4.01.2009

A Tied Congressional Election Every 400 Years or So

A few years ago I went through a database of twentieth-century congressional elections and found that, in the period 1900-1992, there were 20,597 contested elections, of which 6 were decided by fewer than 10 votes and 49 decided by fewer than 100 votes. Which suggests that we might expect to see an exact tie about once every 400 years. Maybe yesterday's election will be it! I'd estimate the probability as something like one in a couple hundred; probably Nate could come up with something a bit more precise.

P.S. See here for a discussion of the relevance of this to the decision of whether to vote. An objection sometimes arises about this sort of calculation that one vote never makes a difference, because if the election were decided by one vote, there would be a recount anyway. On page 674 of this article, we discuss why this argument is wrong, even for real elections with disputed votes, recounts, and so forth. This can be shown by setting up a more elaborate model that allows for a gray area in vote counting and then demonstrating that the simpler model of decisive votes is a reasonable approximation.

P.P.S. I noticed there were some questions about my calculation, so very quickly: If the margin is within 100 votes, then there are 201 possibilities: Dem wins by 100, Dem wins by 99, . . ., Rep wins by 99, Rep wins by 100. Of these 201 possibilities, only one is a tie. Thus, Pr(tie) approx= (1/201)*Pr(margin within 100 points). Historical data show that elections are within 100 votes approximately 50 times a century, thus (to extrapolate) approx 200 times every 400 years. Thus, based on this simple calculation, you'd expect an exact tie approximately once every 400 years.

77 comments

Geoff said...

Frankly, I feel that voting should be a legal requirement for all eligible citizens. You do not have 'voting rights' you have a 'voting responsibility'. Any argument people throw down for not voting is wrong headed from the beginning. Of course, to make voting legally required, then the rules have to change to facilitate longer voting hours, more polling places, ease of absentee and mail-in ballots and early voting.

Nickname unavailable said...

And your point is?

JackRussell said...

It isn't enough to require people to vote. They need to be at least somewhat informed first, and you can't force people to become informed.

If you just impose a requirement, you will get people casting protest votes or vote for demagogues instead.

Le Plume said...

Jack: very true. Belgium has mandatory voting, and its political situation is not particularly swell... Not surprisingly, demagogues do get a large share of the vote.

Wouter said...

This Belgian can second that!

Nick said...

Please warn when linking to pdf files, if possible.

Nick Stokes said...

In Victoria, Australia, we did have a tied election in 1985. It was for the upper house, like a state senate. There were 23 seats; 11 each went to the major parties (ALP and Lib) and the last - Nunawading - was exactly tied.

So the rule books were dusted off. They said that the returning officer (a civil servant) should exercise a casting vote. Not wanting to be the one whose politics decided the election, he tossed a coin.

That resolution provoked litigation (although the fact of the tie was accepted), and eventually a new election for Nunawading was held.

Statistically, I have thought that very close elections are more common now than they should be by chance. But I can't quantify that. Maybe Nate knows how?

小橋川 純苔 said...

"Frankly, I feel that voting should be a legal requirement for all eligible citizens. You do not have 'voting rights' you have a 'voting responsibility'."

Great, then we'd have elections where most of the people voting don't even know who the candidates are, and the one with the most appealing name would win.

Not that that doesn't already happen to some extent, but I can't say I'm too enthusiastic about having the 40% of the population that doesn't want to vote to be voting.

I'm all in favor of removing barriers from voting (e.g., mandatory holiday, absentee ballots, early voting), but I don't really understand what benefits are brought in by making it required. If anything, we shouldn't be encouraging people to vote if they don't feel like they understand who the candidates are or why they are voting for them.

Forcing states to allow felons to vote—that's something I could get behind. I don't think states should have the right to that kind of disenfranchisement.

Andrew said...

Pack your bags, Michael Steele!

PeteKent said...

March Unemployment – April Fool’s Day Commentary?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-private-sector-axes-742000-rb-14812076.html

March Unemployment – April Fool’s Day Commentary?

Job losses accelerate. While many believe that unemployment is a lagging indicator this dismal job reports shows that to this point employer sentiment is extremely bearish and cost cutting, not investment, is the order of the day.

Obama with his stimu-less is just pissing into the wind.

This reflects the deep level of pessimism in the business community. There is nothing in the Obama program to turn that sentiment around and indeed his programs and public pronouncements are making matters worse. Can a recovery happen in spite of him?

Perhaps a short-term and anemic one.

The headline unemployment number is now destined to jump for March and there is little to suggest that April will be much better. The consumer is going to begin to notice their neighbor's troubles and it is only natural and rational for them to fear for themselves.

Plasma TV sales will fall further. Disney vacations will not be taken. No one is buying cars.

It is a negative feedback loop that will perpetuate the recession.

I do not expect any kind of real recovery and anticipate that GDP growth at best may hit 1 to 2% sometime in 2010, an anemic recovery that will do little to alleviate the PEOPLE'S misery. Once the dollar crumbles (and it will, the only question is when), the jig will finally be up and we will plunge back into an entrenched recession/depression that will last for years.

Obama will be your new FDR, but only for four years!

His economic ideas are a pile of crap and his intentions it seems are not to restore the economy but to rework the social order. I wonder how tolerant people will be of this as long as the people lack jobs and an optimistic future.

Already we see the Dems having trouble holding NY 20 which they have won two cycles running. This may be the harbinger of a 1994 style electoral shellacking in 2010 that will set the stage to either bring Obama to heel or sow the seeds of his defeat.

Bill Clinton was a pragmatist and bowed to popular pressure. Obama likes to vaunt his "persistence". We saw how that translated in “stubbornness” with Bush and lead to the ruination of his popularity. Things have accelerated now and Obama needs to make a quick mid course adjustment or doom his political chances.

Only when the world sees us abandoning this ill-considered social spending agenda and acting to spur investment and business activity will there be a real and lasting recovery.

The Republicans will find their Ronald Reagan. In this populist era, I'll put my money on Sarah Palin!


(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01)

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

See, what nobody here realizes is Steele planned this close election all along to bring national attention to it to prove the Obama Democratic machine can't just win every north eastern liberal elite state they want.

Steele has the machine right where he wants them.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

What a load of crap Petey. Seriously, do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop, just stop.

PeteKent said...

Liberal Defender (of current economic mess):

Can you even read? Have you eyes but cannot see?

Where are the crocuses and tulips? Please show me the signs of spring?

The tiny bits of good news that we have seen are nothing more than a few dead cat bounces off some of the lowest lows in the history of US economic activity.

With Bernanke dumping trillions of cash into the system and investors having been on the sidelines for months awash with cash, the money will find a home and you can expect some level of economic activty fueled by inflation (mostly the buying/trading of exisiting assests), but there is nothing fundamentally positve about where we are.

Obama has done nothing to help things (his stim-u-less is ill-timed and too small) and his menancing tone is keeping business on the sidelines waiting, and waiting.

As unemployemnt becomes even more pervasive the consumer is going to really hit the bunkers.

Contra-arguments?

Geoff said...

@ Jack Russell and others

Fair enough, but I have to ask, how many voters now have any clue what they're actually voting for? Not nearly enough, so I don't think that would change a thing. We would (and do!) need more compelling candidates who actually inspire the completely uninspired to care (President Obama came the closest of anyone in recent memory to doing so, but still falls short of what we need)

I stand by my opinion. Voting is your civic duty. I feel infinitely strongly that citizenship is less a requirement for voting, than voting should be a requirement for citizenship.

Tear me apart if you like, but remember, if the electorate has to vote, then with any luck, they'll be more involved. And frankly, I don't care who they vote for. Have more respect for the idiot who writes in "Mickey Mouse" that someone who doesn't fill in a ballot (that said, I still have limited respect for that kind of protest vote, but at least they're voting... kinda)

davidsfr said...

PeteKent,

Why bother with counter-arguments with you? You will continue to cling to gloom and doom (and do you really expect us to believe you would have supported a larger stimulus package)until evidence simply makes it impossible for you to do so.

Why not wait 6-9 months and then comment on the economy, when the Obama boom is flourishing.

In the meantime, enjoy your Obama tax cut, the largest middle class tax cut in history.

matador said...

PeteKent said...

The Republicans will find their Ronald Reagan.
In this populist era, I'll put my money on Sarah Palin!

*********
@Petey,
what a silly idea.
Palin already have spent 150.000 $ of YOUR money just for HER wardrobe...

:P

Brad said...

Voting should absolutely not be a legal requirement! If people are too lazy to vote, or know they have not done the research on the candidates required to vote, they most certainly should not vote.

Brad said...

Palin really seems to be making alot of mis-steps. The dissing of the fundraising dinner was a really bad move - and her judicial picks are giving ammo to both sides for campaign ads.

She seems to be too dumb to even hire good advisors to make up for her lack of knowledge...

davidsfr said...

Sarah Palin = Ronald Reagan?

Please, let there be many, many republicans who share PeteKent's view!

PorridgeGun said...

@PeteKent

Mooseburger, huh? I had no idea you held such a low opinion of Ronnie Raygun.



Poll: High Obama approval ratings, ‘right-track’ number grows

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001085/


Diageo/Hotline Poll: Obama at 63, Right/Wrong Track Improving

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/31/715094/-Diageo-Hotline-Poll:-Obama-at-63,-Right-Wrong-Track-Improving

PeteKent said...

Sorry for the gloom and doom, but I am not a bleiver in irrational exuberance.

Please point out the fundamentals that are going to make this economy strong.

Card Check?

Cap 'n' Tax?

Employer mandates for health care?

Higher Taxes on Small Business?

The Explosion in the Money Supply?

You have no answers and content yourselves with mocking Sarah Palin. Much as your ilk did with Ronald Reagan after 1976 and look where that got you!

I try tried to be thoughful in my post this AM and I received no engagement on a serious level. This must be because all you folks have is hope and no rationale for why you think there will be a recovery.

Wayward Son said...

She shares some qualities.. empty-headed, ambitious, telegenic.. but she doesn't have Reagan's decades of training as an actor, and she has too much ego to allow herself to be handled as Reagan was.

The interesting decision will be whether she hopelessly hurls herself against Obama on 2012. I can certainly see Mitt trying again in 4 years, as he has the 'you should have picked me' card to play. He would be an excellent Republican candidate; although guaranteed to lose, the Republican base can shrug it off relatively easily. A Palin loss would be incredibly demoralizing, so they would be wise to save her for 2016 when the economy is running again and some people have stopped equating the Republicans with Bush.

PeteKent said...

Wayward son,

If we have to wait for 2016 for the economy to be "running again" I think even david Duke stands a chance at winning!

(Palin -Duke '16)

micah said...

The biggest problem I see with the back-of-the-envelope calculation in this post is that it ignores the growth in district size. When did all those close elections happen?

Samuel said...

Well, the math is right.

~50 elections/century are "essentially" ties (<100 votes difference.) Those elections will be ~ uniformly distributed on the interval -100 to +100. So 1/200 of them will be an exact tie, which should happen 1/4 centuries. You could try some fancy binomial model for how they'll be distributed, but - if it gives a different answer, it's wrong, and if it gives more significant digits, it's bollocks.

Of course, that's just the math. The odds that all three or four (depending on jurisdication) counts will be ties are essentially 0.

So any race in the +/- 5? range (if you guys could calculate the variance among recounts, and figure out how close a race has to "really" be in order for different recounts to pick a random winner, that'd be interesting) is going to be settled by politicians and/or the courts, not by the electorate.

davidsfr said...

PeteKent,

If you are a PhD in Economics, I give you a 40% chance of being right, at best.

Otherwise, your prognistications about future economic developments aren't worth pootie.

werddrew said...

I think the frequency of close elections will continue at this rate, or even increase.

The truth is, the way we run campaigns has changed. It used to be that you had an idea on how to run the government, and the other guy had a different idea. You both threw your ideas out there and the people picked the one that they liked best. Sometimes with a huge margin.

If you went back and looked at the average margin of victory in elections over the past hundred years, you would see it getting tighter and tighter, because political campaigns are more like marketing campaigns. You take a "safe" position that guarantees you a base, and then you try to pick up votes at the margins. This type of politicking will inevitably lead to closer election results.

The Casual Observer said...

Heck, just have them alternate. One person serves a month, and then the other. They swap back and forth until the end of the term.

;)

The Casual Observer said...

On the topic of ties, here is a humor article I wrote about the Minnesota situation. Hopefully a couple folks enjoy it :)

http://somecasualobservations.blogspot.com/2009/03/minnesotas-plan-to-cut-government.html

glig said...

Just curious. How many TOTAL Congressional elections in the period 1900-1992?

Thanks,
glig

The Casual Observer said...

Glig - I would assume somewhere in the ballpark of 22,000.

Valpey said...

FRANKEN WINS (Again)

Christa said...

If there's a recount your vote matters even more because it counts TWICE!

(well, ok, so does everyone else's)

juvanya said...

Some comments about Belgium above. That situation is a bit uncomparable because Belgium has inherent grievances. It's like Ireland pretty much, but a bit less violent.

Forcing everyone to vote is a good idea. Actually, reforming our system would be better and politically cheaper:
-weekend voting
-proportional representation
-etc.

STepper said...

Hey, everybody, as PeteKent says we can follow him on Twitter!

Pete, I'm going to log on and follow your tweets there. No need to post here any more.

You've got a large appreciative audience, including me. So just keep it all on Twitter so I don't have to chase you all over the place to read your very smart, very correct blogs.

Thanks, Pete. Keep up the good work.

On Twitter.

Not here.

Quixote said...

Mandatory voting is a Potemkin village of voter involvement. Threatening people with fines in order to inflate "participation" statistics fails to reflect any real increase in voter engagement in the process. Further, it removes the incentive for the candidates/parties/system to make a genuine effort to motivate potential voters.

The best case for election results is that they would remain unchanged despite the near-certain increase in the apathy and ignorance of the average voter. More likely, there will be races where the mandatory votes will end up deciding the election on some basis which is even more idiotic than the usual lowest-common-denominator nonsense.

If a potential voter requires assistance with voting, I'm all for providing that assistance. But if he simply can't be bothered to participate, then I'm thrilled to have him nowhere near a ballot box. And if he is intentionally making a political statement by not participating, I think he has every right to do so.

On the other hand, a country* which is unable to persuade people to vote deserves its lower turnout figure. (Incidentally, I think it's arguable that lower turnout indicates a more benign political situation.) If it doesn't like that number, then perhaps it should try addressing the reasons for that apathy or dissatisfaction, rather than petulantly stamping its foot and demanding a false show of political engagment to satisfy its statistical vanity. (Or worse, to intentionally dilute the voting power of people who are actually paying attention.)

* state, political system, politician, party, election, whatever

PS I am terribly offended by the repeated use in this thread of the rudest word in all the galaxy. :)

Jerad said...

A couple of years ago there was proposed legislation to give $1m to a random voter every election in AZ. I hated that idea because it would encourage people who didn't feel it necessary to do more than watch the evening news, find out about the plan and see whoever could afford that ad time's ads to vote. So mandatory voting I obviously disagree more with.

It's silly to encourage people to vote without educating themselves about the candidates. Even if most people do.

EmonOkari said...

With 'forced voting', could 'vote selling' ever become an issue?

Patrick said...

Say what you want about ol' Mule Rider, but 538 hasn't been the same since he stopped posting a while back. It seems like Nate and Sean's posts have lacked intellectual dexterity, and most of the better commenters have fled never to return.

There was just something about that guy that for all of his filth and harassment, he had a shrewd mental acuity that brought the best out in 538 and the legion of commenters.

Now that he's gone, this site is kind of a dud. Just my two cents.

Opus 132 said...

PS I am terribly offended by the repeated use in this thread of the rudest word in all the galaxy. :)

"PeteKent"?

Ole Forsberg said...

If our government is supposed to represent 'us', then mandatory voting would ensure that outcome.

It does not seem like a popular position, but I have trouble believing that I have a greater right to have my vote count simply because I read and think about the issues. I am not representative of the American population. Mandatory voting would definitely make our government more representative.

Additionally (although I have no evidence for this), I would not be surprised to see mandatory voting give people a greater desire to learn about the people for whom they are voting.

I am often reminded of Lexi de Tocqueville's quote: A people get the government they deserve.

Hu Chi said...

In two candidate contests, exact ties would be impossible 50% of the time, since half the time there would be an odd number of voters.

gregg said...

I think the data looks good for Murphy in NY 20. I posted this below about but I cleaned it up a bit and figured it might be of interest. This is the information I used:

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13044/new-york-20th-cd-election-results

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13162/breakdown-of-the-absentee-ballots

If we figure Dutchess, Ostego, Essex and Delaware counties as ties then the counties Murphy took by about 10% have about 3400 absentee ballots in and about 1400 still out and the one's Tedisco took by about 10% have about 3000 absentee ballots in and about 1100 still out. If the patterns hold or stay close to the 3/31 cast vote percentages Murphy wins.

Quixote said...

@ Ole Forsberg:

I'd agree that politicians should represent their constituents' interests, even the interests of those who do not cast a vote or donate to the campaign. And there will always be some who do not vote: some because they're legally disqualified, some due to hardship, others by choice.

The latter have exactly the same right to have their vote counted that you do; the question is whether they should be forced to exercise that right by submitting a ballot. They also have, say, the right to travel. But government-mandated road trips are not the way to protect that right. This isn't about infringing on anyone's right to vote or to be represented in government.

On the contrary, demanding a visit to the ballot box is arguably both a violation of unwilling voters' First Amendment rights and a recipe for a less representative government (because it disguises the true political expression of a portion of the population).

Robby said...

Mental note: Add "Patrick" to expanding list of Mule Rider alts...

Hu Chi said...

Quixote

As an Oregonian, I can attest to the effectiveness of our vote-by-mail system. It makes it virtually impossible to claim hardship as a reason for not voting. Having said that, I think that people who aren't informed shouldn't vote.

Though I often feel that the reasons voters give for their choices are so poor that they should be subjected to some kind of intelligence test, I don't seriously propose that. If, however, you can't make up your mind or haven't taken the time to understand an issue or a candidate, DON'T VOTE.

Mason said...

On the contrary, demanding a visit to the ballot box is arguably both a violation of unwilling voters' First Amendment rights and a recipe for a less representative government (because it disguises the true political expression of a portion of the population).

Only if you don't give them an option to continue to say nothing. I'm cool with compulsive voting if and only if there is a "No Preference" option on the ballot. If you don't care, that's fine, but do let us know you don't care.

Mason said...

Dario - If you still read here.

My sympathies about the Massacre of La Paz.

dallas said...

I'm confused about the 400 years #
with 6 instances of 0 through 9 vote differential in 93 years would sugest an average of once every 155 years. 49 instances of 0 through 99 vote differential in 93 years would sujest one tie ever 190 years. I just don't get the 400 #

matador said...

PeteKent said...

I try tried to be thoughful in my post

**************

You kan't Ken't.
Sorry...
:)

matador said...

PorridgeGun said...

Diageo/Hotline Poll: Obama at 63, Right/Wrong Track Improving


***********
this is a good news for JOHN MccAIN !!!!
:)

Jeff said...

Time to update the Senate rankings Nate. Dodd should be up there with Specter. The Courant has him trailing three GOPers, including Simmons by 16 points! Bye bye.

The GOP will have to wait 5 years, alas, to take back the Alaska seat stolen by prosecutorial corruption. What a disgrace. But he's just a Republican, why worry about his rights.

As for Obama's polls, I can't help but notice that Gallup isn't the gold standard it once was around here now that they are down in the 50s with Rasmussen and NPR.

davidsfr said...

Jeff, say what?

USA Today/Gallup Poll 3/27-29

Obama Job Approval
64% approve, 30% disapprove

Jeff said...

David,
Gallup Poll, 3/30:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

This is the standard point of comparison that was being used to "disprove" Rasmussen. Yesterday it had him at 59.

Patrick said...

You can make subtle accusations all you want. I was merely speaking the truth. And this from someone who loathes MR.

davidsfr said...

Oh well--59% for one day!

Today he is back at 60, or at leas that is the most recent number posted at pollster.com, probably actually yesterday's number. The 59I expect was from the day before.

And please, don't claim that Stevens was innocent or didn't deserve to lose his election. His case was droppedd on a technicality--misconduct by the prosecutors appointed by Bush. This in no way exonerates him, he was rightfully convicted, but because this administration actually cares about justice and doing things right, he's getting a pass.

loner said...

Patrick—

And this from someone who loathes MR.

Of course you do. Is this the end of Smoking Aces?

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Obama wins!!! Markets continue surge!!!

Patrick said...

I don't follow, loner. Maybe there is truth to that comment from John you linked to then and may explain why we haven't seen him. Not following nor see the reference to the aces dude.

Brad said...

Solar irradiance at 12 year low!

Sunapot minimum now at least at 100 year low!

This is not a global warming scenario, but it sure points to climate change if it continues, just not the change we were planning for...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Jeff said...

Davidsfr,

I will stipulate to Obama's popularity. I just find the minute parsing of it on this site funny. It has a courtier like feel.

I'm no fan of Stevens, but this dimissal was not a technicality. Nor did it manifest the love of justice, but rather an effort to keep dirty laundy hidden. The reason evidence in the case was hidden was that it was exculpatory. Whether it would have been enough is unclear, but it was very relevant, and impuned the motives of a key prosecution witness.

Stevens was corrupt, but he was almost certainly corrupt in the way Byrd, Dodd, and the rest are corrupt: perfectly legally. I fail to see how his getting a break on his house is somehow worse than Biden snagging jobs for his kids at companies he regulates, or Dodd's gross corruption, or, for that matter, newly elected Senator Obama suddenly discovering a very lucrative (S350,000) a year job at U of C Hospitals that had neither existed previously nor has been filled since.

Perhaps you can provide the moral reasoning to explain the differences here. The GOP is no more corrupt in this sense than the Dems, as the crony capitalism of the latter's Bank Bill is making increasingly clear.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

As of right now, the DOW, NASDAQ and S&P 500 are all higher than they were on January 20th.

I thought everyone was supposed to be going Galt?

..................Jan. 20.....Today
DOW.............7949........8056
NASDAQ.........1440.......1618
S&P 500...........805.........843

_Kevin Collins said...

Because such a tiny % of elections are close enough that any single vote "counts" in the final tally, I've always clung to an observation once made by George Will: an individual votes not to choose a victor, but by participating in the process you assent to the outcome.

In other words, by voting, you agree that this is the means by which our representatives are chosen. In many ways, that also explains the ease with which the contested 2000 Presidential Election ended...not with a bang (armed revolt) but with a whimper (endless blogging).

davidsfr said...

Jeff, you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare cronyism and nepotism (senators getting jobs for their friends and families) and actual goods and services rendered that have a monetary value but are unreported, as required by law or regulation. I don't necessarily defend the former, but the later do amount to specific violations.

I don't understand what you mean by "minute parsing" or "courtier feel". But your refence to Obama only being in the 50s in job approval according to Gallup did require very selective data picking.

loner said...

Patrick—

Maybe there is truth to that comment from John you linked to...

John brought Dirty Harry to mind.

No PorridgeGun on the most-despised list earlier in that thread. How'd that happen?

Jeff said...

Davidsfr
Say what? An elected official trading influence to land a job for a spouse or child is an illegal act. In fact, its a hell of a lot more serious than an unreported gas grill, because the idea is often to put some person (the spouse or child) into a position to continue as a permanent influence peddler.

Stevens was a master of the patronage, no doubt, but ye in glass houses . . . Just wait until the Murtha network is fully aired in the coming months.

Patrick said...

Well, now that's confusing. I don't know if there's any shred of truth to these John and Dirty Harry characters.

Doesn't matter. I was lamenting how this site has tumbled since the demise of Mule Rider. Anyone can see he no longer posts and 538 is only a shell of its former self right now.

Granted, it is out of season and Nate did say he'd be out of pocket in the short run. I don't know, though, maybe that was a symbiotic relationship that had to continue for each to survive.

Maybe he really is dead or in jail and maybe 538 will become increasingly irrelevant. I certainly hope not, though!!

PeteKent said...

Dead Cat Bounce

I am a contrarian when it comes to the current market rally which continued today based on "good news" and positive surprises particularly with regard to factory orders.

The thing to note is that the upticks are off historically very low numbers and thus tend to overstate strength. A sort of a dead cat bounce.

The fundamentals of our economy have turned poor. Unemployment sees no signs of abating -- even if a recovery is in the offing (which I doubt). As a lagging indicator it will take time for businesses to grow the confidence they need to start hiring workers back, particularly with so much governmental/legislative uncertainty.

The rapid and unprecedented expansion of the money supply being engineered by Fed Chairman Bernanke is getting very little play, even as interest rates on Treasury Debt continue to rise. This coupled with the threat of a doubling and then a tripling of the national debt has raised questions about the value of the dollar.

The prognosis for the dollar is poor and this actually can have a short term positive effect as our exports will become relatively cheaper and manufacturing and other exports can expect to pick up as foreign consumers appreciate the price decline they get. Longer term, however, the prognosis is not so good.

The exponential increase in the money supply and the deficit will have only one result: a general rise in interest rates. For a time, Bernanke can tamp this down by soaking up demand at lower rates, but even he knows that at some point he must stop monetizing the debt or threaten hyper-inflation. Right now folks seems to believe that some “reflation” is in order so people are discounting the inflationary risk, but history has shown that this kind of monetary policy, coupled with deficit spending can only result in stagflation – the painful combination of high unemployment and inflation – that we saw in the 1970s – that created untold misery until Reagan came in and cut taxes and unleashed growth while his Fed Chairmen applied much more disciplined monetary policy.

Of these matters, I know a thing or two.

Right now, believe it or not you have a world awash in cash that is seeking a home. The US Treasury still remains the safest place to park it, but sentiment can turn and turn rapidly. Already there are signs that China is seeking to acquire more in the way of tangible assets (witness its move to invest $20 billion in Rio Tinto, the world’s largest mining company). China is turning inward, thinking more and more about the potency of its own consumer market and is rapidly moving to vertically integrate it is economy and reduce its dependency on outside trading partners, including and perhaps most especially the US. My hunch is that China will increasingly begin to abandon the dollar and dollar denominated assets in favor of more tangible investments in its own infrastructure and economy and will finally permit the upward revaluation of its currency that was once long-demanded by its trading partners.

None of that bodes well for our long run future.

I expect an anemic recovery on the order of a couple of points of poz GDP growth during the first half of 2010, with little easing in unemployment that is likely to hit 10% within the next six to twelve months. Depending on when interest rates begin to rise, this recovery will choke off and we will see ourselves slump back down into a much more protracted recession that will only be overcome once the dollar is strengthened and the conditions for investment in the US are fundamentally strengthened.

None of that will come about by continuing the Bush polices of War and deficit spending that Obama seems content not merely to imitate, but to accelerate.

(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01)

loner said...

Patrick—

Fair enough. Personally, I don't see much to differentiate in the commentariat before and after the demise of "Mule Rider". It's great to have no comment moderation (I lost a few during those times) so, as I love polling trolls and hate concern trolls, it's all good right now where I'm concerned.

loner said...

PeteKent—

Normally, I wouldn't bother, but...

...while his Fed Chairmen applied much more disciplined monetary policy.

Of these matters, I know a thing or two.


And the name of that Fed Chairman? What was he doing while President Reagan sought the job in 1980? How is he keeping busy these days?

PeteKent said...

loner-

B/c you prefaced your comment ina snarky way I choose not to respond.

PeteKent said...

Loner,

I will say this: people like you are really only meant to listen and aborsb. I have no clue who you are (you lack "blog presence")and thus unless are polite I will not engage in discussion or debate with you.

Curious that in all of my highly analytical psot you choose one throwway nugget to comment on. And pointlessly, too, I would add.

geek said...

I would propose that the popular vote for a 10 year period serve as the basis for the census and therefore the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives.

There would be a real incentive to work to get people to turn out and vote.

I am unaware of any provisions that mandate how the census is conducted and prior popular vote would appear to me to be a reasonable way to allocate House Seats.

Robby said...

Here's how you can tell if someone's a Mule Rider alt: they give any kind of rat's ass about Mule Rider.

Seriously, when he was here, all he did was threaten people with violence and complain about Nate never responding to his comment (he never responded to my comments either, get over yourself). Not even people who agreed with him like having him around. He was an utter waste of everyone's time, and no one wants to remember what it was like having here.

So when someone mentions him, I know for a fact that MR is back.

You weren't missed, Mule.

(And with that, I add another alt to my block list.)

fshfghsf said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴

住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林

Brian said...

Why hasn't this been updated with this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/a-dead-heat-in-new-york.html

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,