Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

This weeks GBP/JPY Analysis & Predictions 128 replies

Predictions by 8fingers 37 replies

Gbp/usd:any predictions on what the support and resistance might be tommorow? 3 replies

Predictions on the JPY news today? 36 replies

Trading predictions - US Election

  • Post #1
  • Quote
  • First Post: Nov 3, 2012 4:46am Nov 3, 2012 4:46am
What are your trading predictions for the US elections?

If Romney wins scenario vs If Obama wins.
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
Quoting england33
What are your trading predictions for the US elections?

If Romney wins scenario vs If Obama wins.
Hey england33.

I have to say that this is a BRILLIANT question. But one which I can't answer myself.

Romney and Obama have very few differences, I am not an economist, but I can tell you a few things that will effect the currency market.

1 Romney is very big on calling China a "currency manipulator", I thought that was just a name, like calling them "bastards", but seems now that this definition would give Romney some power to cut some trading with them and "impose some sanctions", this would have an impact, I guess, if China would take some steps to get out of that label, i.e. try to increase the value of their currency.

2 If Obama wins = More people on food stamps = more unemployment rate = weaker Dollar! Since the re-election of Obama will encourage folks to depend on the government, like they did in 2008 (I can't support that with numbers).

3 Romney says that he wants to get North America power-independent, so it can stop kissing Saudis' butts. I am not sure if this is possible, but if this happens, this will apparently have its impact on oil and its related stocks.

I will think more about that, you have asked a very good question. However, all I said is just my opinion, I am not an American citizen, not an economist and certainly not a Forex expert.

Cheers!
Quoting Kenawee
Hey england33.

I have to say that this is a BRILLIANT question. But one which I can't answer myself.

Romney and Obama have very few differences, I am not an economist, but I can tell you a few things that will effect the currency market.

1 Romney is very big on calling China a "currency manipulator", I thought that was just a name, like calling them "bastards", but seems now that this definition would give Romney some power to cut some trading with them and "impose some sanctions", this would have an impact, I guess, if China would take...
Do you really think the unemployment situation is Obama's fault - not defending him but considering the 2008 great recession and the fact that many people lost their homes, construction jobs were lost, ect, that the unemployment rate was going to skyrocket. Considering that this is the worst crisis since 1929 it will take a very long time for employment to improve. I'm not a big believer in full employment myself - it's like having the logic to make people dig with shovels dig with machines when a machine gets the job done in much less time.

Why not just compensate people and let society move forward with technology? that's my philosophy - nothing to do with the election just saying. A great deal of debt was actually created by Republicans. see link:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

While Obama has been blamed for the high debts consider the alternative - if he didn't create debt the government would have shut down. According to the zfacts chart Democrats have the debt under control.

I fail to see why people think Romney will do so much a better job or if there were a Republican for president how the employment picture could be better considering the long term consequences of such a crash. Remember the last crash of this magnitude was the great depression of 1929 and it took decades before the situation improved - all though the situation is different the magnitude of the crisis is comparable and one could say both were caused by over-leveraged investments that lead to a massive bubble.

also I forgot to mention that Bernanke's term is not up until January 31, 2014 so rest assured the monetary policy is not likely to change in that time.

Cheers!!!
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
Quoting england33
Do you really think the unemployment situation is Obama's fault - not defending him but considering the 2008 great recession and the fact that many people lost their homes, construction jobs were lost, ect, that the unemployment rate was going to skyrocket. Considering that this is the worst crisis since 1929 it will take a very long time for employment to improve.[b] I'm not a big believer in full employment myself - it's like having the logic to make people dig with shovels dig with machines when a machine gets the job done in much less time....

ever heard of the progress trap? many very very intelligent scientists think were entering into one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap
Quoting england33
Do you really think the unemployment situation is Obama's fault - not defending him but considering the 2008 great recession and the fact that many people lost their homes, construction jobs were lost, ect, that the unemployment rate was going to skyrocket. Considering that this is the worst crisis since 1929 it will take a very long time for employment to improve. I'm not a big believer in full employment myself - it's like having the logic to make people dig with shovels dig with machines when a machine gets the job done in much less time....
I also don't understand how some people can say they blame Obama for the economy with a straight face. It's obvious to me that Romney supporters use the economy as an attempt to make the President look bad - which should say something about how well Obama has done under the circumstances when they resort to fallacies to try and win over voters. Now I'm not defending Obama or the democratic party, but history has shown us that republicans have run up the deficit more (especially recent history with Bush Jr, Bush Sr and Reagan in comparison to Clinton who actually had budget surpluses). As was pointed out in the quoted post, Obama had to run up the national debt to avert a major economic collapse.

In short, I believe Obama is the more qualified candidate. I also believe Romney is much weaker than Obama on foreign policy. Republicans know this which is why they are trying to hang their hat on Romney's business acumen and the domestic economy.

Lastly, I have an issue with voting for someone who has contradicted himself way too much. Romney is on record as having multiple (and contradicting) opinions on some pretty important issues (http://mittromneyflipflops.com/). Way more than any presidential candidate should have. That makes me think he's wishy-washy, and not a real leader.

PS. Kenawee, Romney says he wants to become more energy independent. Name one candidate that has not said that. He also says he will "crack down on China when they cheat". Those are just one liners that sound good and try to win support. They are hollow statements since he does not provide any specifics as to how he will do so.
Quoting 2+2=4ex
I also don't understand how some people can say they blame Obama for the economy with a straight face. It's obvious to me that Romney supporters use the economy as an attempt to make the President look bad - which should say something about how well Obama has done under the circumstances when they resort to fallacies to try and win over voters. Now I'm not defending Obama or the democratic party, but history has shown us that republicans have run up the deficit more (especially recent history with Bush Jr, Bush Sr and Reagan in comparison to Clinton...
dont think too hard.....whoever is in the white house means absolutely nothing. Its ALL about keeping the status quo. Lawmakers do NOT make laws, corporations do through lobbying. This is what the entire US political system is based on.
Quoting england33
Do you really think the unemployment situation is Obama's fault - not defending him but considering the 2008 great recession and the fact that many people lost their homes, construction jobs were lost, ect, that the unemployment rate was going to skyrocket. Considering that this is the worst crisis since 1929 it will take a very long time for employment to improve. I'm not a big believer in full employment myself - it's like having the logic to make people dig with shovels dig with machines when a machine gets the job done in much less time....
I actually didn't mean it that deep. I just had the weekly unemployment numbers in mind, I thought that if Obama wins, many of my American unemployed friends would feel safe that the benefits from the government is not going to stop, thus they will feel less obligated to go out and look for a job, and as I said, this is a personal opinion and I don't have any numbers or studies to support.

I surely, on the other hand, never meant to back Romney at all. Though I guess I sounded like that.

But regarding the technology part, I guess I agree with you mostly. In my neighborhood there have been over 50 new buildings (relatively high, 15 stories+) built in the past 24 months (during the "revolution" here in Egypt) and I often wondered why all those construction workers had to suffer this job while the owner could simply get rid of like 75% of them and use machines instead (considering that at the end of the road he is going to make millions of Dollars).

But on the other hand, I wonder where all those construction workers would end up? What if they can't do high-tech jobs? Will they rely on the government?

I guess (again, no science in this, just my opinion) that too much automation would leave the majority of society as unemployed consumers.

Thank you very much for the link.
Quoting mfoste1
dont think too hard.....whoever is in the white house means absolutely nothing. Its ALL about keeping the status quo
To a certain extent you are correct. But don't go thinking the President has absolutely no power. The President has veto power and appoints supreme court justices. He can influence laws or at the very least how they are interpreted which can affect people's every day life. Not to mention he has influence on foreign relations.
Quoting 2+2=4ex
To a certain extent you are correct. But don't go thinking the President has absolutely no power. The President has veto power and appoints supreme court justices. He can influence laws or at the very least how they are interpreted which can affect people's every day life. Not to mention he has influence on foreign relations.

corporations are in complete control of this through lobbying.....the appearance of "leaders" and "lawmakers" is a mere illusion in this country. Multinational corporations rule foreign policy.
Quoting 2+2=4ex
PS. Kenawee, Romney says he wants to become more energy independent. Name one candidate that has not said that. He also says he will "crack down on China when they cheat". Those are just one liners that sound good and try to win support. They are hollow statements since he does not provide any specifics as to how he will do so.
Hi,

I didn't know that all candidates always said they are going to get North America energy-independent in four years. Even Obama said it?

I don't want to get you guys off topic, but to be honest, I do not see how you think Obama is "strong" on foreign policy. I live in Egypt and I have to tell you, that America never felt more weak and hated here. Yes, people LOVE Obama in this country, but the reason is that his middle name is Hussein, plus, they might love Obama, but they never stopped hating America.

And guess what? Obama backs Islamists in Egypt, but those Islamists who shake hands with the U.S. ambassador get out of the embassy and still call for Jihad against America and Israel.

Under Bush, things were much different, regarding the Middle East. America was not only feared, it was also respected and always counted.

I do not remember an American embassy was attacked in Cairo any time before Barack Obama took office. (at least I never heard about it)

I am not trying to imply that Romney is the guy, I am just sharing what I experience first-hand with Obama's foreign policy.

Good luck with whoever wins, I wish you guys all the best.
  • Post #11
  • Quote
  • Edited 1:51am Nov 4, 2012 1:18am | Edited 1:51am
Quoting mfoste1
corporations are in complete control of this through lobbying.....the appearance of "leaders" and "lawmakers" is a mere illusion in this country. Multinational corporations rule foreign policy.
I'm not naive to think big corporations don't have plenty of influence. They do spend big bucks on lobbying and do get their way in lots of cases. But I also think it's cynical to believe that the whole world is one big charade as you are making it out to be. Yes the world is full of evil, greed and corporations. That doesn't mean everything is some secret zionist conspiracy.
Quoting mfoste1
ever heard of the progress trap? many very very intelligent scientists think were entering into one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap
Oh wow very nice. I never heard of it but thanks for introducing it to me.
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
Quoting Kenawee
Hi,

I didn't know that all candidates always said they are going to get North America energy-independent in four years. Even Obama said it?

I don't want to get you guys off topic, but to be honest, I do not see how you think Obama is "strong" on foreign policy. I live in Egypt and I have to tell you, that America never felt more weak and hated here. Yes, people LOVE Obama in this country, but the reason is that his middle name is Hussein, plus, they might love Obama, but they never stopped hating America.

And guess what? Obama backs...
Yes they all say they want to make America more energy independent. It not only makes sense, but it also riles up all the zombies in the country and helps get votes.

I have never visited or spoken with anyone in Egypt so I will take your word as truth. If the perception of America in your country is one that is weaker then I don't see any reason for it. The support America had amongst allied nations for the wars in the middle east had unraveled by the end of Bush's second term. The wars became unpopular from a global perspective. From what I've been told by people from other countries, America was viewed as a bit of a gung-ho and war mongering state. Obama has kind of restored the image of America being diplomatic. As you point out, those that hate have hated since they were children as they were taught.
  • Post #14
  • Quote
  • Edited 1:45am Nov 4, 2012 1:34am | Edited 1:45am
Quoting Kenawee
I guess (again, no science in this, just my opinion) that too much automation would leave the majority of society as unemployed consumers.
Yes, but what does it matter if they work or don't work, providing the machine does the work they did before? They were consumers before when they worked with their hands and actually they would have consumed more - using more energy commuting to a time-consuming job - just to keep people "busy".

I'm not one that believes full employment = a more advanced society, especially when they employ people with shovels that a machine can do. It just makes more sense to compensate people more as machines advance - who cares what people do with their life or how useful they are when we have machines now? Machines are to serve us. Some will seek higher education and make new discoveries, other will enjoy life, and some will do nothing but it really doesn't matter when you think about it.

Bush boasted he had low unemployment but I would rather have a society that has higher unemployment that is more educated. I'm not saying for everyone not to work now but it doesn't make sense to have everyone employed with shovels commuting to work and burning up resources at a rapid pace when machines can do their jobs and save resources for the future. Sciences will one day bring us to a time that we don't need money or manual labor workers. That's a good thing if you ask me.

Personally I have a few trades that are beneficial to society - Programming and I used to drive an 18wheeler. It never made sense to me that much of the time I was driving a partially full trailer in a truck that only got at best 7 mpg when a train could have hauled most of the freight I hauled but that's how things are done to "keep people busy". In Katrina, i was making $750 dollars a day to the truck and most of the time I was just on call because they had to have bodies on the scene - that looked like they were there to help and occasionally I would deliver some water. Just because statistics say everyones employed doesn't really means society is efficient and resources are being used efficiently. Less work and efficiency are the way.
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
Quoting england33
Yes, but what does it matter if they work or don't work, providing the machine does the work they did before? They were consumers before when they worked with their hands and actually they would have consumed more - using more energy commuting to a time-consuming job - just to keep people "busy".

I'm not one that believes full employment = a more advanced society, especially when they employ people with shovels that a machine can do. It just makes more sense to compensate people more as machines advance - how cares what people do with...
I completely agree with this. I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine on this very topic of technology and employment. Since the economy tanked to the worse conditions since late 1920's, companies (especially manufacturers) had to become more efficient. They became more efficient by having machines do the job it used to take 10 men to do. Not only that, but faster and with more consistency. Machines don't have hangovers on Monday. Nor do they get tired or have bad days. This was evident as car manufacturers became more automated in their assembly plants. The percentage of lemon cars were reduced. So now when the economy starts to pick up again, companies don't need to hire everyone back. They just don't need them anymore.
not trying to be an a**hole here, but, I think it starts to go out of topic

it's under the title TRADING PREDICTIONS
not about who is the BEST candidate

in my opinion though, if Romney wins, gold will be hammered (based on speculation that Bernanke will no longer be in the fed)
Quoting 2+2=4ex
I completely agree with this. I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine on this very topic of technology and employment. Since the economy tanked to the worse conditions since late 1920's, companies (especially manufacturers) had to become more efficient. They became more efficient by having machines do the job it used to take 10 men to do. Not only that, but faster and with more consistency. Machines don't have hangovers on Monday. This was evident as car manufacturers became more automated in their assembly plants. The percentage...
I think nano-technology is the technology of the future. They can pry into an atom and possibly change it's structure with a special microscope - in otherwords build / alter a atom. They are on their way to making nano-farms that can make any material. There's even the concept of a nano-bot, just imagine using a atomic sized nano-machine to cure people's disease or repair someone that is injured. I think the future can be very great if society plays it right. I wish I was in charge of this but many people are trying to stop science and machines from evolving - to some extent I can see their fears if it's misused for hateful or selfish reasons but alot of it is being suborn and overly paranoid. Call me crazy but I think it's all possible on a grander scale. We wouldn't even need money in a very advanced society but then again we wouldn't need it because we could all have the highest of standards.
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
Quoting england33
Yes, but what does it matter if they work or don't work, providing the machine does the work they did before? They were consumers before when they worked with their hands and actually they would have consumed more - using more energy commuting to a time-consuming job - just to keep people "busy".

I'm not one that believes full employment = a more advanced society, especially when they employ people with shovels that a machine can do. It just makes more sense to compensate people more as machines advance - who cares what people do with...
PLEASE RUN EGYPT!!! I would gladly spend the rest of my life finishing one university degree after another. (no sarcasm here)
Quoting england33
I think nano-technology is the technology of the future. They can pry into an atom and possibly change it's structure with a special microscope - in otherwords build / alter a atom. They are on their way to making nano-farms that can make any material. There's even the concept of a nano-bot, just imagine using a atomic sized nano-machine to cure people's disease or repair someone that injured. I think the future can be very great if society plays it right. I wish I was in charge of this but many people are trying to stop science and machines...
Yea, some of the things they are starting to do are amazing. I'm optimistic myself. Hopefully it all goes well and certain people don't get in the way of progress.
Quoting grandia
not trying to be an a**hole here, but, I think it starts to go out of topic

it's under the title TRADING PREDICTIONS
not about who is the BEST candidate

in my opinion though, if Romney wins, gold will be hammered (based on speculation that Bernanke will no longer be in the fed)
lol nobody was talking about candidates so it didn't really matter. thanks for your input.
Before Forex I was tall, and clean shaven. Now I am an Ewok.
0 traders viewing now