This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Will Obama II Be Reagan I Or Truman III?

Tyler Durden's picture


There are plenty of analogs for market and economic behavior currently echoing the past - some scary, some terrifying, and some hopeful. Barclays found two interestingly similar election-bound relationships to the current environment but with very different outcomes: Harry Truman's successful 'Fair Deal' 1948 campaign and Jimmy Carter's unsuccessful 1980 re-election effort.


Via Barclays:

In both cases business confidence and capital spending were soft during the election year; however, during the sprint to the November elections the market went in completely different directions.


In 1948, the S&P 500 dropped 11% from June through late September, bounced in October then fell sharply after Truman won in a shocking upset.


In 1980, the S&P 500 rallied 36% from March through late September, had a 5% correction in October followed by a post-election rally to higher levels after Reagan won a decisive victory.




Capital spending fell sharply in late 1948 and 1H49, driving the economy into recession due in part to a monetary policy mistake (raising the reserve requirement), while in 1981 capital spending increased sharply.




This year’s election had similarities with both. Unfortunately the market traded as if this was 1980, but it turns out we could be headed for ‘Truman’s 3rd term’ (See Figures 3 and 4).


Clearly the risk is a policy mistake – this time fiscal – which could drive another capital spending bust and a shallow recession.


So, will Obama's 2nd Term be more like Truman's 3rd or Reagan's 1st for the market and the economy - based on potential for policy mistake... or c) none of the above...


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:08 | 2971217 ACP
ACP's picture

Judging from the hate spewed by his mindless followers, I'd say Stalin II.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:10 | 2971222 surf0766
surf0766's picture

+ 1 Quad !

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:17 | 2971231 flacon
flacon's picture

Ben Bernanke walks into a restaurant and orders a pizza. The waiter asks him if he'd like his pizza sliced into 6 slices or 8. Bernanke replies "8 slices please. I'm really hungry".

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:25 | 2971251 icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

Obama II will be Bush V

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:50 | 2971607 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Ha ha!  + 1

 Obama has his first chance at some new leadership (?).

Review of Barron's -- Dated 12 November 2012:

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:07 | 2971963 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Bringing up Barry in reference to Reagan.


Mark the checkbox....I've seen it all now.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 03:26 | 2971853 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 02:08 | 2971798 xtop23
xtop23's picture

Well played sir. +1

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:17 | 2971232 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

What shall be suffered upon investors ? Quite simply, the market behaving correctly as predictor of the expiring national economy:

Analogue: Herbert Hoover, '29-'32.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:39 | 2971279 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Agreed, but likely only after the false "black swan" event upon which it can be blamed.   What Ben really means when he says he is a scholar of the Great Depression I, is that he will not repeat the mistake of allowing the market to tank without some supposed external event on which to blame it.  He has proven himself quite good at making the average person believe that the Fed is on the side of ordinary Americans.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:43 | 2971287 akak
akak's picture

You know, LTER, when away from the subject of Ayn Rand, you can be really quite lucid.


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:53 | 2971309 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I appreciate the compliment, but I think I'm equally lucid when on the subject of Ayn Rand.  Or I'm a blind squirrel.   Either way, I genuinely believe that Ms. Rand has poisoned this country because she gives cover to sociopaths.   Like all philosophies that attempt to impose simple answers on humanity (Marxism, Keynesianism, and on and on), what works on paper doesn't tend to work in practice.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:08 | 2971342 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Ayn Rand was a pop-philosopher; the perfect figurhead for self-absorbed and poorly educated Americans.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:16 | 2971362 akak
akak's picture

Funny how the pop philosopher was almost universally derided and hated by her contemporaries.

But ironic how we ostensibly went from ersatz pop-philosophers to actual pop-presidents.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:20 | 2971372 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Her contemporary Alan Greenspan thought she was swell.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:21 | 2971380 akak
akak's picture

Well, did you ever actually LOOK at Alan Greenspan?  I think the man was born 80 years old!

I have always wondered if he made Ayn put a bag over her head when they had sex --- and vice versa.  The image of a basilisk mounting Medusa comes to mind.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:23 | 2971385 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Point, akak.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:31 | 2971414 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Needlessly graphic, IMO. Think of the children.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:25 | 2971554 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

She does look like Medusa,  +1 for akak...

  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is "Äyn Rand" reincarnate.   Ayn rand has some evil eyes.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:14 | 2971357 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

Rand = Retard posing as intellectual. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:27 | 2971395 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Dr. Phil = Ayn Rand

Maybe in 50 years, he'll have a cult, too. I reckon he'll need to publish a sci-fi paperback or two, first.

L. Ron Hubbard > Ayn Rand

because his cult makes way more money.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:32 | 2971418 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ayn really should have worked aliens and volcanoes into her books.  She would have made a (further) killing, while not in the slightest diminishing the value of her thinking.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:44 | 2971463 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

She could have written "Battlefield Earth," a story where fat, slovenly, homosexual aliens descend on Earth, take up residence in the penthouses of NYC, and arbitrarily force Earthmen to farm two-row barley using only simple agrarian hand tools.

Of course L. Ron would have to pick a different title for his sci-fi magnum opus a little later on.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:52 | 2971488 akak
akak's picture

Your premise is flawed, however --- everyone knows that homosexuals are prissy and slim neat-freaks.

Besides, homosexuals are inveterate advocates for six-row barley (if it was good enough for the ancient Greeks, then it is good enough for them!).

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:03 | 2971512 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Brokeback Barley........

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:33 | 2971992 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Tom Cruise gets divorced........AGAIN!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 07:01 | 2971940 nodhannum
nodhannum's picture

Can't hold a candle to the Obama cult. They spend way more money.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:26 | 2971753 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sorry, said "sociopaths" existed BEFORE Ayn Rand; therefore, they already had all the cover they needed.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:09 | 2971220 bigmikeO
bigmikeO's picture

We'll be lucky if it's not FDR II or FDR III (WWW III)

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:13 | 2971226 dolph9
dolph9's picture

Obama is not going to be anybody but affirmative action buffoon whose only role is to warm the chair in the oval office while the country disintegrates.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:19 | 2971237 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Couldn't be any worse than dubya 1st and 2nd! That "c" student cocksucker nearly doomed us all and sent thousands of good young men to slaughter. I don't believe Obama is any savior but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be in prison for war crimes.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:23 | 2971247 pursueliberty
pursueliberty's picture

i'M not positive here, but you might want to put the rock down and go find me O's report cards.


It looks to me like we got a lot of bush in obama, and I'm not talking bout michelle

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:44 | 2971293 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Yeah, nice try. Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review and dubya was a legacy, frat boy who partied his way through his charmed college years.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:48 | 2971479 Remington IV
Remington IV's picture

Harvard Law Review , while never writing any papers for Law Review


Transfer student from Occidental College , who goes to Columbia then Harvard = Affirmative Action

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 02:30 | 2971802 xtop23
xtop23's picture

You might want to reread the comment you're responding to again.

Pursueliberty's post is spot fucking on.

The report card he's referring to isn't the one they put on a college transcript, sonny.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:32 | 2972264 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Obama scored both quota monkey and legacy points for his Harvard application.  Furthermore, he hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that he didn't party his way through his charmed college years just as much as the language mangler, or that without being the half black son a Harvard graduate that he even had the intellectual prowess or academic credentials to merit admission in the first place.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:53 | 2971308 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

So Obama being an idiot means Bush is not an idiot?

We really all have to break out of the mind control two party kindergarten sandbox trap. It is a treadmill. Any discussion about which party is "better" is a complete diversion. Resist it and see that like the military industrial complex warning of Ike and the convert society warning of JFK are two versions of the same message: it's an insiders game unless we stop playing by their rules.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:50 | 2971481 Remington IV
Remington IV's picture

Three Stooges look smarter than these buffoons


Organ grinder followed by his Chimp

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:50 | 2971482 Remington IV
Remington IV's picture

Three Stooges look smarter than these buffoons


Organ grinder followed by his Chimp

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:41 | 2971282 jcaz
jcaz's picture

Dude- still trying to blame Bush?   That's so pathetic at this point...

But hey- good luck peddling your solar panels.....

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:42 | 2971285 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Just keep telling yourself that. I couldn't be worse, it couldn't be worse, it couldn't be worse. Ha,Ha,Ha!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:55 | 2971311 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Okay Obama boy...tell me why there are still thousands of good men and women still dying. And please tell me why it is that your savior should not be prosecuted for bombing the shit out civilians throughout the world with his drones. I'm just curious,because if I didn't know any better I would swear we had Bush in the office along with a teleprompter.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:59 | 2971320 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

You have a very good point. I am an independent who doesn't just root for blue or red. I'm extremely disappointed in Obama's war policies. And our secret, vicious drone program is both chicken shit and amoral. But hey, if there is one thing that our youth has proper skill and training for, it's working a joystick. Team America, Fuck Yeah!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:05 | 2971332 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

I think you mean immoral.........Hopefully.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:08 | 2971345 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Maybe, not sure?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:10 | 2971350 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

You do.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:15 | 2971361 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

When it comes to bombing brown people, the United States lacks any morals at all. Therefore, the actions could be perceived as amoral. I personally believe it is immoral to indiscriminately bomb brown people. But we are talking about semantics here.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:24 | 2971383 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

But if it is only brown people being bombed it really isn't indiscriminate at all is it? Which in a grammatically bizarre sort of way makes it all perfectly acceptable.........

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:48 | 2971698 knukles
knukles's picture

Holy shit...


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:45 | 2972290 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

a brown person indiscriminately killing large numbers of other brown people, that is some serious self loathing or insanity coming from a narcissist...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:20 | 2971744 Wolf-Avatar
Wolf-Avatar's picture

Actually, amoral works just as well.


As opposed to immoral


One is going against accepted morals and the other is morals don't exist.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 07:04 | 2971943 nodhannum
nodhannum's picture

Gee, we know about dubya's grade and where he went to school. Sure wish we could get some info on postus.  I think he grauated with honors from the Manchurian University. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:19 | 2971239 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Yeah but the SP500 is much more manipulated now than back then.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:24 | 2971250 Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

It will be Satan 1, 2 and fucking 3, you stupid bitchez.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:26 | 2971253 ekm
ekm's picture

Let me re-post this:



Roughly speaking:

- 25% of american voters voted for Romney, meaning that they prefer that everybody should work for his/her own income

- 25% of american voters voted for Obama, meaning that the other 25% that voted for Romney should work for them, so they can stay home and collect welfare.

- 50 % of american voters did not vote, meaning that they do not mind what the 25% that voted for Obama intends to do.


Conclusion: 75% of american wants the remaining 25% to work for everybody.



Expansion from the original post:

There is no chance, none whatsoever that the economy improves if 75% of people expect the gov to provide by squeezing the 25%.

This is what happened in communism in eastern europe. Only 10-20% worked productively and the rest we ended up having food shortage, because............most of people did NOT want to work.


Impossible. This is heading to be the biggest economic disaster US history.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:33 | 2971268 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

EKM when eastern europe had the food shortage did the 10-20% that worked productively (and I am going to make an assumption here) were wise and proactive with the savings they did have...did they get along better than the 75% plus that was living off of everyone else?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:21 | 2971539 ekm
ekm's picture

Not at all.

Payment in communism was not based on output. It was based on gov law. A certain skill would be paid a certain amount. Firing people was forbidden.


That would mean that people who had some skills would do all the work and others without skill or little skills would just show up and get paid equally.

Hence, overall output and quality was really bad. Hence the system collapsed.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:25 | 2971563 ekm
ekm's picture

I have a buddy at the gym who is a manager at the City of Toronto.


I told him once that in communism, 10-20% of the people were responsible for most of the work. So I aked him, how about people who work for you?

His answer: "Wow. So strange. I give orders to 80-100 people and I can truly rely on about 20% of them to complete the work, but I can't fire the other 80%"


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:43 | 2971288 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Sorry bro, flawed premises and flawed conlcusion. Sort of a double non sequitur.

People who voted for Romney did not do that because they think that everybody should work for his own income. They did it because somebody told them to, i.e. party loyalty. If you pay attention to his deeds, you will find however that Mitt is a committed crony capitalist, meaning he prefers a system where he gets his before you get yours.

People voted for Obama because, again, they want theirs before you get yours.

The people who did not vote have correctly recognized that there is compelling evidence that shows voting is outright rigged, and simply do not wish to denigrate themselves by going through the motions. (Soros-owned voting machines? Are you kidding?)

You are right that people want the gravy train, but don't go thinking it's only the left.


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:35 | 2971545 ekm
ekm's picture

I said: "Roughly speaking". It was a generalization.


I am expecting a critique to my conclusion, not the simplified fact.

Your last line confirms my conclusion. Whether left or right, the current expectation in USA seems to be that the majority wants a minority to work for them.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:45 | 2971291 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"25% of american voters voted for Romney, meaning that they prefer that everybody should work for his/her own income"

Or they all think that they, too, can be investment bankers one day.  Your Randian view of the world presupposes that most of the people who control most of the wealth of our society worked for it.  That would be a false assumption (see the Walton heirs, as one obvious example, along with every other family that has dynastic wealth from the labors of those who have long ago died).  A lot of people who did not vote for Romney such as me (Ron Paul write in) do not believe that Romney victory would have anything to do with benefitting those who work for his/her income.  I am a small business owner and I considered Romney my mortal enemy because he supports oligarchs that would put me out of business as soon as they would shit in their gold plated toilets.  

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:59 | 2971319 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Your Randian view of the world presupposes that most of the people who control most of the wealth of our society worked for it. That would be a false assumption (see the Walton heirs, as one obvious example, along with every other family that has dynastic wealth from the labors of those who have long ago died)."

What do YOU plan to do with your excess wealth after you die? You self identify as a small buisiness owner so surely you plan on selling your book of business to someone else so you can, in fact, retire. Perhaps even a family member. Maybe even think about the niece or nephew who shows energy and interest to what you do as a business owner.

Or will you "gift" whats left (upon your death) to the state for allowing you "to build that"?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:06 | 2971335 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I doubt I will ever achieve the kind of wealth that I define as dynastic.   I have said before and I will say again that I fully support the right to will -- tax free -- up to say $25M, or some other arbitrary number of that range.   What I oppose is the generational accumulation of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of wealth, which flies in the face of what you claim to believe (productive class and all that).  When you defend the inheritance of that kind of wealth, you defend royalty.  Most of the people who are pulling the strings of the world in a way that you oppose fall in the latter category, and it is odd indeed that you don't see that.   As for where the money goes, I've said many times also that I believe in much smaller government.   You can try to straw man and pigeon hole me all day long, and I suspect you will continue to do so because that is the only way you can make your arguments against what I am saying make sense.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:26 | 2971393 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

What in the world gives you the right to set the threshold? Are you saying that Steve Jobs didn't earn his wealth and you did? I find it interesting that you set the threshold out of your range...I suppose that would change if your net worth were to change in some drastic way. Let me see my net worth is about one million so I think anything above a million two should go to the government....for the common good of course.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:30 | 2971410 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Steve Jobs earned it.  His kids, not so much.  As for an arbitrary threshold, what you propose is no threshold at all, leading to de facto Kings and Queens.   These are the people who are controlling Obama.  Your model failed.  Mine admittedly is not perfect, but better.  And by the way I came up with the figure $25M not just out of a hat, but out of a sense of what one could use to live comfortably as what most would consider a wealthy person -- new Range Rover every few years, good health insurance, very nice home, international vacations -- from birth to death without working.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:33 | 2971484 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Well by your logic we need to take it to the next degree. Our wealth was built on the shoulders of our fore fathers... by your argument we must give it back to the world. So we can keep about 10 trillion and disperse the rest to it's rightful owners.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:31 | 2971664 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are just ideologically unable to see the benefit of not having kings and queens.  The Koch brothers have more money than millions of Americans combined, because they were born to it.  Same with the Walmart heirs.  And the Rothschild heirs.  And the Rockefeller heirs.  And the Morgan heirs.  And the Duponts, the Dows, the Gettys, the sons and daughters and great, great, great grandsons and granddaughers of the Royal families in England, Japan, China, and the Royals all over the world.  They run this place, and they make the rules against which you rail.  Yet they've convinced you that the problem is that they don't have enough, and elected government is the source of all evil.   I hope for your sake you are an oligarch, for otherwise you are just a fool.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:40 | 2971680 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

What is the difference between having a king or a queen and a government where you hire somebody to set an arbitrary threshold to confiscate the wealth I may build? Tyranny whether by a monarchy or democracy is still tyranny.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:45 | 2971689 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Elections.  No one elected the wife of one of the sons of Sam Walton to have more wealth than several million people combined.   She merely married well.  For that, she has great power in our society because of people like you who defend her right to the literally endless spoils of inherited wealth.  Her great grandson will probably fund the next President one day.  Because he earned it, right Randian?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:54 | 2971706 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I would rather defend a person's right to keep what is theirs than have a system where the state gets to decide how much I we get to keep and the rest goes to the government. That sounds pretty dictatorial me. Besides we see how well the government does spending the people's money.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:58 | 2971714 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

What you keep failing to recognize is that the oligarchs already own it.   The 400 individuals who have more wealth than one half of America combined are spending other people's money quite well.  Or do you think they conjured it out of thin air?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:04 | 2971719 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

They own it because people like you say it is okay to confiscate another person''s wealth. The majority of the people like yourself buy into the fact that it's okay if we let government take a little of this and then a little of that. After a while they end up owning it all because people like you allow pandora's box to be opened.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:08 | 2971724 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

If your premise were correct that confiscation of wealth by the government were the problem, then 400 Americans would not own more than half of the rest of society.  If my premise were correct, then 400 Americans would own more than half of the rest of society.  And they do.   Government did not give the money to the Waltons, the Duponts, the Dows, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Morgans, etc.   The founders of those families figured out how to build fortunes.  Their grandchildren have figured out how to make people like you sit around and argue that they should keep it for eternity, because it's good for capitalism or whatever ism you're defending.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:54 | 2971707 ekm
ekm's picture

There are elections in Russia, also.

There were elections in Egypt, also.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:59 | 2971715 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Exactly.  Elections are a sham when the oligarchs control society.  Oligarchs gain control through dynastic wealth passed down from generation to generation, and a lack of real democracy.  In America, both parties are bought and paid for by a few thousand individuals and corporations, and do their bidding.   Show me where I'm wrong. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:10 | 2971726's picture

You're not wrong. You simply don't realize that that is the way government is designed to work.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:13 | 2971733 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

What in the world makes you think that society would not work that way without elected government?  All of human history says it works that way whether we get elections or not.  What is hard is taking back our society from the oligarchs who have ruled mankind from its earliest history.  What is easy is blaming "government," which in the West is supposed to be us.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:41 | 2971749's picture

What in the world makes you think that society would not work that way without elected government?


Government claims a monopoly on force and uses that force to gain compliance. Rich and powerful people use their influence to buy the government and avail themselves of this vast power to entrench their position.

In a free society the little guys could get together and hire their own cops who would not enforce the edicts of the bankers and corporatists. You would not be required to fund the very police who are arrayed against you and you would not be brow beaten into calling them "heroes" as they squeeze your balls at the airport.


 All of human history says it works that way whether we get elections or not.


Most of history has been written by oligarchs for oligarchs and those who worship them. I'm quite sure that there have been millions of people who have lived peaceful and prosperous lives by minding their own business and leaving others to do the same. "Everything is fine and we have plenty to eat," is not the sort of thing that made it into ancient chronicles.


 "government," which in the West is supposed to be us.


That's how they've confounded you.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:11 | 2971728 ekm
ekm's picture

In every civilized society, there is a group of people that simply sucks up wealth. In communism it was the politburo and their families. Check China.

However, even the wealth this group of people extorts comes from working people.

I am excluding those 400 families, however their businesses require workers. What I'm saying is that excluding those 400 families, there's about 25% of the population that is expected to work for themselves and the other 75%.

If the 25% does NOT work, even those 400 families make no money.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:17 | 2971738 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you are excluding the people who own one half of the wealth in the United States -- the majority of whom inherited their wealth and do not work for it --  in order to make your point about poor people not working enough?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:21 | 2971742 ekm
ekm's picture

Elite is inevitable and they usually die down within 100 years, 3rd generation max.

Then new elite springs up and the process rolls over again. There is extreme rivalry between elite also, Steve Jobs against Google with 'thermonuclear war' comes to mind.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:49 | 2972012 falak pema
falak pema's picture

one other point doctor :

The state structure, whether it be monarchy or democracy, provides rule of law and uses empowerment bureaucracy to implement it. That is reality in civilized society since time immemorial.

So as an entrepreneur when you make money you benefit from a legal structure, from a thriving economy; aka clients,  from infrastructure, from docile workers some educated, from utility systems etc. which all have associated costs incurred by the deciders of collective government; for which you pay in form of taxes. That is fair. If you were on your own in anarchy you would have to pay for all that, and it would be in constant precarity with your blood. 

The issue therefore always has been not that we pay for society but we pay FAIRLY and equitably. And that depends what we get in return. Now I can accept that current entitlements are excessive as all paid on debt. But not that they should not exist at all.

If you defend that it makes you a neo-feudalist, and that I protest against as system, as its regression vis à vis where we are today. Reasoning in a power vacuum is an utopian illusion. If you lived in an autarcic, agrarian and "tribal" society you would be an original Amerindian, and just as fragile against more organised urban dwellers come as conquerors and predators. So I don't think going back to the smaller sized autarcic structures, that libertarians DREAM of, is a better solution; guns or no guns. And the founding fathers gave the USA a republic, which was as good as any other until it went imperial.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:32 | 2971990 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

Please allow me to step in here.

While I do not agree with LTER's premise think on this, from a british citizen.

I had to watch that inbred cunt prince charles parade himself around in medals for fuck knows what, infront of the whole nation of Australia.  That twice inbred fucker couldnt even wipe his arse himself, never mind fight his way to a medal of war.  And these fuckers lord it up all over the world at mine and others expense.  So while I disagree with rand, just think on one family taking the piss like they do out of their 'subjects', and especially when one pops out like prince fucking charles.  It is enough to make you sick that the rest of the world views us brits as a person like this revolting inbred cunt.

If you see what I mean of course.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:57 | 2971627 you enjoy myself
you enjoy myself's picture

got it.  so your premise is that its really the govt's money, with first right of refusal, rather than the citizen's.  that the govt is gracious in allowing someone to keep some of their earnings, or pass their earnings on to their heirs. 

once you start with that premise, you're already a declared communist - its just the degree of which that can be argued.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:41 | 2971687 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You need to read more.  Communism as an ideology does even remotely resemble what I propose.  There is no such thing as degrees of communism.  I propose a system of merit where people can achieve great wealth for themselves and their heirs, but not set up dynasties where their great grandchildren lord over us for generations.   

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 02:46 | 2971838 you enjoy myself
you enjoy myself's picture

so who judges the merit?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:05 | 2971636 topspinslicer
topspinslicer's picture

I think the good doctor and others just made YOU eat rand douchebag

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:24 | 2971652 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, not really.  Pretty sophomoric response.  Like yours.   No wonder you like it.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:56 | 2971711's picture

You always start with a post that gets lots of upvotes and by the time you're done the downvotes are rampant. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:04 | 2971720 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Hmm, I wonder who is downvoting me....

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:05 | 2971723's picture

I'm just one guy. And as I said, you start off real good but then something slips.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:15 | 2971732 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

That's because he is all over the place. He says he is for rewarding people for their merit but then he wants to confiscate their wealth. He says he voted for Ron Paul but everything he proposes is the opposite of freedom. He says he is a business owner, but he argues for more regulation. I think he is a closet communist deep down. He just doesn''t know it.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:18 | 2971740 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, it always comes back to that, doesn't it "doctor." I'm a commie.  Well played.  Well reasoned.  As always.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:43 | 2971458 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thats complete horseshit and you know it. The idea is to leave your family in a better position than YOU were coming up.

"As for where the money goes, I've said many times also that I believe in much smaller government."

Yet you regaled me for hours on end defending someone saying "you didn't build that" and finally when thrown into YOUR ideological corner (by me) stopped responding to your (almost) complete agreement with the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Ok, which smaller government are we NOW talking about...federal or state? And when some idiots of that state become "wealthy" by some arbitrary number concoted by it, will you still have the same view of wealth?

Right NOW the going number is that "dynastic wealth"?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:20 | 2971655 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Good thing there's not a match around, strawman.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:17 | 2971547 ekm
ekm's picture

I said: "Roughly speaking". It was a simplified fact.   I had no intent to write an essay and have never read Ayn Rand and never will.


I am expecting a critique to my conclusion, not the simplified fact.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:30 | 2971262 surf0766
surf0766's picture

The Secretary of Business will fix the economy ! Then we will have  a Secretary of Happiness.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:03 | 2971634 ekm
ekm's picture

The duty of the secretary of happiness will be to punish all those who are not happy.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:38 | 2971277 rhinoblitzing
rhinoblitzing's picture

Nixon II

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:59 | 2971716's picture

Well at least that was better than Godfather III.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:41 | 2971284 Peak Bagger
Peak Bagger's picture

I just hope America can avoid Lenon I.  Obama's "hope and change" and "forward" have nothing to do with capitalism. 

President Reagan just rolled over in his grave.  Comparing Obama to Reagan???  "There you go again".  There is no comparison and never will be.  Reagan and Obama are about as far apart as two people can be. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:44 | 2971292 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

This isn't going to be Truman 3 or Reagan 2's not going to be Clinton 2 or Bush Sr. 1... this is going to be Obama 2 and this fucker is going to drop like a pig.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:47 | 2971294 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Truman was slightly before my time... I was but a drip on my Mothers loins in the mid 60's. I'll leave the fact checking to more qualified , " above ground" historians...

  I wait with baited breath...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:51 | 2971298 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Judging by the number of communist leaders and dictators who either endorsed Obama before the election or congratulated him on his re-election afterwards, I would say this is very bullish.  For government largess.

Markets will likely be relatively well behaved right up until they hit the windshield like a bug.  Alive, alive, alive.... dead.  About the time they realize all their relied-upon data points are "marked to unicorn" and reality had wandered off in a different direction from their models some time ago.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:48 | 2971299 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Beelzebub II

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:52 | 2971305 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

I'd say, this is going to be Nixon's 11th term, interrupted only by the one term of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

Carter, it seems, was the only president in my lifetime who didn't try to destroy the dollar. I guess that's why he was only a one-term president.

Everybody else since has embraced the continuation of the policies of Nixon/Rockefeller/Kissinger.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:00 | 2971717's picture

People like to dump on Carter but he was the one decent man to occupy the White House in my lifetime. Not that that helps.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:16 | 2971965 Orly
Orly's picture

You got it!


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:52 | 2971307 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

Lincolns 2nd

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 21:55 | 2971312 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Think about how fucked this whole things is. Bernanke is going to come out and lay out "parameters" that would cause him to cease QE and eventually start raising rates. Now we all know this is bullshit but he has about 6 inches of room to stand on one foot in the corner he has painted himself in. According to the bullshit propoganda we are at 7.9% unemployment and falling because things are just getting fucking awesomer by the second. So if we continue to defy gravity with statistics then at some point in the next year Bernanke will have to pull his own card and quit QE. At that point treasuries sell off hard, the market crashes instantly and we are in an acknowledged depression overnight.

They won't let the stats get much worse, because then people will call for an end to QE because it is not working, and everything I said will follow.

The only card they have is to keep throwing out schizophrenic data and hope everyone stays in a perpetual state of confusion. Thats the plan in case anyone was wondering. If you are going to go broke in the middle of this mess please have the decency to do it quietly so the rest of us can ignore you.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:27 | 2971566 nmewn
nmewn's picture

There is no confusion.

This is the result of central planners running amok a century ago, breeding little skittle shitting unicorns to take up positions in academia to teach youngsters (who instinctively know better but habitually got bad grades for expressing countervailing wisdom and fact) leading to the horse-like stampeding child prodigies to saying...if we don't keep printing ghetto zombies will appear at our doors and we'll all be eaten alive.

OMG!!! control. It has never been anything more than Fabian foolishness.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:12 | 2971314 Earl of Chiswick
Earl of Chiswick's picture

your greater concern should not be ObamaII but ObamaIII and ObamaIV

There has been a seismic shift in American politics and the trend is Obama

to illustrate what I am saying take a few seconds and look at this twitter feed from one Kath Schwarnzenegger and who she follows

this is your future America, it really is


meanwhile on the podcast Bloomberg Businssweek the reporter talking about healthcare in the US seemed concerned about labeling the panels that will decide who gets what as "death panels" but quickly added that such an approach will be necessary as in the cost of healthcare for old people

and in Kath's utopian California

89-Year-Old Man Beaten On A Bus Near Culver City Dies


sorry to say, but it is over



Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:04 | 2971323 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

the usa stock market bore some resemblance to a free market in years gone by. raygun started the ppt but many think he was some sort of free market capitalist. lulz. in years gone by corporate leaders of public companies seemed to have a shred of integrity whereas now they are all uber-kleptocrats. in short, those squiggly lines don't mean jack squat and maybe never did.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:21 | 2971370 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Buzz your comment, reminds me of a moment in my life, when I was 5 years old!   No SHIT!

  I remember the day my Father came home and told my Mother we were moving across the country. That was the beginning of destruction for their marriage...  July 1971.

  It's amazing how you are revisited by thoughts that were long "put to rest"...  It's the good in you BUZZ :-)

  The moral of the story is, the meltdown started 40 years ago...


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:01 | 2971324 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Magic 8 ball self immolated..............

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:04 | 2971329 Lewshine
Lewshine's picture

I can't believe that Zero Hedge would actually provide this beyond stupid comparative question. A Reagan economy at the hands of Hussein the magnificent?? Really??? Have we been invaded? Have I died and gone to hell? If it weren't for the last four years and the spiralling depression, the daily lies and division we are still experiencing as far more than enough evidence...I'd say this article belongs on front page of the New York Times, where a propagandized slant actually works. BTW, Obama is the least transparent President we've ever had - Don't tell anybody, but I'm quite sure there is a very good reason for that.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:11 | 2971353 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:14 | 2971359 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Hey Tyler you may want to look at the number of recent hours cut and layoffs companies  have recently announced because of the cost of Obamacare begining next year. I think your looking at a tidal wave of problems. No way is this Reagan. No chance.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:03 | 2971718's picture

I'm sure that ZH will have all the employment data before anyone else and with the numbers behind the numbers highlighted in a way that you'll never get from the MSM.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:14 | 2971360 JR
JR's picture

It’s going to be like Obama’s first term -  only worse. He’s not Mystery Man, is he?

He’s not going to be Teddy Roosevelt, and he’s not going to be George Washington, and he’s not going to be Herbert Hoover.

You know who he’s going to be? BARACK OBAMA!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:18 | 2971368 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

i am sure that someone has already called this out, but truman served only 1 term in his own right, and 1 term in fulfillment of fdr's 4th term. the consequences of dumbed down education are before us.....god will not help us all for he has cursed us with blithering ignornance....

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:55 | 2971493 rhinoblitzing
rhinoblitzing's picture

The consequences of being overrun with illegal aliens, that have no allegiance to the nation, send money back to the mother land, from jobs taken by native born americans, have as many children as they want, that feel that they are owed something for nothing, and that this land is their land, and they can speak any language they choose - and vote as many times as they want! 

BTW - Alllen West Fighting Voter Fraud Alone - see link below - Port st Lucie county in Fla had 140% voter turn out !!!! Right.....

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:31 | 2971415 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Obama isn't smart!

His handlers are! 

He is nothing more than a "P/C Mannequin"...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:46 | 2971466 rhinoblitzing
rhinoblitzing's picture

Manchurian Mannequin - Teleprompter Reader -

 Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the "leader" behind the screen all old and doped up, or something

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:04 | 2971721's picture

John Gill in the episode "Patterns of Force," aka Kirk and Spock meet the Nazis.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 22:45 | 2971465 Perdogg
Perdogg's picture

I think the answer to this question was evident by the market performance the day of the election and the days after.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:31 | 2971574 Perdogg
Perdogg's picture

You need to fix your title there was NO Truman III Just II.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:43 | 2971596 q99x2
q99x2's picture

FED's got fiber links to the PPT now. No comparison can be made.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:45 | 2971694 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Obama II will be Nixon second term.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 01:14 | 2971736 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

The only comparison to make with Obama is either hitler or stalin

The man is spiritually bankrupt and the banksters will find out when this system collapses who he true bonds are with right before they are killed

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 02:51 | 2971841 Essential Intel...
Essential Intelligence's picture

Even if the USA is not yet dead, dissolved, split or reformed, it already seems to have opted out of the mess it purposely leaves behind, when it leaves the scene, defeated strategically, on the account of having leveraged itself out of the market becoming a zombie empire. Were Obama to order an attack on Iran, then the US new status as net-exporter of energy would help it sustain the repercussions on to the energy markets, although the fragile position of several EU countries, resulting from the New-York financial institutions looting those countries at the moment, suggests he doesn't plan on attacking Iran, or for that matter its complicated-adjacent Syria, any time soon:

"Obama rolls a Nuclear Mask of death around Europe's face"


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 06:11 | 2971916 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

Barry is headed for worse than Truman III and no amount of QE infinity will change this.


SP500 has topped and turned.


Enjoy the ride folks.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 07:52 | 2971947 falak pema
falak pema's picture

One question comes to mind in this post : Does the performance of society be ONLY measured in terms of its capitalistic competence, as indicated by anticipatory market trends?

Truman and Reagan had different political and social agendas.

This post reduces the comparison to what impetus their presidency had on WS in their early days.

In the context of a totally scammed WS constuct today, the price that world capitalism has paid to Reaganomics model developed post 1981; direction clearly shown the Oligarchs by RR that he was elected for their interest right from day 1; as this chart indicates, is the current legacy for the country of that initial and subsequently reinforced political direction.

Truman's legacy are the golden years of US per-eminence. High taxes, welfare state beginnings and unfettered capitalism in world markets, now open to US products and investment; often via gunboat diplomacy.

Thats the bigger picture...Obammy has to live with current capitalist reality.

ZH has very firm ideas on what that is, under the carpet of QE infinity.

BTW : Interesting new trend in US Energy sector here : 

The US To Become The World's Top Oil Producer Before The year 2020 - Business Insider

That increase in local oil production moving upto 10 MMBPD from 6-7 today, is awesomely different to past projections. Also the projected non conventional gas. It could change the ME balance with Asia becoming king of ME exports. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!