US election & HK Property ?

US election & HK Property

Will one effect the other ?

=================


You could argue, it has started to happen already.


Romney's stronger-than-expected performance in the debates, has strengthen the RMB against the USD (and the pegged HKD.)


This makes HK Property prices look cheaper to mainland buyers. So far, there has been no buying rush from China, but that may come.

Hong Kong's own debate - Are you going ?

====


The Great Debate 2012 in Hong Kong between

representatives of Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad's Michael DeSombre,

who will debate the issues that will decide the election. This event is supported

by Democrats Abroad, Hong Kong International School, League of Women Voters and

Republicans Abroad. Students and the audience will have a chance to ask questions

to the debaters.


Additional details are below, with a flier at:

http://www.republicans-abroad.org/debate29oct2012.pdf


Date: Monday, 29-October-2012

If Romney sticks to his election promises, we may see interest rates rise earlier than we would should Obummer get a second term. There would also be an increased risk of trade tensions with China (currency and other issues). Both would be negative for risk assets generally in the short term but in the longer term would be less damaging than four more years of Obummer's war against the private sector and the middle class.


Just to be clear - I don't think either candidate has either real solutions or the guts to do what is necessary to cure America's economic issues - it's a question of which one will be least damaging.

Romney wants to declare China is a currency manipulator on his first day.


So if he is elected in November, I would expect to see the RMB start firming up right away, and rising through Nov and Dec, into inaugural day.


That might put very severe pressure on the Peg - and that has started already. So an election of Romney might well "break the peg." And if it does not, I would expect to see a stronger RMB trigger an ongoing boom in HK property prices

That sounds about right - if Romney wins, letting the RMB appreciate may head off the currency manipulator tag. Good for PRC inflation and the prospects of PRC monetary easing but bad for PRC manufacturing companies and exporters.

I find it hard to vote for either of the Top Two candidates, I cannot see much difference.


I have taken an interest in the Third Party candidates, and was pleased to learn there was a debate this week. Here are some notes that I found about it:


Where is the voice, for the fastest growing part of the electoret: The Liberty Movement?


On October 23rd, there was a Third Party debate, wherein the Six Top parties were invited,

but only four attended. The Democrats and Republicans did not send a candidate, preferring

to stick with their monopoly.


If you found the Two-party debates limited, and especially the last one, you should watch the video.


DEBATERS

Jill Stein : Green Party

Rocky Anderson : Justice Party

Virgil Hamlin-Good : Constitution Party

Gary Johnson : Libertarian

(Moderator : Larry King)

Opening statement + Six Questions


VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcaX12h46k

--------


(What is the 2-party system doing to our country?)

JS : Green party is not for sale. We need to enlarge demo - get money out.

RA : Look how constricted... bragging who will spend more on military!

VH : Money is not speech - favors those with most money

GJ : I ran outside the system, got elected in 2:1 democratic state.

Medicare: we pay in $30k, and get $100K out - It's not sustainable

JS : We were arrested & tied to chairs for demanding right to debate

RA : Corrupting influence of 2-party system at the roots of problems

VG : I am for : Individual contributions, no Super PACS

GJ : Candidates should wear Nascar-like Jackets... more wars, with drones killing civilians


(Opening statements)

JS : Austerity while wars and tax breaks continue : Breaking point.

We need a choice, not bought & paid for by Wall Street.

Healthcare is a human right. Bailouts for students.

RA : Sellout to Wall Street, highest poverty rate, constitution shredded.

Citizens can be imprisoned.

VG : I'm different : I have courage for real balanced budget.

A moratorium on green card admissions until unemployment lower.

We need to end PACs, and term limits.

GJ : Deep trouble... we should not bomb Iran, bring troops home.

Legalise gay marriage, legalise MJ, repeal patriot act. Will balance budget.

No income tax; replace it with a Fair Tax.


(War on Drugs)

RA : 5% of World population, 25% of prison population. End War on Drugs

VG : Drugs a state issue, not a federal issue. Cut spending - not legalise.

GJ : Let's de-criminalise Marijuana, and tax it instead, no worse than alcohol

Not in favor of drug use: From families to decide, not courts

JS : MJ not dangerous, except because it is illegal - cut the drug trade.

Use science to determine what's illegal - MJ would go off.

RA : Hemp why is it illegal? : Legalise it now. 1/2 million to be pardoned

GJ : Meth-amphetamene is the worst drug, hits the poor


(Military Spending)

VG : We need to cut - we should not be world policeman

GJ : Operative word is defense - we can cut 43%, and stop interventions, and nation building, and too many bases. We pick winners & losers.

JS : Militarism & War spending is making us less secure. Drones to stop.

RA : Pres. Eisenhower warned... Congress votes for wasteful projects.

We need to focus spending on the real issues. No wars of aggression (Iraq)

VG : We should not stay in Afghan., w/o a declaration of war

GJ : I was opposed to Iraq before we went in chasing WMD. Out Afghan.

If we bomb Iran, we will have another 100 million enemies


(Education & Economy)

GJ : College is so expensive, because of gteed govt loans. This should be ended.

JS : Public private education should be free - like in GI Bill, pays for itself

Instead of Wall Street, we should bail out students

RA : To regain edge, we need to provide free college or technical education.

Now student debt is non-dischargable in bankruptcy

VG : We cannot afford more student loans and grants, we must bal. budget.

GJ : "Free" comes with a cost = more debt, and a monetary collapse.

The notion of free, has to stop.

RA : We cannot afford not to provide a free advanced education

JS : I agree with Rocky. Education is good for all of us. Students indentured.


(Civil Rights : NDAA)

JS : NDAA is an outrage. Pres. has assumed dictatorial rights, shud be repealed.

We need to put an end to assassinations, wire-tapping & Patriot act

RA : I believe in rule of law. We are on road to totalitarianism & tyranny.

Obama said, Let's give immunity to law breakers. We need to demand more.

VG : I would have vetoed NDAA

GJ : I would have vetoed NDAA. ACLU report card: liberty torches, out of 24:

Romney=0, Obama=12, Ron Paul=18, GJ= 21


(New Amendment)

RA : Discrimination on sexual orientation to be ended

VG : Term limits should be adopted... may need to grandfather those now

GJ : Term limits : 8 years worked as a limit on me as governor

JS : Amendment that Money is not speech : Corporations are not people


(Closing Statement)

VG : Political PACS and Term limits to be end

GJ : Resume: entrepreneur, a gov'r outside the system: vetoing bad laws.

Immigration: a good thing, make work visas easy (pay taxes.)

Wasting your vote: is voting for someone you do not believe in.

As leader I will take on the debates that need to be taken on

JS : We all have power, but 90 mn will not vote : people saying NO!

There are choices... and especially for students will burdensome loans.

Vote for: Free public education, take back democracy, end wars for oil.

RA : We need to challenge the plutocracy, betraying human & civil rights.

They never talk about breaking the Military Industrial complex

=====


EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS ! :

3rd-party Debate Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcaX12h46k

Much better than watching the Twin Clowns: Rom-Bama, pushing Daddy Bvsh's agenda.

Send the Elites a message !


/source:

Softy,

Here's an excerpt:

"Romney's record shows it. At Bain Capital, his business strategy was, at its core, to buy a struggling company, fire most of the workforce, add extra and unnecessary debt and then declare bankruptcy. Then Bain and its investors would walk away with millions and millions of dollars."


Harsh words, but here's a question:


If those workers were productive (for the company), then how would firing them, increase profits??


If they were unproductive, was firing them, and hiring different, more productive workers a bad thing??


It think there's some real weakness in that type of canned comment, which if you analyse it, is not very thoughtful.


My issue with Romney is that he seems to be a war-monger, under the control of Israel. If his election increases the chances to a war with Iran, how is that good for the country.


Gary Johnson wants to cut military spending by 43% - and get it focused on Defense, not wars of aggression. Why should Americans pay for conflicts that mainly benefit Israel ?


It is time to wake up, and smell the fact that the US economy is rotting, and needs fixing,

Softy - thanks for the link. I did read the article.


Comments below are addressed to politically slanted articles in general and not the one you linked to specifically.


The issue with many articles you can find in the US media (especially as we lead up to the election) is that they are written with a high degree of political spin. This is true from both of the main parties (and the 3rd parties as well). If you look at the range of articles on Real Clear Markets: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/ after a while, it is pretty easy to spot the "democrat" and "republican" writers/publications.


I try to read a reasonable selection from both sides and often find a common lack of objective analysis in many of them in that they not only focus on selective issues, but that they also fail to either get to the root cause of the problem or fail to suggest any solution. It's a case of "this is bad" and "therefore [Romney][Obama] is bad" - very shallow and not helpful to he readers' understanding.


I'll use just three of examples (from many that can be found all over the internet):


1. the claim that many American companies do not pay enough taxes. Sidestepping the subjective question of "fairness", it is true that at least some large American companies pay relatively low rates of tax compared to their profits. Most of the articles I read just stop their analysis right there and cite it as evidence that big business controls the government etc. What we should be doing is asking questions like (i) are the examples cited representative of all companies? (ii) is the low amount of tax paid in the current year a reflection of prior losses being carried forward? (iii) why is the rate so low? (iv) if the current tax laws should be changed, how should they be changed and what will be the impact of the changes? It is very rare to see someone drill down to the level of detail needed to understand an issue and come up with a meaningful way of dealing with it. I can't even recall the last time someone linked to the US federal tax data to show how much of the tax take companies are contributing or considered the impact on domestic investment, employment or pension plans if the tax code was changed


2. student loans: there is no end of discussion on the explosion in the level of student loans. The vast majority of articles I see point out the size of the problem and either stop there or simply suggest that the solution is either for people to stop taking degrees that do not pay for themselves through increased career earnings or advocate simply writing a bigger cheque to "solve" the problem. Articles pointing out the demand push contribution of increased funding (scholarships and loans) are the minority (based on my unscientific impression) and cannot recall the last time I saw an article that got down to basics and asked what all those higher fees were actually paying for


3. employee income: it isn't hard to find articles which point out that the share of corporate revenues/profits going to wages and salaries has been in decline for some time (which is true). Most of those articles then go on to say that this means that corporates are taking advantage of workers or that taxes should be higher. But is much harder to find articles which point out that the total compensation paid to employees relative to revenues/profits has actually remained relatively static over time (the difference is that the former does not include employee benefits like healthcare and the later does).


I would level much the same criticisms against many articles (from both the main political camps).


And sure, I have my biases and shortcomings as well....just ask my wife.

Softy,

'You have not answered my point (see above) which I think totally undermines the argument in the article.


Romney may have some good ideas about the economy, and after the disaster represented by Obama's policies, he probably deserves a chance. But unfortunately he brings some unhappy baggage with him, as I noted.

TI, your:

"the claim that many American companies do not pay enough taxes. Sidestepping the subjective question of "fairness", it is true that at least some large American companies pay relatively low rates of tax compared to their profits..."


Of course they do not pay enough!


They used to pay about 30% of total taxes, and I think it is now down to 9% - That doesn't even pay for the Defense spending that protects their interests abroad.


As I see it: Something like:

+ 1/3 of Defense spending protects Americans at home

+ 1/3 of Defense spending protects the overseas interest of US corporations

+ 1/3 of Defense spending benefits Israel and other allies


Choose own percentages, but I think most can agree that Defense spending is way too high, unless you are in one of those special interest groups that is benefitting from the excess spending.


If you haven't heard it before, you should listen to Eisenhower's speech on the Military, Industrial, (Congressional) Complex:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY


We have been BRAINWASHED by elites, and especially with those with ties to Israel, to think that all the extra savings is somehow justified - It is not. Wake up, people !

@ Softy


I don't like either of the main candidates running for president - I have major issues with both of them. Obama a probably better than Romney on foreign policy. On domestic matters, Obama has been terrible - even worse than GW Bush which is a major accomplishment in itself. I don't believe that Romney has all the answers (in fact he may not have any - he's been pretty vague on several of the key domestic policy issues), but I struggle to see how he could be worse than Obama.

@ OffThePeak - the 9% number is correct but it actually a bit understated because employers pay a big chunk of the "payroll" taxes out of their own pockets (employers contributions to medicare, unemployment insurance etc). It's not helpful that most of the readily available stats don't break out the respective contributions of employers and employees to "payroll taxes".


There's a graph here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Thanks, I read 8.9% somewhere


Do you think that US corporations as a whole, even cover their fair share of just defense spending at this level ? No way.


I believe it is fair to say that (in terms of taxes and spending), corporations are a NET DRAG on the US economy. If I was running for President, I would drive this point hard, maybe at the risk to my life.


The only ones talking real sense on Defense spending were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Now GJ is the only one left making this point.


The Top Two are puppets support the Military Industrial Complex - and are paid off by corporartions, and take their marching orders from secretive elites.

"fair" is a subjective term - usually used to suggest that someone else should be paying more. I try to avoid getting into a debate on what is or is not "fair" but ....


Short answer is (IMHO) that it depends on the corporation - some probably take more in government spending etc than they pay in. I suspect that most companies with profits are net contributors and it is minority that are net takers .... but I don't have data to hand to support either proposition.

@ Softy - I didn't comment on the article that you linked to. It's a mix of some valid points and some rather questionable conclusions combined with plenty of selectivity and spin (just like many pro-democrat or pro-republican articles).


I'm not American either but I do have to pay taxes there (at least until I retire which is not that far away).

Kingdom of crony capitalism:


America's Corporate Welfare Queens

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/10/08/121008ta_talk_surowiecki#ixzz2AJXf5a9j


US Corporations Pay No Tax

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/22/the-dirty-30-are-the-top-u-s-companies-that-managed-to-pay-no-taxes.html

RT Reviewed the Real Debate


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGYeG_pCCH0


"Leaders talking about real issues, not a posturing match"


The US Lame-stream media did not cover it,

Only two foreign-owned networks: RT and Al-Jezara


But then, there has been anything but paid-for spin on the Lame-stream for years

Resizing, Rethinking - Time to throw War-mongers under Bus?

This is encouraging !


A well-known mainstream columnist writing about a new direction in US military strategy

=====


A country united, for a change


By David Ignatius, Published: October 23 (Washington Post)


There are moments when you can glimpse an emerging bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, and Monday night’s presidential debate was one of them: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney knew they were speaking to a war-weary country and talked in nearly identical terms about bringing troops home, avoiding new conflicts — and countering terrorism without embracing a “global war.”


Obama has articulated versions of this foreign-policy approach for the past four years, not always with clarity or evident public support. But it was obvious Monday night that we are living in a changed world — where the combative ethos of George W. Bush is truly gone — when Romney said in his first debate answer: “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.”


This rejection of what was described just a few years ago as the “long war” is something I hear from four-star generals and soldiers in the field, and it’s increasingly evident in the public-opinion polls. Monday’s debate ratified that America in 2012 wants to settle the conflicts it has and avoid new ones.

. . .


Even if Obama should lose on Nov. 6, this emerging consensus might well be his legacy. Just as Bush saw the country through the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and took America into two long and painful wars in the Muslim world, Obama voiced a public desire to “turn a page,” as he likes to say, and end the decade of war — at least the open, “boots on the ground” part.

/more: http://www.washingto...pm_opinions_pop


(But here's the negative part):


Obama’s alternative to traditional military conflict has been drone attacks, and Romney endorsed this approach of targeted killing, too. That’s another part of the new American consensus, and it deserves more public discussion.