Now that the election is behind us, we can draw a few conclusions. For the majority of the year our socionomic work represented itself very well in this election season. The stock market has been up the majority of the time President Obama has been office. That made him the favorite to win. The one fly in the ointment he had although he didn’t know it was the time window in October reversing the flow of equities which enabled the challenger to catch up. If you were looking carefully the tracking polls went very close to market activity. At the end of the day, socionomics is not supposed to be a point spread. The fact the market bounced in the handful of days after the storm should not have had any influence on the outcome.
All the other factors did. We don’t do politics here and Mr. Romney may be a fine man but the Republican Party has a serious problem representing not only the center of the country but leaving out vast groups of people important to winning any election. These days, it’s impossible to win without the Hispanic and women vote of which the GOP had neither. I know half the country is thrilled while the other half is angry. Half the country will see the direction move in their way while the other half thinks the country is headed for socialism. I don’t buy that for a minute because while the government probably did over reach on health care that’s not what the GOP is crying about, really. They want their capitalism and cake as well. Sorry to remind folks that unbridled capitalism led to the disaster of the last decade and the government had to be the backstop of last resort to keep the ship from going under. If that’s socialism, so be it. This country did very well through a World War and 2 great periods of prosperity under Glass-Steagall. Nobody called that socialism.
Let me say it’s not the end of the world because Obama won and it wasn’t going to be end of the world NO MATTER WHO WON.
Has anyone thought what would happen if Romney did win? It’s a fallacy to think he would have balanced the budget and the GOP is very disingenuous to run on a platform of balancing the budget. There is no such thing as balancing a budget in hard financial times. Bill Clinton likes to talk about his balanced budgets but he was the beneficiary of a great economy off the Reagan years and a continuation of good times in the 90’s. When Roosevelt gave into budget hawks at the 36 election the outcome was Great Depression II in 1937. That’s what happens in times of forced austerity. Austerity is just another word for a poverty mindset and nothing good ever comes from it, either personally or collectively.
Earlier this year France rejected austerity by putting in a new President and how has the austerity in Greece worked out? They have just about the highest suicide rate in Europe. See, nobody talks about these things. It’s very nice for some talking head to go on the tube and preach austerity from his cozy perch in a studio in mid-town Manhattan which by the way due to the storm isn’t quite so cozy anymore.
But let’s use a sports analogy to give you an idea of what austerity is and how it affects an industry. . Let’s look at an industry which is slowly going down the drain due to thinking austerity is the solution to mismanagement. Yes, I’m talking about the NHL lockout. In the Sunday New York Post, hockey writer Larry Brooks characterizes what would happen IF the players accept the terms of the owners as it stands right now. Right now the salary cap for the 2013-14 season would be set at $59.4 million. That’s not this year, its next year. What that means, according to Brooks is most clubs would have no means to sign the approximately 250 players whose contracts are due to expire at the end of this season. That means Boston would have $6 million to fill 8 roster spots; Chicago would have $2 million to fill 6 spots; Vancouver would have $4 million to fill 10 spots; Philadelphia would $2 million to fill 7 spots. Do you get the idea? Excellence would be thrown out the window and the quality of the product would go down the drain. You may not care about hockey. But institute this system in basketball and the results would be the same. The names might be Rangers, Black Hawks and Bruins but for all practical purposes it could be the Packers, Lakers or Dallas Cowboys if the other leagues instituted the same system. In government we have different names like education, defense spending and police. Those vital now and future services all get slashed to bits in an austerity program. You think it’s not safe to go to a movie theatre now? Just continue to downsize vital services. Slash education? Aren’t the kids in Asia already beating the pants off our kids?
I’m not particular coming down on the GOP, but what I am saying is this was an election where neither side had the solution and just because the incumbent won do I think the next 4 years will be terrible. Sure we are going to have to deal with Obamacare and those unintended consequences but if you are going to be honest about it, the future is what you make of it and no matter who won the country would go on. It always does. Those telling you because Obama won it’s the end of the world perhaps need to develop greater confidence in themselves to realize life is what you make no matter who is in the White House.
Next page: How banking held up