antonsemrad ...

There's a confusion of terms here.

"Money markets" are places where very short term short term debt instruments are bought and sold ... mostly unsecured 3 month and 6 month promissory notes from corporations ... with a major customer a a variety of mutual fund specializing in offering higher yields than bank accounts, in return for the additional restrictions required to allow them to operate. People speculating in various markets will "park their money" over short periods in these kinds of funds, hence "money markets".

I believe what you are thinking of are foreign exchange markets. These are markets where one country's money is swapped for another. At most one of those are actually used on the street outside the exchange to buy a cup of coffee, so one or both of those are "foreign exchange".

If the US dollar melts down on foreign exchange markets, that will cause a lot of turmoil in foreign exchange markets. and in lots of financial markets. However, at the moment, the Bank of China (and the central banks of a range of other countries) is buying a lot of US government securities in order to make sure that the Chinese currency trades at a very steep discount ... a side effect of this policy is that it tends to prop up the value of the US dollar.

Posted at March 7, 2008 1:08 AM in response to Take a look at Wall Street

Yes, except OBAMA also = NAFTA.

Sucks, doesn't it.

That's why I wish Romney had won Florida, so Edwards could have afforded to be in the race.

Posted at February 23, 2008 8:40 PM in response to Ohio, please know: Clinton = NAFTA

The most entertaining debate was the one before South Carolina, with The Two Senators squabbling and John Edwards playing the grown up in the room.

Maybe they could hold a debate in the week before Ohio, with John Edwards asking the questions, and if one of them doesn't show, he endorses the other one.

Posted at February 19, 2008 12:46 AM in response to Huh?

I'm just a development and regional hand, so I don't worry about predicting recessions ... but if the LEI are down again for December, that will make three months in a row. And they have been flirting with a three months in a row downturn all year ... two months down, one up, one down, one up.

One problem with stimulus programs is getting the money out promptly in projects that are also going to provide lasting benefits. However, thanks to the Bush's short-sided transport funding policy, we have a massive backlog of beneficial rail and other public transport projects that are competing for an absurdly small pool of money.

An immediate injection of money into that pool, on the basis of break ground this year or pass it on to the next in line, would ensure that stimulus gets out to the economy while the recession is still in progress ... and help increase the reach of the ensuing recovery down the income ladder, which is a key to shortening the lag between the end of the recession of GDP growth and the end of the recession of job growth.

Posted at January 13, 2008 10:37 PM in response to Recessions Suck

Out on the campaign trail, of course, Senator Obama is trying to straddle the question ... he would want to avoid alienating those for whom it being about his race implies pulling a lever for Obama.

However, even setting aside fudging that is about political strategy and tactics, the question about whether or not its about his race is an incoherent question. It assumes that its a yes or no question, and assumes that there is some single, coherent way for the campaign to be about his race.

In the United States, a political contest in which a black man or woman is running can never entirely be about something other than his race.

On the coherent question ... is it only about his race ... the answer is certainly not. Its about a theory of change ... a coalition theory of change ... and, further than that, a particular theory about how the coalition required by that coalition theory of change is formed.

And, yes, of course that implies that it is in part about race, because the black electorate is a core part of that coalition. And on a crucial question in forming a coalition, as to whether they are first class or second class members of that coalition ... Senator Obama has to make far less effort to explicitly make that case, since on that particular score, his identity goes a long way to make that case ... if a black man can claim the nomination for President, then their membership in that coalition clearly does not come complete with a glass ceiling.

Posted at January 9, 2008 11:05 AM in response to If I Vote for Obama, It'll Be Because....

This, however, gets to the follow-up question that is sure to be delved into in a long primary race ... which is, what goals will he pursue, where an ability to inspire people to feel good about themselves in being inspired by him will overcome entrenched vested interests?

Because once the inspirational change is firmly associated with the ability to attract support from all across the political spectrum, the ability to deploy that inspiration as a political weapon is hostage to the faction least inclined to be inspired on a particular issue.

Posted at January 9, 2008 9:05 AM in response to If I Vote for Obama, It'll Be Because....

Edwards finishing behind Clinton among Union households is not surprising, given the dominance of public sector employees among union households. Many of the (small numbers of) industrial sector households that would have been union households at one time are now ex-union households, but we'll never get figures on them from entrance or exit polling.

Clinton finishing behind Obama among union households, though ... that's surprising, and something that could very easily have an impact in the near future, after NH when Culinary in NV decides what to do.

Posted at January 5, 2008 9:09 AM in response to The Labor Vote

There are two workable solutions - single payer health care financing, or subsidies and a mandate.

The problem of a pay or play system, with mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions, without a mandate, is the same as if car insurance companies were forced to offer car insurance that could not exclude pre-existing damage. Many people would wait until they had an accident, and sign up then.

As I understand it, Obama's response is some system of penalty that discourages that freeloading behavior. If it is effective enough to eliminate that freeloading behavior, it is a mandate ... so it will either be a mandate in disguise, or will be not entirely effective at eliminating freeloading ...

... or (most likely) both, with the effort to create a de facto mandate that cannot be labeled a mandate resulting in something that is less effective than if it could be honest about what it was.

Posted at January 4, 2008 7:48 PM in response to From Concord, NH: Obama's Music

So, you are saying that he graduated from Harvard angling straight for a career in politics vis community organizing, was an experienced state legislator when he won his seat in the Senate, and the best way to fight the war he could come up with when he got to the Senate was to fund the war and buy into the Republican talking points that the Congress exercising their Constitutional authority of the purse is equivalent to the Congress "not supporting the troops"?

On the other hand, it was a kick ass speech that he gave on Thursday.

Posted at January 4, 2008 7:27 PM in response to From Concord, NH: Obama's Music

That may be why the most recent {Group} for Edwards list set to be released by the Edwards campaign sometimes today (shockingly, somewhere in Iowa) is (drumroll please):

Economists for Edwards

James K Galbraith is reported to be on the list, from Barkely Rosser, who's blog about it is linked to above, another member of the list.

Posted at December 31, 2007 9:30 AM in response to Will Robert Rubin Haunt the Next Democratic White House?