and physical, underage pragnancies and just general well being, suggests the northern european model is a very successful one compared with the american model.
Report TheMadness August 19, 2011 1:49 PM BST
I suspect Sweden is not as socialist as some would like to believe. And what about demographics (Sweden has a tiny population) and what cradle-to-the-grave welfare seems to do to the human character? I know they have a huge problem in Malmo with the muslim population. And I suspect the Swedish establishment are every bit as adept at covering up some of the less impressive aspects of their system as New Labour were.
Report TheMadness August 19, 2011 2:00 PM BST
And it's worth remembering that the reason so many Europeasn countries were able to develop these welfare states is because America was defending them for decades.
Report five leaves left August 19, 2011 2:04 PM BST
I'd agree no system is perfect TM, but some are less imperfect than others.
It's not just the scandinavian countries who do significantly better than the US on many measures, but the likes of Germany too.
Report FXDUX August 19, 2011 4:21 PM BST
fll, it's a fundamental point that our current system is simply NOT capitalism. Capitalism is where capital is put to work to generate a productive economy. Capital may be gold, it may be other liquid or more illiquid assets, but one thing capital is not is debt. And that's what our monetary system is.

This is the heart of our present problems and the whole boom/bust cycle. We are using something as money which simply is not money. A troy pound of sterling silver is capital, and when that is what "pound sterling" referred to, we lived in a capitalist society. Now that pounds sterling is simply an unbacked indeterminate liability of the government, and we have fractional reserve banking which creates debt on top of debt, that's where you get things like inefficient resource allocation, social destruction, overconsumption of resources and so on.

I agree with your critique of the system, but be sure to identify and label the problem accurately. It isn't capitalism; it is a debt-based economic system. How and why that debt-based system arose is to do with the symbiotic relationship between big government (welfare) statists and the banking classes. The latter has been enriched by facilitating and sustaining the ponzi-type long term spending aims of the former.
Report johnnyrant August 19, 2011 8:07 PM BST
nick - I've read your recent posts on this thread and I like the cut of your jib, so you have an ally here. The Republican Rottweilers in the US appear to be like the right wing press in the UK pre-General Election, only a hundred-fold.
Report FXDUX August 19, 2011 8:38 PM BST
Back on topic, I am increasingly unnerved by Perry's inability to handle touchstone issues like creationism with a deft touch. He needs to hone his message pronto if he isn't to hang a bunch of millstones around his neck.

I hope Perry isn't going to go the way of Cain. Cain looked like a barnstormer when giving speeches but unexpectedly wilted in formal debate. Perry has a great campaigning record but it looks like the road ahead may be bumpier on this non-Texan campaign trail.

Ron Paul flushed away any chance of going mainstream in the latest debate by his inability to mask/soft-sell his isolationism. I fear Perry is the same way about his social conservatism. I thought he would be ok after his deft handling of the gay question, palming it off as a states issue. But I can't take much more of this damned equivocation on evolution.
Report FXDUX August 19, 2011 8:44 PM BST
On the other hand, one article writer who knows Perry describes him as very aware of the need to change his message for the national audience. The task at hand is undoubtedly to hoover up Paul and Bachmann backers, and accusing the Fed of treason and soft-pedalling on evolution looks like no accident in its targeting of touchstone issues for those two categories of GOP voters.

Perhaps Perry feels confident that he can send out the appropriate signals now and then elide his message to make moderates and independents feel comfortable later.  He IS a bit of a charmer, with a touch of the slick Willy Clinton about him, so maybe he can pull it off. It doesn't make for comfortable viewing for me though!
Report Henry VIII August 19, 2011 11:01 PM BST
He may mess up, but just to give the other view:

You know that the majority of American college graduates (let alone the general public) don't believe in evolution. I remember that from a decade ago, but I doubt much has changed. It's not seen as anti-intellectual to denounce Darwinism, so the kind of majority compromise is to have both evolution and creationism taught. And every US President in history has said he believes in God. Whether they were truthful or not, and whether Perry really is religious, is another matter, but it does them no harm to say these things.

The GOP quite like a fairly far right guy if they can get him into DC, and with the economy in such a mess this is the time for a real no nonsense guy, hence the current popularity of not one but three of them - Perry, Bachmann, Paul.

(In 20 years time the demographics will have changed, mainly Mexican immigration and birthrate, so that a Republican may never get in again, or they'll have to change to a high tax high welfare party. Just like the fall of Rome.)
Report stringerbell August 19, 2011 11:57 PM BST
thanks johnnyrant...nice to hear

back on topic, strikes me that it's perry's to lose now, but it could be lost if he doesn't appear confident under pressure. surely time to lay off all your monster bets...
Report Henry VIII August 21, 2011 11:34 AM BST
There was another governor of the B of E inbetween the wars, 1919 iir, who said the whole thing is a con and then resigned. The con being that the private owners of the BofE make money out of nothing.

Atlee nationalised it, Thatcher privatised it again but kind of secretly unlike the fanfare of all the other privatisations (which I have nothing against). So it's still thought of as state owned. I think the owners are called something like nominees and are rarely referred to, all emphasis being on the governor and his staff and his relationship with Parliament.

President Wilson said on his deathbed that he feared he had destroyed the USA by carrying out his sponsors aim and founding the Federal Reserve, the bill being hurriedly pushed through Congress when most representatives had started their Xmas holiday.

Fractional Reserve isn't banned throughout the whole Muslim world and formally the whole of Christendom for no reason. It has always lead to disaster in whichever civilisation had it.
Report five leaves left August 21, 2011 11:44 AM BST
I did mechanics with A-level maths rather than Econmics, so will leave you guys to debate the economics of it all.

When I was talking about rampant capitalism, I was really referring to the small government, let the market decide, solutions to our probelms that the right here and especially in the states, proselytise.

Everyone seems to agree that the wealthy bankers caused the problem and yet the right want to lower their taxes and make the poor pay the price of cleaning up the mess, via massive spending cuts.

ofc the mess is so big that both will have to take hit, which is what Obama was arguing while the loony right in the states dug their heels in and eventually emerged 'victorious'
Report Henry VIII August 21, 2011 12:56 PM BST
I imagine economics A levels and degrees are all a bit of a waste of time - approved and docile, they're ultimately paid for by the government after all.
Report five leaves left August 21, 2011 12:57 PM BST
I'm not defending Obama.
The left are just as much to blame as the right.
They just carried on with the Thatcher/ Reagan philosophy of Private good, Public bad, give the banks a free reign, and everything will be ok.
The greed is good, I'm alright jack society, which has led to the sh1thole we're in now.
Report FXDUX August 21, 2011 6:29 PM BST
I am currently reading an utterly superb book about the crisis. It is called Meltdown and it's by Thomas Woods - the guy in the video to which I linked.

If you want sincerely to understand how we got into this mess, and why all the things our political, economic, intellectual and media leaders are advocating/implementing is more of the same and compounding the errors leading us to a total wipeout, then buy and read Tom Woods's Meltdown.

It is from such clarity of thought that things like identifying Rick Perry at (originally) 500/1 arose! Not that I told you guys about it until 50/1 - a bloke's gotta eat.

I want the same thing for society as all you bleeding heart lefties - a more civilised, prosperous place where those who are unable are cared for. It's not about what one wants - it's about finding an efficacious way to secure it. The current fiat currency, fractional reserve banking Keynesian welfare state is not the right way to go about it. It is an unstable, inefficient, fraudulent, inherently unjust and mortal economic paradigm. Meltdown will help you understand that a true free market with sound money would create sustainable and stable advances in prosperity, which by implication would benefit the weak and vulnerable in the long run.

There is no shortcut to the social utopia to which we all aspire, as the unavoidable implosion of our ill-conceived present system is articulating.
Report FXDUX August 22, 2011 11:21 PM BST
This is a great article:

I like graphs and colour pictures.

Anyway, Ryan is definitely not running, he has reiterated. Christie has denied it so many times I can't conceive that he'll run. I really really really hope that Pataki and in particular Giuliani get into the race. Giuliani in particular would hurt Romney. And the daddy, or rather the mama grizzly, is whether Palin enters. I hope and pray that she doesn't. It would really not be good for Perry if she does. Seems the Arizona senate seat is what she's waiting on, and possibly the question of whether Giffords runs also.

Best case scenario: Rudy and Pataki in , Palin out. If that happens, I'll start breathing easier about all these dickheaded comments Perry keeps making about evolution  :-(
Report Peter Petrelli August 23, 2011 3:22 AM BST
It's a shame that Ryan is not running as he is one of the few Republicans who is not barking mad. Here he is talking about the Democrats' imbecilic approach to budgeting.

The market thinks we are heading for an election between:

Barack Obama - a good and decent man who nevertheless appears to believe that money grows on trees


Rick Perry - a man who is good at creating low wage jobs, who last week accused the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of treason, and who has a hard time in understanding evolution.

We're all f*cked!

Still it could be worse.  Last week, despite the fact that she believes in a free market, Michele Backman announced that, if she were President, she would reduce the price of gasoline to under $2 a gallon.  In another speech, she started by wishing Elvis Presley a happy birthday.  I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she knows that Presley has been dead for over 30 years.  However, this is August and his birthday is in January.
Report johnnyrant August 23, 2011 3:21 PM BST
zoomraker 21 Aug 11 11:16 
Why is it that no one who disagrees with FXDUX on this thread is taking on the foundation of his argument that a debt based monetary system is unsustainable and iniquitous.

My answer to this zoom, would be that firstly, FXDUX uses words that most posters, including me, aren't even clear on the meaning of (and I'm a journalist Laugh) so some of his long-winded arguments are somewhat impenetrable. Also, I do not claim to be an economics guru, something FXDUX, courtesy of his in-depth reading, has a far greater handle on, and a lot of it is way above my head.

Credit to FXDUX for spotting such a stand-out value betting proposition.

I think Obama is a fundamentally good man but I'm pre-disposed to support the Democrats. I watch Fox News and that says enough to me about the inherent evil of Republicanism.
Report Peter Petrelli August 24, 2011 3:25 AM BST
johnnyrant posted

FXDUX uses words that most posters, including me, aren't even clear on the meaning of so some of his long-winded arguments are somewhat impenetrable

When I am in the market to buy a professional service – eg doctor, dentist, lawyer or even newspaper – I prefer them to be straight talking and to use plain English.  If I suspect I have cancer and visit the doctor, I am looking for a diagnosis, a plan of action to fix any problem, and a clear view of the outlook.  If it is bad news, I want to know.  Any doctor who couldn’t do this would go out of business.  I expect the same from my politicians.

The best politicians – eg Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton – are the ones who talk most directly to the people in plain English.  By that, I don’t mean that they necessarily have the best policies.  Some of Thatcher’s views were pretty extreme.  Rather, I mean that everyone knew where they stood.  During the financial crises in the late 1970s, everyone was crystal clear on Thatcher’s views and plans.  Her supporters loved her for it.  Her detractors despised her.  Perversely, clear talking meant that her detractors knew exactly what was coming, and that made them despise her more.

This is both a great thread and a frustrating one.  On the one hand, the scope of the issues being discussed is fairly mind-boggling which makes the thread fascinating.  On the other hand, as Johnny says, it is often difficult to follow.  However, every time I read the thread, two words come to my mind:


There are several reasons:

•    The issues the US is facing today are reminiscent to me of the late 1970s in the UK
•    The issues in the late 1970s were caused by the financial incompetence of the leftist party who spent too much, took out too much debt and threatened the value of the pound
•    The Prime Minister was James Callaghan who was a decent man just like Obama
•    The issues came to a head with the ‘winter of discontent’ where the GBP realised that urgent action had to be taken
•    Margaret Thatcher was voted to power to solve these issues despite the fact that many people disliked her
•    Thatcher had brain-box economists advising her who probably talked using the same sort of opaque terms as FXDUX
•    Thatcher had the brains to understand the issues she faced and to interpret the advice of her brain-box advisers, and the guts to take unpopular decisions, but then she also had the skill and honesty to translate all of the resultant complexity into plain English for the electorate even when she knew it would be unpopular.

She would say things like:

•    Families and countries must both set budgets to control their spending
•    Families and countries should normally spend within their means
•    Families and countries should be careful when they borrow money, and ensure they don’t take on too much debt
•    If they do take on too much debt they won’t be able to pay it back and will end up in the poorhouse.

I think that part of what FXDUX is attempting to say is this same stuff.  I think that he is also saying that, despite the fact that the US has terrible debts, the Democrats will want to spend even more money to try to get out of the current economic slump, and that will just increase the debt further without improving the slump, so would be the wrong thing to do.

With all the comparisons above, I suspect that the solution to the current US crisis will come from the Republicans, irrespective of what anyone on here, including me, thinks of them.  The only thing that may be missing is the equivalent of the ‘winter of discontent’ trigger, although it may be that the raising of the debt ceiling was that trigger, so I’m not sure whether that solution will come in this electoral cycle or the next one.

I have been doing some research on the Republican first cut solution to the debt crisis, and will try to post some information in a day or so. It is both brave and electorally toxic. 

The Democrats do not have any proposed solution as far as I can see.
Report Henry VIII August 24, 2011 8:16 AM BST
Critisising arguments because there are phrases you haven't heard before and then saying it's not straight talking is the worst kind of anti-intellectual bullsh1t. (Saying you like politicians who put things simply - Jesus H Christ).

FX, and myself for that matter, have been completely straight talking, completely clear. If you don't understand something eg "fractional reserve banking" use google ffs. That's what it's called. Plain as.
Report stringerbell August 24, 2011 10:37 AM BST
personally i have absolutely no problem with the way fxdux phrases his arguments. i find them refreshingly articulate and not impenetrable at all. as you know, i don't always agree with the angle he takes. no doubting what he brings to the forum though...and it's 100 per cent positive imo. disagreeing with someone's views is what the forum is about - but if they argue their point in an such an eloquent way as fxdux then all the better
Report Peter Petrelli August 24, 2011 3:16 PM BST

I appear to have achieved the impossible on this thread and got Team Left and Team Right to agree on something: that I am being disrespectful to you.  Apologies!

I realise now that I should have made this post before trying to enter what is a complex, ideology-based and fascinating debate on topics that will help decide our collective futures.  In addition, there is a huge range of characters involved, candidates and others, many of whom I had never heard of before reading your threads, and who are interesting people above and beyond whether they actually become President, or even stand in this electoral cycle.  For example, galvanised by your posts, I watched the Republican debate in Iowa, something I would never normally do, and came across Ron Paul who is absolutely fascinating (although I don’t think I would vote for him as he has no sense of compromise).

And to think that I usually come here to read about trivialities like American Idol!

This and the Cain thread are two of the best threads on the board.  You started them and you have made by far the biggest contribution from the point of view of educating me in what is going on here.  Apart from the tip on Perry which others applaud, your call on the price of gold has been fantastic.  Unfortunately, I am on neither.

Since reading the threads a couple of weeks ago I have been busy:

•    Looking at Wikipedia to try to understand your complex terms and grasp your argument
•    Watching some of the videos you posted
•    Looking at websites and videos of the candidates, and other key figures in the Republican party
•    Watching the debates and interviews (most recently last night I watched an interview with Huntsman)

and trying to get my mind around what is going on here and what I think should happen, both politically, and from the perspective of the betting market.

I have also been asking myself a number of questions.  For example:

•    If the debt issue is so important, what specific plans do the two parties have to tackle the debt?
•    Given that healthcare is such a large part of the budget, what are the implications for healthcare?
•    Perry seems to have a great record on jobs, so: how did he create them; why is his record so much better even than other Republican governors; and will his methods translate to national level or are they specific to conditions in Texas?
•    How do the Chinese fit in to all of this?  A quarter of the debt is in the hands of the Chinese.  They also have lower costs than the US, so, for example, if Perry is creating jobs through a low cost economy then how is he going to outbid the Chinese in terms of costs?  Companies like Apple are increasingly moving their production to China for reasons Perry would applaud, but the more they do that they more difficult would be his job in Washington.
•    Given that the choice in the election will be binary, how would I vote if I were an American with a similar outlook to myself?  I am what you call an Independent.  Should I vote for Obama, a good man who believes in social justice in the same way I do, but who might bankrupt the country?  Or should I vote for Perry who will sort out the budget and maybe jobs, but who will also make an already unequal country even more unequal, and will be looking to teach children about creationism?
•    Given that both of these choices seem to me to be very extreme, are there any alternatives eg an independent candidate who might combine the best of Obama and Perry without what I see as the excess of either?

From my perspective, this is what happens in the political process:

•    Stuff happens in the world
•    Historians write about it
•    Economists come up with ideas on how to make it better
•    Politicians talk to the economists and decide which ideas they like
•    Voters decide
•    Change happens.

Part of the difficulty I am having in these threads is that you and Henry are the brain-boxes at the start of the above process, while I am just a voter.  Politicians are the ones who create the compelling messages to persuade people to vote.  Vote for me because I know about fractional reserve banking is not a winning sales pitch to most people.

That was why I wrote my previous post – to try to play back to you, using my language, what I think you are saying, and what conclusions I should draw, in order to see whether I have understood correctly.

I’d like to start a debate with you to help me see if I have understood correctly all of the information I’m trying to process, much of which challenges my own values, and maybe even help me win a few pounds on these markets.

Apologies again for jumping in without posting this first!  Thanks for your efforts.
Report Henry VIII August 24, 2011 4:50 PM BST
• Looking at Wikipedia  etc etc

That's more like it mate. FX may be talking a lot of nonsense (I don't think he is [;)] ) but he's not really being verbose. No short cuts with some things.
Report Henry VIII August 24, 2011 5:16 PM BST
Rasmussen poll out today: Obama 43% Perry 40%

And Perry's only just started campaigning.
Report Henry VIII August 24, 2011 5:17 PM BST
Also Gallup a few days or a week ago: Obama at his lowest approval rating.
Report johnnyrant August 24, 2011 5:18 PM BST
the ability to transcend conformism and ideological miasma than anyone else

Just one tiny example. It's not exactly layman's language. I think you Henry and FXDUX are extremely knowledgeable on economics which is absolutely fine but as someone who comes from an arts background, and with zero attention span, it's not the easiest to assimilate. The wording is too academic for my personal taste but that's not to say it isn't still brilliantly insightful.
So, keeping to the simple betting basics, do you make Obama a near certainty to lose?
Report Henry VIII August 24, 2011 5:37 PM BST
No but I'd never be backing him at his current odds-on. 18 months is a long time in politics and he's ignoring the debt.
Report stringerbell August 24, 2011 7:58 PM BST
johnny you're probably as aggrieved as i am that we didnt get the fancy prices on perry for republican nomination. i'm still very hopeful obama will get a second term
Report johnnyrant August 26, 2011 7:01 PM BST
I am nick, as I'm always on the look out for Specials 'value'. It was a great pick by FXDUX.
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 8:35 AM BST
Peter Petrelli, there is no risk that Obama might bankrupt the country. The country is already bankrupt. It is insolvent. The system cannot be salvaged.

The destination is a new currency unit. The eventual destination will be a return to capitalism, ie sound money, but we may segue through a bastardised half-paper/gold-linked international currency basket on the way there.

Here is the binary choice:

1. Vote for someone who will merrily proceed with debasing the currency in infinite oblique ways. It won't stimulate things any more than that hundredth hit will stimulate a junkie. It is by far the worst option because nothing destroys a society more comprehensively than destroying the currency. Why? Because ultimately it will wipe out even the most conservative (small c) wealth base, ie your grandparents.  (Obama)

2. Vote for someone who will rein things in. It won't work, it will precipitate crisis, but at least it will bring about the new currency sooner rather than later while some people still have a modicum of wealth left to convert into the new currency, which can then be used as a base for saving, investing and growth. (Perry)

Nb Ron Paul is the only candidate who is sufficiently doctrinal that he would seek to proceed directly to a hard currency.

There is a quote I read somewhere once which I am desperate to re-locate, which ran something like "By far the most important intellectual matter to which a man can apply his mind is to understand the nature of money."

I would say, if you are trying to get your head around all of this, forget about medicare, politics, low or high taxes, left wing or right wing and just concentrate on understanding what money is. How it originated, what attributes the original money organically needed, and how it evolved (ie was corrupted). The difference between money and paper currency. The difference between money and debt/fiat paper. What has happened throughout history EVERY SINGLE TIME a society has been moved onto a paper currency.

That is the single most important principle one needs to consider. When you understand what real money is, it's a lot easier to understand the nature of our current corrupt system and to evaluate the responses of different ideological camps.

The Keynesians call gold "the barbarous relic". I do think that the eventual monetary system man will find will not be a gold standard; it will be a price index interfacing digitally monetised capital of a wider breadth than merely gold. But in trying to correct gold's flaws by increasing liquidity, they chose an even worse system, ie the debt paper that we use today.

The problem with our current system is that it encourages narcissistically kind-hearted-yet-dim people into thinking that the government has an infinite pocket from which it can pluck compensation payouts, free school lunches, unlimited universal medical care, free holidays for muggers and so on. It can for a while, because this monetary system is infinitely elastic in how much they can borrow and print to spend. But eventually, even if it takes several decades or more, the system implodes. And that is what we are living through. That's why 99% of people, including the (ha!) experts are so clueless. Because you have to go back 80 years, 100 years or more, and to long-abandoned sound principles to understand why we are in the mess we are in.

If you watched The Code on tv recently, you'll see that in nature animals gravitate towards mathematically efficient and efficacious patterns in how they arrange their activities, whether it is the hexagonal pattern of honeycombs or the hibernation timing of insects. No honeybee, so far as I am aware, has a PhD from Harvard or has written a thesis on the Great Depression. If you read Meltdown, by Tom Woods, you will read a description of how interest rates work. How they work naturally, if left alone, if allowed to find an equilibriate level free from political interference. How the available pool of capital prices itself correctly and sends signals to the market. How the market responds. How the system self-corrects. It simply works.  Where it stops working is if the people in control of a society say to themselves: "we must secure, in the short-term at least, vote-winning popularity, and so we must fight the natural correction which returns us to equilibrium. We must short-circuit the hangover/re-adjustment. We must arbitrarily price-fix the cost of money to make it ultra-cheap so as to infuse the economy with yet more liquidity and hopefully continue the vote-winning boom."

When you do that, all you do is create an ever-more dysfunctional economy where the wealth base is destroyed and there is nothing to invest all that ultra-cheap money into except tangible items that offer refuge from the implosion of the system.

If I were you I'd be less worried about which politician is going to steer us into the next crisis, and more worried about what exactly you think it is you have in your bank account. You may think it's money. I think it's fiat units vulnerable to dissolution by dictat in a way that hasn't been experienced in this country for literally centuries. When I say "vulnerable to dissolution" I don't mean to imply that the process hasn't started - unless you are getting a healthy interest rate above the real (ie not the government-created ostensible) inflation rate.

The best case scenario is that that situation continues and you gently lose 10-15% if your purchasing power every year. Ok perhaps while you are still working but screwed as soon as you retire. But it's more likely that you will be losing an accelerating amount in the coming months and years as inflation sharply accelerates. So don't worry about your vote so much as worry about protecting your savings. I have been banging the drum for silver since $4.50. I am going to stop once it breaks $50. That may be quite soon, and it will be something of a relief.

Anyway. I expect that I am repeating myself. If you have further queries, the best one-stop shop on our current plight can be found at, and if you want a deeper grounding, look for Tom (Thomas) Woods on youtube, at or buy his book Meltdown.


New CNN poll out:

Perry 27
Romney 14
Palin 10
Bachmann 9
Giuliani 9
Paul 6
Gingrich 6
Cain 2
Santorum 1
Huntsman 1

It's now really about who gets in and who doesn't. If Palin gets in, Romney is back in contention with the conservative vote thinly spread. If Giuliani gets in and Palin doesn't, Perry's lead is going to take on an unassailable dimension.
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 8:49 AM BST
I know I keep going on about it, but if you want an illustration of how our mainstream press and society is subverted from reality, Jon Hunstman's continued low pricing illustrates it.

His polling figures average 1.5. He is bottom of the pile. Santorum averages higher figures than him at 1.8. Yet Santorum can be had for 500 on Betfair with Huntsman only 50.  The best bookie price at Oddschecker is 28/1 for Huntsman while you can get 80/1 at multiple bookies for Santorum.

It makes no sense. There is no sound reason for it. The only explanation is that the press talks up people who are in line with their liberal delusions, and creates a sense that Huntsman is a more credible contender than he is. They did the same thing with Obama. That's how a man with a micro-thin cv got elected President.

If I were in the laying game, I'd offer odds of 1000 on Huntsman without batting an eyelid. I can see 5 or 6 people in the Betfair market currently priced at 1000 who I think are more likely to become the next President than Jon Huntsman.
Report Henry VIII August 30, 2011 9:39 AM BST
Interesting posts as usual FX. One point: You say a Perry type will “bring about the new currency sooner rather than later” compared with an Obama type. I don’t think so. An Obama will lead to a mega crash earlier, which would then probably bring about a new currency system. A Perry would cut spending, cut the debt and prolong the current system (still preferable imo). A Perry type could even invoke a gradual change of system. But this is unlikely. Republicans and Conservatives are still mega-government parties, they just differ in degree from the left.

“I do think that the eventual monetary system man will find will not be a gold standard; it will be a price index interfacing digitally monetised capital of a wider breadth than merely gold”

Government land has been used in the past (not in Britain I don’t think) but, like gold, there isn’t enough of that, so yes there will have to be breadth. And the price of anything tangible will shoot up while it's being decided. Which is the same thing as saying the fiat currency will become more and more worthless.
Report Henry VIII August 30, 2011 9:40 AM BST
Interesting posts as usual FX. One point: You say a Perry type will “bring about the new currency sooner rather than later” compared with an Obama type. I don’t think so. An Obama will lead to a mega crash earlier, which would then probably bring about a new currency system. A Perry would cut spending, cut the debt and prolong the current system (still preferable imo). A Perry type could even invoke a gradual change of system. But this is unlikely. Republicans and Conservatives are still mega-government parties, they just differ in degree from the left.

“I do think that the eventual monetary system man will find will not be a gold standard; it will be a price index interfacing digitally monetised capital of a wider breadth than merely gold”

Government land has been used in the past (not in Britain I don’t think) but, like gold, there isn’t enough of that, so yes there will have to be breadth. And the price of anything tangible will shoot up while it's being decided. Which is the same thing as saying the fiat currency will become more and more worthless.
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 1:11 PM BST
One thing's for sure. All the editorials and so-called experts in the mainstream press who have been talking gold down over the last decade don't know what they are talking about. And they still don't. How can so many seemingly sensible people have it wrong?

Because the drivers for gold's rise are nothing that has been in issue since before any of them were alive.

Roubini said gold would be lucky to reach $1,100. Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist and now resident idiot at the Times, declared the golden age soon over at $1,500 in April.

Meanwhile, gold is currently $1,818 and in launch phase for blowing past $2,000.

By the time they get around to incorporating it as an alarm-measure in the new international currency basket to replace the dollar, it will be somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 probably.

And silver - well, once it goes past $50, there will be fireworks. Until then I will continue to bang the drum that there is nothing cheaper in the world today. My price target is $500-$800.

The Queen famously asked how none of the economists forecast the crash. None of these experts who you are still reading in the papers and who are wheeled out to opine on tv. But the truth is that every single one of these people described the forthcoming crash in detail five years ahead of time at the conference I attended in 2003: Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Richard Russell, Robert Prechter. It was no secret and the crash was no mystery. It was totally and utterly foreseeable to anyone looking through the prism of common sense "Austrian economics".

This is Peter Schiff's youtube page:

If you want accurate analysis, forget the crap in the paper and on tv and check in here for his regular video blogs. He appeared on Newsnight recently. Click on the videos "Peter Schiff was right" for him predicting the crash in full technicolour at least a year ahead of 2008 amid other commentators laughing him off and predicting sunny skies ahead.

The truth is that the crash arose from a specifically bad system and specifically untenable practices and there were a whole host of Austrian-minded figures from Schiff through Jim Sinclair and James Turk who were all over the internet for at least five years prior to 2008 describing what was going to happen.

I am no genius. I just happened to read an article by Doug Casey in 2003 and subscribed to his newsletter where he described the coming "Greater Depression" in intricate detail.

The Times is a joke. The FT is a politicised pile of garbage. There are one or two financial writers in the Telegraph worth reading. The Guardian and the Independent? Really?? If you want student common room idiocy, go for it.  The BBC? It's news for retards. The Schiff Report, King World News,, zero hedge, the Sprott Asset Management website's monthly digests - there is plenty of free analysis of contemporary events out there from people who actually understand what is happening and who are making a lot of money by being on the right side of events.

You can get with the Austrian read and be enlightened, right and make money - or pollute your mind with the crap-for-sheep on the BBC website and in your mainstream rag of choice.

Sounding strident, but I'm doing you a favour by slapping you across the face with a wet kipper.
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 1:22 PM BST
This is a great, great source of intelligent analysis:
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 1:22 PM BST
This is a great, great source of intelligent analysis:
Report FXDUX August 30, 2011 3:44 PM BST
Schiff lecture:

Schiff on Newsnight:
Report FXDUX August 31, 2011 7:31 AM BST
No, I'll just stop evangelizing. I see it going to somewhere between $300 and $800 before 2020.
Report FXDUX August 31, 2011 7:31 AM BST
Zoomraker, check out

Digitally monetized, stored commodities, interfaced through a price index.
Report Henry VIII August 31, 2011 9:51 AM BST
Digitally monetized, stored commodities, interfaced through a price index.

That's not gold though is it? A gold certificate is paper and in a crash that's all you may be left with - paper (or a screen shot of some internet transaction).

Gold is gold.
Report FXDUX August 31, 2011 10:57 AM BST
Gold is gold, and certainly in the upcoming crash there will be a premium on eliminating counterparties between you and your assets, not least to protect oneself from government.

But it is impractical to think that gold will end up the currency of 7 billion people. You would have to carry miligrams or micrograms in your pocket. GoldMoney provides the model for how gold will ultimately be used. Private companies will compete to offer the highest quality fiduciary storage and digital monetisation.

Once you have that in process, there is no reason why silver, copper, lead, zinc and indeed anything which is fungibly divisible should not also be monetised in the same way. In the days when coin needed to be physically transferred, gold was naturally elected the monetary metal due to its scarcity, compactness and portability. With digital money these restrictions are obselete. All you need is something definite and measurable. Take shares in a well-traded company, for example. You could lodge a certain number of shares in a digital monetisation account and then spend 50p on a Mars Bar, deducting a fractional amount from your share money.

It is an inefficiency that there is third party external intermediation of value with gold or even paper money being used to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. A price index would intermediate no middle value and allow one to hold one's money as capital (of one's choice) and trade directly into the relevant good or service.

The Keynesians were half-right in gold's obseletion - it IS illiquid and arbitrary. It's just that they replaced it with something even worse, because X years ago they didn't have the technology to devise the ultimate system. We have the technology now; it just requires the intellectual light to filter into the centres of power. Don't hold your breath for universal adoption occuring too soon.
Report FXDUX August 31, 2011 11:07 AM BST
Private companies should provide these storage and digital monetisation accounts because their interest would be in competing to offer the most transparent high quality fiduciary storage. So you know that if you sweat blood to earn four crusts, that you know that the person you gave four crusts to hold on account for you is going to hold those four crusts intact.

Government's primary interest is in bribing you to re-elect them, and they will always look for cheat ways to find more bribe money. Which means that if you trust your four crusts borne of sweat into a system they control, the rats and moths of excess borrowing, money-printing and artificial suppression of interest rates will gnaw your crusts down to 3.5 to 3 to 2.7 to 2 if you do not act assiduously to protect yourself.

This analogy is directly applicable as of 31st August 2011 to anyone who holds their crusts of sweat in pounds or in assets denominated in pounds.

The US Fed is holding an extraordinary two-day meeting in September. The next round of money-printing is imminent. Well done with any money you are winning on savvy bets at the moment; shame if you put it in the bank for the moths and rats to gnaw with increasing aggression.

And THAT is the other side of the coin to free universal healthcare and free universal this and free universal that. You don't get free universal anything without unleashing the moths and rats on people's savings and assets.
Report Peter Petrelli September 1, 2011 8:48 PM BST

Thanks for the reply.  I understand what you are saying about ‘sound money’ and that we should all take care of our savings to stop them from being eroded by inflation.  Even before reading this thread, I noted that we have moved from a policy of controlling inflation using interest rates to one where interest rates are virtually zero and inflation is moving upwards.

To a layman, whenever I hear experts (and politicians, who are rarely experts) talking about economics, my gut tells me that I’m listening to a bunch of people who all know that the earth is flat, and are busy arguing about whether it is a flat circle, a flat triangle, or a flat square.

Your Austrian economics may be the equivalent of Galileo looking out into the heavens and realising that pretty much everything he can see appears to be spherical, or it may be just a new, different way of describing a flat earth.  Unfortunately, I am one of these awkward people on Team Independent who needs to think these things through for myself in order to come to a conclusion.  I may come back and make some further posts after I’ve done some more thinking.

I did watch the The Code TV programme on mathematics, by the way.  I thought it was excellent.  It discussed chaos theory which shows that some systems are just not predictable.  For example, we can just about predict the weather up to about a week out.  After that we’re lost.  I suspect that something similar is true in economics which is one of the reasons that I am sceptical about any answer which claims to be the ‘correct’ answer, but also why I suspect that excessive tinkering by politicians and economists, however well intentioned, is unlikely to be an effective answer.

Meanwhile, I have done some research on the plans of the two US parties to tackle the debt problem.  Post follows.  Results depressing.
Report Peter Petrelli September 1, 2011 8:50 PM BST
FXDUX has made some very strong arguments about “Sound Money” and about the problems arising from excessive debt, and pointed out that the issue of the US’s debt is central to next year’s Presidential election.

Galvanised by his arguments, I decided to do some research to find out which party or candidate has the best solution to the debt problem.  My thinking was that, if I could find that party or candidate, I could bet on them in the relevant markets.  As it turned out my findings were very different from what I expected, and my idea of betting on the best solution turned out to be naïve.  Nevertheless, the story is pretty interesting and is central to the election, and also to any bet on the party and election markets, so I’ve decided to post my findings.

I used a combination of TV interviews and YouTube videos to hear the views of the politicians themselves.  This seemed like the quickest approach.  Also, it avoids media distortions and makes it easy for me to understand the arguments even though I am not an economist.  I have included some of the relevant videos in this post.


Both parties agree on the debt problem.  The debt is growing and, without a plan of action which the electorate will accept, will soon reach a level beyond which it will become impossible to escape from spiralling debt without default.  The parties also agree that any resolution of the debt problem will require spending cuts in the areas which consume the biggest percentages of the budget, particularly healthcare.

The Republicans have published a plan to tackle the debt.  The author is Congressman Paul Ryan.  There appear to have been at least two iterations of this plan.  The Republican plan tackles both the debt and the related healthcare issues.  The plan tackles the debt issue entirely through spending cuts, and includes no tax rises.
I have included links to three videos which outline the Republican plan.  Irrespective of your political position, the videos describe clearly the debt problem and the Republican solution.  The third video describes how Medicare works and how the plan would change it.

President Obama does not have a plan to solve the debt problem.  He did, however, make a speech outlining his vision.  His vision includes a combination of tax rises and spending cuts.  This speech seems to have been made as a response to the Republican plan.  The President’s vision has not subsequently been translated into an actionable plan.  The Congressional Budget Office has not assessed the impact of the vision because ‘we don’t estimate speeches’.
I have included links to two videos: a summary video and a video of the entire 45 minute speech.

The Republicans said that the President’s speech was more like a campaign speech rather than a serious plan.  They said that the President seemed to want to avoid taking any tough decisions on spending cuts.

The Republican plan was vilified in the left-wing media.  Ryan was accused of being ‘the man who wants to kill grandma’.

A congressional election was held in one of the safest Republican seats in New York State.  The Democrats made an issue of the Republican debt plan and won the seat.  Although most Republicans stood by the plan, some decided that, as a result of this election, the plan was electorally toxic and, so, distanced themselves from it.

The President has made a couple of critiques of the Republican plan, one in the speech above.  I have included two videos.  The first is a response to what must have been a previous iteration of the Republican plan as it pre-dates the current plan.  It includes some valid points on policy differences, and also on how party politics gets in the way of proposals from either party, but it includes no alternative proposals.  The second video contains excerpts from the President’s speech from earlier, combined with the Republican rebuttal of his points.  Note that, in the rebuttal, the Republicans say that their plan is based on a bi-partisan proposal from the Clinton era.

Bill Clinton has also commented on the Republican plan.  As with President Obama, he has valid objections to the plan, but he also does not propose an alternative plan or even any ideas for a plan.  Again, I have included two videos.  The second contains some biased voice-over from Fox.  However, listen to Clinton’s words.  He is telling the Democrats not to play politics with Medicare and to come up with their own plan.

The day after the New York election mentioned above, Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan met at some function where their private conversation was overheard.  The short video below re-iterates some of the points above.  In particular, Ryan says that the Republicans knew they were putting themselves in the line of fire by publishing their plan but did it anyway to try to get out of paralysis.  At the end of their conversation, Clinton and Ryan agree to meet again.

Paul Ryan is not running for President (re-iterated and finalised last week).  As a result, the Republican candidates have the opportunity to distance themselves from the current Republican plan.  However, at the recent debate in Iowa, they all said they would not agree to any plan which involved any tax rises, so they would probably be constrained to minor changes to the current plan.  Governor Perry was not at the debate, but it’s difficult to see him running as the only Republican to support tax rises.

Following the recent raising of the debt ceiling, President Obama has set up a bi-partisan committee to come up with a jointly agreed plan ‘behind closed doors’.  The Republicans think this process will fail as it has been tried before.  They appear to want the President to come up with his own plan, and then to debate the relative merit of the two plans in the open.  Electorally, it’s not clear why the Republicans would want to help the President to come up with a plan which was better than their own plan.

To repeat what I said earlier.  Both parties agree on the debt problem.  The debt is growing and, without a plan of action which the electorate will accept, will soon reach a level beyond which it will become impossible to escape from spiralling debt without default.

As things stand at the moment, the Republicans are running on a debt plan (or minor variant) which appears to be electorally toxic, while President Obama, two and a half years into his Presidency, is running on no plan at all.


This picture is not what I expected to find.  Based on the UK media, I had expected to find that President Obama was the good guy and that the Republicans were the bad guys, but what I found is a much more nuanced picture.  Even though this has been quite a long post, there are no doubt other facts and nuances that I have missed eg both parties have conspired to accumulate the debt; Obamacare puts further distance between the two parties’ positions on healthcare; and the Bush tax cuts are due to expire in 2012.

For me, this analysis raises as many questions as answers.  My questions are about electoral strategy, though, rather than economic ideology.  I’d be interested in any views on how each party (using its own economic ideology) should try to optimise its chances in next year’s election.

President Obama:  Does he need a plan and, if so, how should he get one?  Or should he campaign without a plan, and simply point out the least popular bits of the Republican plan?  Also, why does he not have a plan already?

Republicans:  The current Republican plan seems to be electorally toxic.  Should they change their plan to increase its chances of electoral acceptability?  For example, should they agree to tax increases?  Or should they simply point out that the President doesn’t have a plan?
Report Peter Petrelli September 1, 2011 8:53 PM BST
I came across this speech by President Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner made just after his long form birth certificate was released.  It contains a few good jokes at the expense of Donald Trump – with Trump in the audience, and some at the expense of a few of the Republican candidates.  For anyone who is still a birther, it also contains the President’s birth video.
Report FXDUX September 1, 2011 10:18 PM BST
This is doing the rounds as an illustration of the US debt:

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, yet they spend $75,000 a year, and have $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."

I haven't checked the maths, but it gives you an idea. In fact, I don't think it's so much reducing spending [by an inconsequential amount], it's reducing future increases.

Tax rises don't work. As Churchill said, it's like a man standing in a bucket trying to pull it up by the handle. It's a tough old fact of life, but it's those wicked corporations and wealthy people who do the entrepreneurialising and create the jobs. The fat cat is also the golden goose. If you want to increase the overall tax take in the long run, you need to cut taxes, not raise them.

The point about the debt, made in the illustration above, is that it has gone too far now for any meaningful consensual action to be taken. We are past that point. Money-printing, a descent into hyperinflation and a convulsive devaluation/ new currency are the only way to settle (default) on that debt.

It could not be easier to identify how to make money in this situation. It is the same thing that you should do if you want to protect your savings. Buy silver and gold.

Nb if you do decide to buy silver and/or gold and elect to do it with, it would be kindly appreciated if you would enter "fxdux" as the referrer on your registration form! :-) Won't cost you nuffink.

First off though, I'd say gold sovs - legal tender so no CGT. But while I think gold will go up 400% within the coming years, I see silver appreciating 1000% or more. Silver britannias are legal tender and CGT-free too, but come with a whacking premium plus there's VAT on silver. That's why GoldMoney is a good option for silver - hold with them offshore and no VAT (but CGT).

We should see $50 silver this year. Fly in the ointment is what happens in Germany in the next week and then later this month re euro bailouts. But the Fed meeting in three weeks portends more QE.
Report FXDUX September 2, 2011 8:34 AM BST
New Fox poll out

Perry 26
Romney 18
Palin 8
Paul 7
Bachmann 4
Giuliani 4
Cain 4
Gingrich 3
Santorum 3
Huntsman 1

It is disappointing to see Romney narrow the initial euphoric Perry lead but overall it's very positive for him to see Bachmann polling her lowest numbers since mid-June. Unless Palin gets into the race it should be a thoroughly binary choice between Romney and Perry come the state caucuses. You've got to question how long Bachmann and Cain will stay in the race and how many of their enduring supporters will choose to vote meaningfully anti-Romney in the end.

I see that Huntsman, whose best odds are shorter than those of Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich and Cain, is making a real charge in the polls. *heavy sarcasm*

The next GOP debate is on Wednesday. It's a biggie - will be Perry's first one. Cain's candidacy basically blew up in the second GOP debate. How will Perry handle it? It will be interesting to see how aggressively Bachmann goes after him. But Perry looks and sounds good. Unlike Cain he is a seasoned, folksy, charming politician with a hint of the Clinton about him. This first "official" look at him may boost his numbers if he can hit his mark. He certainly needs to develop a slicker line on the touchstone issues like gay rights and evolution.
Report George Bailey September 15, 2011 5:01 PM BST
Donald trump is 10x the price of palin. Neither has ruled out standing. IMO Trump a much more credible candidate if he throws his hat in the ring.  Big green for a few quid on both republican candidate and next president. Very weak field for me and Trump's ego might see him go for it. Stranger things have happened at sea.
Report five leaves left September 23, 2011 10:44 AM BST
I see we've had a flop flip and Romney is fav again.

The polls seem to showing that Perry scares the floating voters and Romney is way ahead with them.
The Tea Party loons obviously favour Perry.
Report J.O.TOBIN. September 23, 2011 5:02 PM BST
Big driffy today as big as 7/1 for next potus on intrade.
Report George Bailey September 23, 2011 7:22 PM BST
Perry will crash and burn.  Whoever is taking palin at 18s must have money to burn.
Report five leaves left September 23, 2011 8:08 PM BST
Elections are always won in the centre.
Report George Bailey September 23, 2011 8:14 PM BST
I wouldn't want to be taking odds on Obama at this stage. If the economy doesn't improve in the next few months he's got a mountain to climb to be re-elected. It could end up anyonebutobama and it won't matter who the right pick.
Report five leaves left September 24, 2011 10:56 AM BST
He made a massive blunder when he caved into the right over the deficit reduction plan.
He's now saying the right thing, that the those who can afford to pay will have to dig deeper into their pockets to help solve the problem.
Lets hope he doesn't cave in again and lose a lot of his own party and moderate voters.

He's clearly beatable now though, as you say GB2. I don't agree that it won't matter who they pick.
When they didn't think they could win then the Perry had a much better chance of winning the Republican nomination, but if they sniff a chance of victory then they're much more likely to pick a moderate like Romney.
Report George Bailey September 24, 2011 11:06 AM BST
Yes I retract re it not mattering. I'm green on Romney for president. If Trump throws his hat in the ring I will be very happy but he's probably just playing the publicity but don't underestimate how strong his hand is. He can be king maker or go for it himself.

Re Obama all those queues of people waiting to vote for him last time won't be there next time. He will struggle to get his core vote out despite his slick election machine. Watch if Democrats elected to congress start to disown him. Toast if they do.

Recent by election results there have been shocking for the democrats.

He now smacks of emperor's new clothes to me.
Report five leaves left September 26, 2011 4:01 PM BST
Is Herman back in the race?

I heard on 5 live last night that he was a surprise leader in one of the polls. Was it Florida?
Report seanvice September 26, 2011 4:10 PM BST
Yep the Florida straw poll Fig, he won it quite big as well, 37%.

Decent record of picking the nomination too, been won by Reagan, Bush sr and Dole before.

Seems his speech hit all the right notes and got the audience in the room passionate. A bit different when you have to win whole states.

Do you guys read the 538 blog? Easily the best anaylsis of the race, guy is a stats geek and can comment from a betting point of view.
Report five leaves left September 26, 2011 4:13 PM BST
Cheers sean.
Will take a look later.
I've not had a bet. Just an interested observer. Too much else going on with the tv betting atm
Report seanvice September 26, 2011 4:26 PM BST
I know its a right ballache keeping track of every blooming specials market at the moment.

Chris Christie would be the perfect candidate to win the nomination if he runs, would take votes from Perry and Romney. Scarey that someone like Perry has a chance, certified nutjob. Cameron would be called a socialist if he was American.
Report FXDUX September 29, 2011 6:56 PM BST
Hi guys.

I didn't catch the last debate, but by accounts Perry performed poorly. I had a nasty feeling he might do badly after his earlier inability deftly to deflect questions on evolution.

Yeah, Herman did well in Florida and the latest RCP poll is very interesting:

Romney 23
Perry 19
Cain 17
Gingrich 11
Paul 6
Bachmann 3

I think that this has to favour Romney. His perfect scenario is running against two fairly credible but flawed right-wing candidates to split the majority vote and allow the pragmatist camp to prevail, and that looks at the moment like what is unfolding.

The economy is going down the toilet and Obama is very vulnerable, but he's still holding onto parity in the polls, and that's another filip for Republicans to veer towards the more moderate candidate.

A lot can change. Cain was dead in the water recently, after all. But I'd be surprised if Romney slips up badly; he's a pretty steady eddy. It's all about Perry, really. He needs to find his feet and restore faith in the narrative of his candidacy.

If Romney gets the nomination I stand an ok chance of ending up somewhere not too far from break-even, which is obviously disappointing compared with the several grand I'd make on Cain and the total wodge on Perry; but that's the way it goes, I guess. I am just very disappointed that for a three-term governor, Perry hit the ground stumbling rather than running. C'est la vie.
Report five leaves left September 29, 2011 8:22 PM BST
You must be able to lay off for a nice profit?
Report George Bailey September 29, 2011 10:11 PM BST
perry won't get nomination. Trade like fll says.
Report BillyBunnsLane October 6, 2011 12:00 PM BST
Report five leaves left October 6, 2011 12:07 PM BST
Oh dear.
An angry right wing loon being secretly gay.
Has this ever happened before ? ;)
Report five leaves left October 6, 2011 12:08 PM BST
I hear Palin has siad she won't be running too.
Report J.O.TOBIN. October 6, 2011 12:22 PM BST
Yes Palin out surprised it hasnt caused a shortening of the Perry price tbh
Report BillyBunnsLane November 10, 2011 12:36 PM GMT
Report bexley November 10, 2011 12:44 PM GMT
Kind of stopped following this after I had a couple of 'interest' bets on Cain and Perry months ago. From that poll it would suggest Cain has a chance, if not a favourites chance yet he's 21 on Betfair. So whats wrong the poll or the market?

Would appreciate it if someone who is an expert on US politics could give a quick update on the true state of the race for Republican nominee - cheers Grin
Report five leaves left November 10, 2011 12:49 PM GMT
I think the assumption is that right wingers are much more likely to vote in these polls than moderates.

The Repulicans will want a moderate candidate to take on a beatable Obama.

Romney fits that bill.

McCain & Perry don't
Report five leaves left November 10, 2011 12:50 PM GMT
Cain even.
Report five leaves left November 10, 2011 12:51 PM GMT
He might have more chance if he was McCain. They like someone with Celtic routes.

Obama even managed to find some Grin
Report five leaves left November 10, 2011 12:51 PM GMT
roots even* lol
Report bexley November 10, 2011 12:58 PM GMT
thanks leaves
Report five leaves left November 10, 2011 1:04 PM GMT
That's just my take on it and like you haven't followed it closely of late.
Not even had a bet.

Maybe FX will give his thoughts
Report seebee November 10, 2011 2:41 PM GMT
Cain is facing a gathering storm of sexual harassment allegations, so I can't see how he can recover from that. He's denying it, but allegations like that are pretty hard to shake off. And by all accounts, Perry had an absolute stinker of a republican nominee debate last night in which he forgot what department he would cut, effectively looking like he hasn't a clue. Even his donors were saying his campaign was over last night.
Report five leaves left November 16, 2011 11:11 PM GMT
A good piece on all the loons on Newssnight now Laugh
Report five leaves left November 16, 2011 11:13 PM GMT
Cain one of the few people in the world who had no idea what was going on in Libya Laugh
Report five leaves left November 16, 2011 11:14 PM GMT
Just a load of leftie nonsense tho ;)
Report stringerbell November 17, 2011 9:20 AM GMT
just great for obama, no candidate of any note has risen up against him, thank f uck for that

and even though fxdux has gone quiet, still a great piece of analysis that gave perry at 50s, even if he did turn out to be a clot
Report GeorgeBrush November 17, 2011 10:01 AM GMT
At least they only had goons to pick from, unlike the Labour Party who managed to pick a goon when they had an excellent candidate
Report GeorgeBrush November 17, 2011 10:05 AM GMT
I heard the Perry thing on the radio. He made George W sound like Einstein. Great trade from the OP though, hope he made a profit
Report five leaves left November 17, 2011 10:55 AM GMT
Yep, indeed excellent trading for those who got involved with both Cain & Perry.

wd FX. I hope you traded out for a nice profit.

..and lol GB about the Labour. Sad but true  Sad
Report five leaves left November 17, 2011 10:56 AM GMT
Labour Party*
Report Dizzy42 November 17, 2011 12:30 PM GMT
Romney a certainty for the Republican candidacy now after a week of gaffs from likely opponents. Open goal... Can't see any of these clowns toppling Obama though, no matter how bad it gets for him!
Report GeorgeBrush November 17, 2011 12:33 PM GMT
He looks about as charismatic as Walter Mondale
Report George Bailey November 17, 2011 7:54 PM GMT
All the republicans make obama look good but if the economy gets even worse then obama will struggle to get the vote out like he did last time. All the value probably gone now and although Huntsman is clearly just paving the way for 2016 if he has a good showing in NH his current odds will look generous.
Report GeorgeBrush November 17, 2011 7:57 PM GMT
The new president in 2016 will be Chinese. HTH
Report George Bailey November 17, 2011 7:58 PM GMT
Not really GB
Report five leaves left November 17, 2011 8:05 PM GMT
Laugh GB
Report scampi October 4, 2012 10:48 AM BST
Report GeorgeBrush October 4, 2012 10:50 AM BST
Harsh bump Silly
Report five leaves left October 4, 2012 10:50 AM BST
Funny though Laugh
Report GeorgeBrush October 4, 2012 10:54 AM BST
Bails recent Romney tip would have been better Wink
Report five leaves left October 4, 2012 10:57 AM BST
Mr Charisma you mean? Not Bails. I'm sure he has plenty.
Report five leaves left October 4, 2012 11:01 AM BST
To think you could have had some evens Obama up against these freaks.
Whether you agree with his Politics or not at least Obama looks part of the human race.
Report Dizzy42 October 4, 2012 11:02 AM BST
You might still get a decent price again on Obama if the gamble continues on Romney.  9/2 into 11/4 on the strength of one debate - I can see him being as low as 7/4 come showtime...
Report GeorgeBrush October 4, 2012 11:03 AM BST
Romney is off that old series 'The Invaders'...   They love that look tho Wink
Report TheMadness October 4, 2012 4:22 PM BST
From what I've heard, Obama came out of last night looking about as electable as Jimmy Saville
Report five leaves left October 17, 2012 1:14 PM BST
The challenger has nearly always won the 1st debate.

The polls appear to have given the 2nd one to Obama.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539