Filed under: Politics
After Obama’s win, I tried to find international reactions. The American media, esp NYT, seemed to report lop-sided international reactions (all joyful). So I sought for the reactions in UK and Chinese media. The reuters UK had this video “postcard” series that are short interviews with people on the street in foreign countries. They asked these people, “What do you think about Obama’s victory and what should he do looking ahead?” The interview with a middle age man on the street of Bejing was hilarious, and very typical of a Chinese – that he had bought a lot of stocks and he wished Obama will restore the value of the stocks.
In Hong Kong’s MingPao, there is a forum open for discussion on Obama’s win. Here is one from 方太
我为我的股票投资重生而喝采。
(translation, “I am cheering for the revival of my stocks.”)
Where was I on November 4? Grant Park. The park was packed and there was a palpable sense of festivity everywhere I look. It felt more like a New Year’s Eve celebration than a night of election. I arrived at 6:30pm, and stayed until it was over, which was about 11:30pm. They put up screens of CNN everywhere. In the beginning, everytime a new projection came out that Obama leads a state, everybody cheered. In fact, cheers just eruped randomly everywhere. I kept looking toward where the cheers from, kinda glueless as to what was happening.
The cheers was loudest when Pennslyvania was projected to be Obama’s. When North Carolina and Florida came out, the cheers were even louder.
Towards the end (I wasn’t aware at that time that it was the end), when Virginia’s final results came out, and it had turned blue, everybody was just going nuts. Within seconds after that, the CNN anchor said that within seconds, the west coast states would close, and they had this timer that counting down. All of a sudden, everybody was counting down — 10, 9, 8, 7…….I had no idea why they were counting down — then, 3, 2, 1 — then suddenly everybody was hugging each other and was going majorly nuts — I looked up to the CNN screen and saw that Obama’ s electoral counts had increased to 287 from 232 (due to California) and in large bold letters — OBAMA ELECTED! The CNN screen showed Oprah at the frontline. Everybody cheered.
And when Obama finally came out to give the speech, all the people in front of me and behind me were weeping. The whole crowd was silent. And people were putting the hands up high — as if in church, saying hyms. It was a sight to behold.
At the end, the crowd dispersed orderly. I read in another blog of an attendent at the rally that he felt this crowd was different from any other crowds he had seen—that this crowd was reverential. I couldn’t agree more with this adjective to describe the crowd. Keep in mind that this is a huge crowd in tight space, and many of them are African Americans. However, there was no fighting, no commotion, nothing chaotic from beginning to the end. When there was victory, the crowd cheered, but they did not go out to unleash their wild joy by destruction (like in some post-victory sport games). This crowd has a sense of groundedness to it, even after the victory. While the joy in the air is like a New Year’s Eve party, it was also nothing like New Year’s Eve party. People were not drunk, and they don’t jumped on tables. People just came, wept, cheered, and went back home. Just like that. Very orderly. Phenomenal.
Here are some pictures from the scene.
Yep, that was us that the CNN screen is showing….
A sea of people stretching into the horizon.
Filed under: Politics
Just when people think that Hillary’s Campaign is dead and Obama is sounding more arrogant, Hillary does it again. She rebounces. This tough woman’s history in politics has been that of climbing back from dead again and again.
But I like what she said to her voters in Columbus (excerpt from CNN):
For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s been ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up — this one is for you,” Clinton said before supporters in Columbus.
A continuation of that speech, excerpted from NY Times:
“No candidate in recent history, Democratic or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary.” The crowd chants: “Yes she will!”
That’s nice. I actually admire this woman. Though I am not voting for her. But you know what’s the wierd thing? Despite the growing notion in the press that Clinton’s campaign is dead, I find more and more people around me are supporting her, staunchly too. Yes, it’s a small sample. But it is a sample in places where Obama is suppoesd to do well.
Let’s look at the Iowa Market again:
| Date | Contract | Units | $Volume | LowPrice | HighPrice | AvgPrice | LastPrice |
| 03/01/08 | CLIN_NOM | 310 | 39.337 | 0.123 | 0.131 | 0.127 | 0.126 |
| 03/01/08 | DROF_NOM | 149 | 2.121 | 0.014 | 0.018 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| 03/01/08 | EDWA_NOM | 157 | 0.336 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 03/01/08 | OBAM_NOM | 735 | 632.061 | 0.851 | 0.870 | 0.860 | 0.859 |
| 03/02/08 | CLIN_NOM | 837 | 132.985 | 0.128 | 0.181 | 0.159 | 0.181 |
| 03/02/08 | DROF_NOM | 312 | 4.575 | 0.014 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| 03/02/08 | EDWA_NOM | 669 | 1.278 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 03/02/08 | OBAM_NOM | 512 | 422.857 | 0.788 | 0.859 | 0.826 | 0.810 |
| 03/03/08 | CLIN_NOM | 1,719 | 314.846 | 0.135 | 0.236 | 0.183 | 0.181 |
| 03/03/08 | DROF_NOM | 223 | 4.031 | 0.014 | 0.024 | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| 03/03/08 | EDWA_NOM | 157 | 0.377 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 03/03/08 | OBAM_NOM | 1,240 | 991.465 | 0.785 | 0.844 | 0.800 | 0.825 |
Interesting. Although Obama is still highly favored to win the nomination, the number actually has declined!
Why is there such a big price differential between the Clinton and Obama bets when the actual delegate vote count differential is so tiny? Maybe the Obamamania has swept through the Iowa Market also!
All eyes are now on Texas.
The front page article in the printed version of Wall Street Journal today reports on what is the latest development in the backlash against Sovereign Wealth Funds in Washington DC.
A couple points:
1. I am glad to see that IMF is playing a coordination role in this. IMF’s mandate in today’s world of no financial crises indeed is to disperse information. By drawing up a voluntary code of conduct for SWF, which I hope and imagine would be along the lines of the voluntary SDDS as well as international reserves templates (which were drawn up after the Asian Financial Crisis, except that this SWF code will be BEFORE any crisis), IMF is precisely playing the role that it should be playing.
2. But wait a minute, will there be disclosure plans? And will those plans be optional (like SDDS, where disclosing the information is to the benefit of that country, via lowering costs of external financing and improving country ratings)? Are the incentives sufficiently enough to make these SWF want to disclose anything? In any case, I do not expect sovereign wealth funds to disclose the geographical allocation of their portfolio in any disclosure plans that IMF might have. If I remember correctly, so far only 25-27 central banks/monetary authorities report the currency allocation of their portfolio for their international reserves. Not even Japan, the supposedly most transparent Asian country, does this. And none of the Middle Eastern countries do this. Most of reserves disclosure central banks are in Europe. If they don’t even do it for international reserves, I see little chance they do it for sovereign wealth funds.
3. On a side note, it is a shame that the US central bank cannot coordinate with other major central banks for monetary policy, opening now possibilities of crazy dollar movements
4. The most informative and reliable source about sovereign wealth funds I find is from Edwin (Ted) Truman from Peterson Institute. He and his score card of 32 SWF are cited in this WSJ article. Everybody should look at it and read his testmonial to the Senate Banking and Finance Committee.
5. Some questions to ponder: On the issue of disclosure, what is the optimal amount of information that SWF should disclose? (without hurting itself and scaring off national governments) Does there exist a stable and unique equilibrium where such funds would not take political advantage of their stake?
Filed under: Politics
Last time I checked, the Iowa market is saying that Hillary will win the nomination. And the numbers then (night before Super Tuesday) did not change much from about 9 months ago when I checked. Now, about a week from Super Tuesday, look what the numbers are saying — Obama will win! For people who believed in Obama a year ago, here is your monetary reward!
| Date | Contract | Units | $Volume | LowPrice | HighPrice | AvgPrice | LastPrice |
| 02/04/08 | CLIN_NOM | 2,211 | 1,185.263 | 0.512 | 0.578 | 0.536 | 0.539 |
| 02/04/08 | DROF_NOM | 1,056 | 5.361 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 02/04/08 | EDWA_NOM | 1,298 | 2.004 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/04/08 | OBAM_NOM | 2,878 | 1,374.083 | 0.433 | 0.500 | 0.477 | 0.488 |
| 02/05/08 | CLIN_NOM | 9,049 | 4,460.622 | 0.344 | 0.630 | 0.493 | 0.591 |
| 02/05/08 | DROF_NOM | 2,732 | 17.621 | 0.004 | 0.011 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 02/05/08 | EDWA_NOM | 4,585 | 5.332 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 02/05/08 | OBAM_NOM | 8,708 | 4,201.841 | 0.367 | 0.649 | 0.483 | 0.398 |
| 02/06/08 | CLIN_NOM | 4,834 | 2,444.418 | 0.420 | 0.590 | 0.506 | 0.440 |
| 02/06/08 | DROF_NOM | 2,878 | 18.498 | 0.004 | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 02/06/08 | EDWA_NOM | 1,505 | 2.314 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/06/08 | OBAM_NOM | 6,751 | 3,350.593 | 0.405 | 0.570 | 0.496 | 0.542 |
| 02/07/08 | CLIN_NOM | 2,275 | 935.970 | 0.378 | 0.442 | 0.411 | 0.442 |
| 02/07/08 | DROF_NOM | 405 | 2.810 | 0.006 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 02/07/08 | EDWA_NOM | 2,286 | 6.352 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 02/07/08 | OBAM_NOM | 2,993 | 1,737.428 | 0.543 | 0.650 | 0.580 | 0.565 |
| 02/08/08 | CLIN_NOM | 1,211 | 511.676 | 0.405 | 0.442 | 0.423 | 0.407 |
| 02/08/08 | DROF_NOM | 4,310 | 65.132 | 0.008 | 0.020 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| 02/08/08 | EDWA_NOM | 256 | 0.916 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 02/08/08 | OBAM_NOM | 743 | 418.661 | 0.548 | 0.585 | 0.563 | 0.585 |
| 02/09/08 | CLIN_NOM | 2,822 | 1,070.910 | 0.325 | 0.444 | 0.379 | 0.350 |
| 02/09/08 | DROF_NOM | 765 | 12.881 | 0.015 | 0.021 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| 02/09/08 | EDWA_NOM | 1,066 | 2.614 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/09/08 | OBAM_NOM | 2,542 | 1,522.894 | 0.560 | 0.650 | 0.599 | 0.621 |
| 02/10/08 | CLIN_NOM | 1,999 | 630.716 | 0.282 | 0.368 | 0.316 | 0.299 |
| 02/10/08 | DROF_NOM | 218 | 3.995 | 0.015 | 0.022 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| 02/10/08 | EDWA_NOM | 278 | 0.725 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 02/10/08 | OBAM_NOM | 2,168 | 1,429.178 | 0.624 | 0.700 | 0.659 | 0.693 |
Filed under: Politics
Up to the day before Super Tuesday, the Iowa Politics Gambling Market says Hilary will win. Here’s the price history in recent days:
| Date | Contract | Units | $Volume | LowPrice | HighPrice | AvgPrice | LastPrice |
| 02/01/08 | CLIN_NOM | 1,225 | 719.259 | 0.550 | 0.599 | 0.587 | 0.584 |
| 02/01/08 | DROF_NOM | 582 | 2.938 | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 02/01/08 | EDWA_NOM | 740 | 1.493 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/01/08 | OBAM_NOM | 1,320 | 559.877 | 0.390 | 0.470 | 0.424 | 0.418 |
| 02/02/08 | CLIN_NOM | 951 | 565.253 | 0.575 | 0.609 | 0.594 | 0.605 |
| 02/02/08 | DROF_NOM | 397 | 1.985 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 02/02/08 | EDWA_NOM | 236 | 0.472 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/02/08 | OBAM_NOM | 2,121 | 829.889 | 0.340 | 0.417 | 0.391 | 0.374 |
| 02/03/08 | CLIN_NOM | 2,194 | 1,295.714 | 0.550 | 0.664 | 0.591 | 0.560 |
| 02/03/08 | DROF_NOM | 359 | 1.901 | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 02/03/08 | EDWA_NOM | 378 | 0.786 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 02/03/08 | OBAM_NOM | 1,725 | 734.056 | 0.380 | 0.450 | 0.426 | 0.425 |
Filed under: Politics
1. John McCain
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Barak Obama
(in that order).
Since there were so many endorsements over the weekend, I have decided to throw in mine into the blogosphere as well.
If the race is between McCain and Obama, I will vote for McCain.
(It then naturally follows that if the race is between McCain and Hillary, I’ll vote for McCain)
If the race is between Rudy and Obama, I will vote for Rudy.
(It then naturally follows that if the race is between Rudy and Hillary, I’ll vote for Rudy)
If the race is between Huckabee/Romney and Obama, I’ll vote for Obama.
If the race is between Huckabee/Romney and Hillary, I’ll vote for Hillary.
If the race is among other people, I will not vote.
Why are my top candidates Republican? (To think that in 2004 I was canvassing for John Kerry in Virginia, knocking on doors in a red district to convince people not to vote Republican, or rather, Bush) Just because I like McCaine and it’s easy to see that he is a good and honest man. Why Rudy? Because the moment I saw him on NBC when the twin towers crumbled I liked him, and it doesn’t hurt that he is pro gay, pro abortion, and pro gun laws.
Alright, the real reason is Iraq and national security. Is it inconsistent of me to be anti-war in 2001 (protested in anti-war protest at Hippie College) and support continuation of occupation candidates in 2008? (wow this war has been going on for 7 years?!!) No, I don’t think. It does not strike me as right to march into someone’s country then leave it in a worse place than it was, especiallly now that the last surge has demonstrated to be effective. Given that the world is a rather crazy place right now (though not crazy as in 1980s), we need someone that inspires confidence. McCain does it for me.
Why Obama is not my first? He’s cool, but McCaine gives me more confidence.
Why not Hillary? Because that would mean that my schools’ grads will never be hired as white house economics advisers and only those from salt water would :). It’s personal.
