Indy Telecom & Industrial Media

ABC News has a rather interesting study on the impact of race on politics, particularly given the candidacy of Barack Obama.

One of the interesting measures is “racial sensitivity” of white voters between Obama and McCain.

A similar graph amongst Blacks would have been useful; however, blacks have traditionally been a pro-democratic group, with 90% supporting Obama. What’s more interesting is that this has little to do with a black candidate - John Kerry had 88% black support in 2004, and 90% voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Similarly, the racial impact graph shows how blacks and whites perceive Obama’s candidacy’s impact on race relations.

I am also curious to see correlations between this, and traditional right-wing/conservative voters, and see how that scores. This would be unique because according to the study, Obama’s standing amongst whites is about the same as any Democratic candidate, but with a much wider range than usual.

Either way, interesting nuances to watch out for.

The New York Times has an excellent article on the state of the current US economy.

One of the key points that they bring up is that traditionally, boom and bust cycles result in higher purchasing power and better lifestyle to the people during the boom cycles. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case in the US.

For instance, at the end of the 2000 economic expansion, the median American family’s income was $61,000. In 2007, it was $60,500. If anything, the American middle class is not just stagnating — it is recessing, made worse by inflation and high gas prices.

Contrast this between the real median family income that quite literally doubled from the 1940s through the late 1970s. In the three decades since, it has barely risen by 25%.

One of the most critical problems facing our country today is education. The US is lagging far behind compared to the rest of the world, and despite faulty programs like “No Child Left Behind” has one of the lowest graduation rates among developed countries.. Another one is public infrastructure — a lot of money that’s currently spent is on useless pet projects, while the larger infrastructure needs aren’t being met. And of course, there is the issue of health care and the fact that a significant portion of Americans cannot afford to take care of themselves.

Finally, there is the age old issue of tax cuts which are supposedly favorable to the higher-income bracket groups versus the lower-income bracket groups (this is the one point that I disagree on).

But either way, it is a good point, and a very insightful one in a very sad way.

A long, long time ago, BPSK and I had a conversation on the “capitalism” that UK and the US practice.

We made fun of the faux capitalism that’s in reality a Fabian-esque socialism that Britian practices, and how the US would “differentiate” itself by Paulson calling up Pandit to do a save.

Well, turns out that we weren’t too off. Paulson did not call Pandit, but instead called Dimon to do a save. Isn’t it a joy to be in a capitalist economy where the free market decides what needs to be done?

To this end, I recently came across an article that suggested that the Fed is considering Nordic-styled nationalization of US banks to help bail out the economy from its current crisis.

Let’s just say that I am at a loss for words.

With a sluggish economy, it was only a matter of time before stores adopted the any-which-way-they-can to make money attitude.

The NYT has a post on how a lot of the megastores are willing to negotiate with the customer on what the prices may be.  This includes such big names as Best Buy, Home Depot and Circuit City. Here’s an excerpt:

“We want to work with the customer, and if that happens to mean negotiating a price, then we’re willing to look at that,” said Kathryn Gallagher, a spokeswoman for Home Depot.

…

“The recession is helping to push these seedlings to the surface,” she added. “It’s a real turnabout on the part of the buyer and the seller.”

Wow. Un-freakin’-believable.

The NYT has an excellent article by Professor Tyler Cowen on how a falling USD is not all bad news. The WSJ also has a related article that talks about how the USD may actually rebound.

The crux of both the articles is this that while the USD may have had a significant fall (~19.8%), it still isn’t grounds for fear. For one, it has definitely helped bridge the trade-deficit gap because imports coming into the US are becoming more expensive while exports going out from the US are becoming cheaper.

In fact, some of the people hardest hit by the falling USD are European businesses. As the USD falls, it becomes harder for them to compete in their own local regions because it is a lot cheaper to buy American stuff paid for in USD than it is to buy European stuff paid for in Euro.

Secondly, the WSJ talks about a 30% fall in the USD to equalize the trade deficit — and we’re almost at 20%. Now whether the USD falls another 10% remains to be seen, but once again, that need not necessarily be a bad thing all around.

Also, other economies in the world are in just as bad a shape (or worse) than the US economy. British, Canadian, German and French economies are also struggling, and the falling USD isn’t necessarily helping them, either.

Now, the Chinese are whole another story. That’s a mixed bag — while they have over a trillion in dollar-dominated assets, they aren’t too particular about dumping it all overnight, simply because of what it might do to their assets. It is in their best interests to have a strong dollar, especially since we are their largest consumer.

The biggest problem that’s likely to arise from a falling USD is of course worries about volatility. A shaky currency is not good for any economy, and ours is no exception. And of course, the middle-east, who make money off oil, no matter which way things go.

I think that over the next quarter or so, the USD will slowly stabilize, and that the fall in the USD that’s happened is not necessarily a bad thing for us.

Remember that whole thing about sexy, hot models not wanting the USD? Well, turns out that it may not be entirely true.

CNBC has an update where the manager of the babe supermodel in question clarifies that she did no such thing.

They also offer the following clarification –

Nelson points out that Gisele lives in New York City, and thus needs U.S. dollars for her big-city lifestyle.

And American fans and contracts, of course.

Dealbreaker puts it best –

Also, it’s hard not to think that some sort of PR spin went into this denial. Gisele if you’re short the dollar, the American public will be short you! Retract, deny, rinse, repeat.

Of course it did. Then again, I guess if you are a rich hot babe, you can pretty much do whatever the heck you want.