The location had Diebold electronic polling machines (about 10 machines) and the interface was fairly simple and shouldn’t faze anyone. There were a few who were having problems with the interface. The number of people who were having problems was about 1 in 20 during the time I was in line.  There were officials ready to help the folks who needed the help with the interface. 

Given the number of people in line and the percentage of people having problems with the interface, tells me that there will be long lines on Election Day. My recommendation – Vote Early. 

Want to know who I voted for? Here is the answer

Here are some clips that you may want to watch about John McCain before you decide.

Let me concede that the Great Depression between 1929 and 1941 was international and not global. It was limited to the then industrialized nations – Germany, UK, US and much later France. The international trade in 1920’s and 1930’s was a fraction of what it is today. True globalization had not arrived then. Tom Friedman in his book The World is Flat, clearly articulates how a small impact in the US can be felt 10,000 miles away in a village in India. The current situation is far more global the impact of this credit crisis can be felt across the world – from the smallest villages in US to the towns in China. A 1929 style depression will surely cause global havoc – especially in countries that do have a social net. 

One of the factors behind the start of World War II (WWII) was the economic depression. Hitler wouldn’t have gained the power in Germany if it weren’t for the youth and the unemployment. The unemployment in Germany was close to 40%, allowing Hitler to get elected and pursue the policies that he did. The UK had similar levels of unemployment, but was able to stave off radical extremes because of the social support policies and network.

FDR and The New Deal in the US provided the much needed relief for the millions of Americans who were unemployed providing them with the much needed social support. The fiscal conservatives have long argued that entitlement programs started by The New Deal are responsible for the malaise in some parts of our society. But I believe that, if The New Deal had not been when it was implemented the US would have been overrun with anger, resentment, radicalism and crime.

The entry of US in the war in 1941 helped US recover from the economic depression by lowering the unemployment rate in the country. The government investment in defense sector and infrastructure resulted in numerous jobs. The government then, unlike now, understood that any spending needed to be offset by tax revenues. FDR raised taxes numerous times, WWII allowed FDR to continue his tax policies under the guise of patriotism and support for the war. 

I still say that our two candidates John McCain and Barack Obama need to come clean on the spending and deficit issue. They need to articulate what they want to cut and what they will keep. 

One of the first documents about this topic can be found in Khaldun’s Muqaddimah penned in the 1600’s. Arthur Laffer, is considered as the brain behind of the current economic policies also dubbed as “supply side economics” or “trickle down economics”. Arthur Laffer was responsible for creating the Laffer Curve. The curve depicts governmental tax revenue versus various tax-rates.

Laffer Curve

The Laffer Curve was the rationale behind the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% – the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased at the same time. Some economists now believe that we are towards the right of the optimal point and any reductions in tax rate will only further reduce the tax revenue.

The top tax rates when the depression started was 25%, it was increased a number of times between 1932 to 1945 by both Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The top tax rate in 1945 was 91% and remained so till much later in 1959.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to drive the country out of the depression by increasing the taxes and getting involved in the war. The comparison to this day is very similar. We are in a war, the tax rates are at 28%. Do we want a President who will cut taxes and potentially bankrupt the US or raise taxes and be honest about it?

We may not enter a 1929-1941 style depression and if we do the stakes are a lot higher. We have an unstable middle-east, nuclear proliferation is a big concern, our relationship with Russia is at the lowest point and we have a global economy that is supported by us. The earlier depression was limited to the US; the next depression will have a global impact and will cause geopolitical instability. We need a leader who can talk straight to us about raising taxes!

In the Presidential campaign there has been the ongoing commentary about Race and the attacks based on Race. There has been a subtext of attacks based on religon. Campbell Brown had a commentary earlier today which called out the bigotry within the media and the campaign. The phrase “He is an Arab” or “He is a Muslim” has been used widely as an insult or as a way to say that Barack Obama cannot be trusted.  The media has always corrected the fact that Barack Obama is Christian but never asked – “So What?”. Till, Campbell Brown had the audacity to ask!

Imagine the image that this creates in the Middle East about us - Americans think all Muslims are bad and hate them. Is that the image we want to send to 1.2 Billion Muslims around the world. We actually have over 7 Million Muslims in this country itself. Texas has over 90 mosques and Detroit has the highest population of Muslims in the US.

The Media has been very quick to point out the biases in this election due to race but very reluctant to point out the biases in this election due to religious affiliations (or non-affiliations). Sarah Palin’s comments about Barack Obama “paling around with terrorists” may not stoke the racial bias but will surely stoke fear among the population that thinks all Muslims are terrorists. Is this the type of campaign we want to see our future Vice President run? A campaign of fear, divisiveness, and stoking religious bigotry?

• Job creation,
• Relief for struggling families,
• Assistance for homeowners, and
• Aggressive response to the economic crisis

Does that sound right to you? There is an area of finance that actually studies these events – Behavioural Finance. According to behavioural finance one characteristic of overreaction is that the average return of asset prices following a series of announcements of good news is lower than the average return following a series of bad announcements. In other words, overreaction occurs if the market reacts too strongly or for too long (persistent trend) to news that it subsequently needs to be compensated in the opposite direction. 

Where have we seen this before?

• Technology Market – DOT.COM ERA. I will never forget the day the boom went bust. Mr. Alan Greenspan had these kind words – “irrational exuberance”. Yup!! 
• Housing Market – “Housing market will never go down” signs of you guessed it – overreaction. 
• Sub Prime – The market is bad but we have lost over 48% since this time last year. Is it really that bad?

CNN just announced that the Obama campaign may be buying similar slots on NBC and FOX. They are not targeting ABC because of the World Series Game 6.

This news only gives them a 30 minute slot on the Networks but also gives them the buzz on Cable News Channels. This will be the biggest such buy on Network TV by a Presidential Candidate in a long time.

The opinion polls during the primaries either over-predicted Obama’s win by a few points or under-predicted Clinton’s wins by a few points. This is very similar to the Bradley effect that is widely talked about. CNN had a feature on the Bradley effect and interviewed a researcher that has studied this effect. The video is at the end. 

The Pew Research Center did an analysis of this and saw both a Bradley Effect and a “Reverse Bradley” Effect. A ”reverse” Bradley effect shows up in states with relatively large African American populations and pre-primary polls tended to underestimate support for Obama. Whereas, states with relatively low black populations indicated that pre-election polls did indeed exaggerate support for Sen. Barack Obama. Regardless of which side of the issue you stand, close or toss-up states polls may not be showing the real truth. What is absolutely certain is that this election and the pre-election polling will be watched and closely analyzed by political analysts and marketers to identify states and areas with racial biases.  

Glen Beck says in a commentary that “Voting against Obama doesn’t make you a racist”.  I couldn’t agree with Glen Beck more. Though, I will not make the same arguments he makes in the commentary. He argues that anyone who goes up against Barack Obama is a villified as a racist. Absolutely not true! The campaign was going fine till John McCain & Sarah Palin’s rallies started calling Obama, Barack Hussain Obama with an emphasis on Hussain and calling him a terrorist. They even stood by when people chanted Kill Him. If that is not inciting prejudice then I am not sure what Glen Beck would call prejudice. There is a post and video about the Kill Him below. 

With the Dow falling below 9000, the credit markets all crunched up, and the GDP numbers being revised down, we know for sure that we are in a Recession.  The next president has to deal with recession. I sure hope we elect a candidate based on the issues rather than race. I do realize that is wishful thinking.

My question is how should McCain have reacted? Should he have immediately reprimanded the crowd? If he did not hear the comment during the rally, I am sure he heard it after the fact. Why did he not address it? Why has he not sharply criticized such behavior?

Such calls at rallies do bring the Racist American past to the fore. Not condoning such behavior is tacit support for it. This is unacceptable.