In response to:

QE, the Elections and the Market

Denis3957 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 1:21 PM
A Republican friend of mine from Kentucky joined the Tea Party Express. Several years ago when George W. Bush was president he was worried that the USA and the European Union would drastically reduce farm subsidies so that Third World countries might have the opportunity to export their agricultural products here. He said at the time, "It's true that billions of dollars of farm subsidies each year gives American farmers an unfair competitive advantage over farmers from impoverished nations. However, if farm subsidies are cut, the farm states should still get their due in the form of money for conservation."
Denis3957 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 1:22 PM
I said, "You mean, the American farmer should continue to get paid by the American taxpayer to mow his own lawn and plant trees on his own land?"

"Yes", he said "and most Republicans in America's heartland, basically, feel the same way."

I have come to the conclusion that these Republicans are collectivist statists, whose fundamental philosophy is 'Big government for me, little government for you."

.....but they will never, ever tell you that.

With the Presidential election debate bringing the election back into focus, investors might start to toy with the idea of how one "games" the election. After all, Romney has said if he is elected, he would fire Bernanke and end quantitative easing. Would the market's perception that QE could be come off the table cause a sell-off in stocks and precious metals?

Some of this is unclear as a Romney administration might also be perceived as providing an inflection point in current economic policy towards one that is more business-friendly, unleashing the entrepreneurial component of the U.S. economy. After all,...

Related Tags: Elections