Just a quick reality check.

 

Traffic deaths, US, 2006, from the CDC:  43,664

Traffic deaths, EU-25, 2005:  41,316

Traffic deathc, EU-25, 2004:  43,404

 

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Road%20deaths%20in%20Europe.pdf

California Early Voting is going on NOW.

Voting early helps reduce the load on election day.
Voting early means you are available to volunteer / help GOTV / canvass / etc. on election day.
Voting early helps your party predict the results in your area, and lets them focus GOTV efforts more effectively.

(GOTV is "get out the vote" of course)

Check with your county to find out where to vote early: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ppl.htm

For some counties, finding the information can be a little tricky. 

For Orange County, there are many polling places open, including one on the first floor of the UCI student union. They're open now until next Tuesday, weekdays, 7:30 AM to 7PM.  http://www.ocvote.com/vote/votearlyenglish.htm

For San Diego County, you can vote in person at the Registrar of Voters' office, M-F 8AM-5PM, or the weekend before the election (November 1+2). Absentee balloting is also possible.

(I have a lot of friends in these two counties, so I looked them up directly.)

Get out there and vote!

Frank Rich in the NY Times:

So how can a desperate G.O.P. save itself? As McCain continues to fade into incoherence and irrelevance, the last hope is that he’ll come up with some new game-changing stunt to match his initial pick of Palin or his ill-fated campaign “suspension.” Until Thursday night, more than a few Republicans were fantasizing that his final Hail Mary pass would be to ditch Palin so she can “spend more time” with her ever-growing family.

But the debate reminded Republicans once again that it’s Palin, not McCain, who is their last hope for victory. You have to wonder how long it will be before they plead with him to think of his health, get out of the way and pull the ultimate stunt of flipping the ticket. Palin, we can be certain, wouldn’t even blink.

Scary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05rich.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

This clip http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/mccain-how-about-sarah-pa_n_131717.html

reminded me of something....

Oh yes! 

Try this, at about 6:15 in...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26YRd5fW66k

I couldn't believe the winks.  The timing of some of those winks was really poor.  A clip of her winking could sink her credibility even further.

Hard to be sure, of course, but seems like a potentially classic case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

Wonder if we'll see one of those for McCain's numbers, too...

What kinds of financial items does the government plan to buy in this bailout?  Are we targeting:

- Mortgages directly
- Whole mortage pools (the basis of the securities)
- General mortgage-backed securities
- Principal-only or interest-only securities
- Specific tranches of various mortgage pools
- Credit Swaps
- Some other exotic derivatives?

And, are we talking only about subprime mortgages here?  Or anything that's underperforming?  Conforming loans or jumbo?

I mean, if I say "I'm going to take 700 billion and buy computers for schools" - I think we should know if we're heading out to the market to buy supercomputers or notebooks; high-end game machines or 1980s era Apple IIs.

Or is it just "I'll know it when I see it"?  Anything that's illiquid and hurting a bank?  If so, what's to stop us from starting to buy state bonds, foreign currency futures, Nikkei straddles, or commodities derivatives? 

Let's see - you're John McCain:

- You're behind and know that debates aren't likely to help you make up enough ground

- The news coming out is all about your corrupt advisors

- You can't draw any crowds on your own, and people actually walk out when you get up to speak

Hey, make a noble sacrifice that you aren't going to keep campaigning!

You get:
1.  Credit for being off the campiagn trail, where you weren't doing anything anyway
2.  Possibly pull your opponent off the campaign trail, when currently they have not just a 2 campaigner to 1 advantage, but where Obama's the top draw of the year
3.  Massive change of topic back to your bipartisan leadership

and so on.

Well, I wonder if I could use this as a topic for an Industrial Organization field paper?  (I'm a grad student in Economics at the moment)

I'm very curious as to the composition of the foreclosure "market" - who are the people being foreclosed on?

From what I can tell, Democrats think it's "hardworking Americans" and Republicans think it's "minorities (i.e. Blacks)".

I'll use "foreclosure" below, but figure the same question should be asked of distressed properties in general.

I'd like to know:

1.  How much of the real estate that has entered foreclosure is investment property?

- I bet this is a pretty high percentage.  Who buys high hoping to sell higher with no money down?  And if you had a good track record before getting caught in the bust, you probably walk away from not one, but multiple properties.

2.  (related) How many of the foreclosed properties were not the sole house (or condo, or whatever) owned?

3.  How many of these properites were jumbo loans?  (let's use $417,000 as the benchmark, disregarding the 2008 stimulus deal that raised the ceiling.)

4.  What percentage are minority-owned, and how does that compare to home ownership in general?

- I'd guess that the minority-owned homes are going to be less likely, not more, to be in bankruptcy, but even if there's some correlation, having the data should still easily prove the fallacy of the "it's all the minorities' fault!" argument.

5.  What percentage of distressed houses are first-time homebuyers?

6.  What percentage are refinanced mortgages?

7.  What percentage are ARMs that have had their initial locked-in rate expire?

- I suspect this is a lot less of a problem than most assume (though clearly it can be an issue).  Mortgage rates remain pretty low, and the properties most likely to be in trouble are the ones purchased or refinanced within the past 5 years, when the market was peaking.

8.  How much of the bad debt relates to 2nd or 3rd (or higher) leins on a house, instead of the initial primary mortgage?  (related to the refi question above)

9.  How many of the loans are "conforming"?

- If conforming loans aren't an issue now, and the economy deteriorates, well, just wait.

10.  How many are FHA loans (if any)?

11.  How many have PMI?  And does this have any positive effect?  And, if not, can we abolish it?

CNN is calling "misleading" claims that McCain  wants to deregulate the health care system the same way banks were deregulated. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/fact-check-does-mccain-really-want-to-deregulate-health-care/#more-19913

They base this on both McCain's explanation of his comments, and on the context of the magazine article in which the comments appear.  They note that the main topic of the article involves lifting rules about doing business across state lines.

CNN gives McCain far too much credit.

1.  There is no reason to believe that McCain would limit deregulation to one minor topic.

2.  It is McCain himself who draws parallels between banking deregulation and his ideas for health insurance.

3.  Merely removing rules about doing business across state lines hardly allows for "more choices of innovative products" - that's not the level of deregulation that created "innovative" products in the banking industry, and it's not what would do it for health care. 

It is absoultely clear by the argument that McCain makes in the article that the central thrust of his argument is for a parallel development in health care to allow innovative products - and the major innovative products he is drawing parallels to are exactly the high-end derivatives, no money down mortgages, and no doc high risk investments that have landed us in the most severe financial crisis this country has faced in decades.

So, did Obama appear last night on Fox? Did anyone watch? If so, I haven't been able to find word one about it so far.

OK, let's see. John McCain is going to "change Washington". How does that compute? His party has controlled the Presidency for the last 8 years. They've controlled the Senate for 10 of the last 14 years. They've controlled the House for 12 of the last 14 years. If he does get elected, he'll face a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. He has yet to propose any substantial policy shifts that I've seen that differ from the Bush administration. The only vague suggestion is stopping "earmarks" like the ones Gov. Palin secured for her town and state (multiple ones she pushed for and celebrated securing are on McCain's list of no-no's). And, to top it all off, he buckled under to pressure from the extremist Moral Majority wing of his party instead of picking the VP candidate he really wanted. The same wackos who brought us... George W Bush. So where, exactly, is this "change" supposed to come from?

I wonder what Joe Lieberman really thinks of the Sarah Palin pick?  I'm kind of surprised he's sticking with the GOP party line on this one.

Presidentaial campaigns, at least successful ones, are massive organizations requiring a huge amount of day-to-day decision making and coordination.  It is impossible to run one successfully without great management and organizational skills, including the ability to pick highly qualified and competent people to handle the required tasks, and the ability to appropriately delegate authority.  The Obama campaign is possibly the largest and most impressive such organization ever assembled, and it runs very smoothly.  Every successful business executive recognizes the inherent challenges an organization faces in trying to plan for and accomodate rapid growth - yet the Obama campaign, which could easily have sputtered and died after success in the smaller market of Iowa, has grown quickly and performed impressively, as even their staunchest critics would have to admit.

The modern political campaign requires a candidate display mastery of a wide range of issues, and be able to speak on any of them at a moment's notice, while the cameras are rolling nearly every minute of most days.  With the gambits and tactics, it's a crazy way to select a leader, but it turns out to be a trial by fire for both candidates, and whoever emerges, victorious or otherwise, has perservered through the fires that leave the candidate with some idea of the pressures and challenges they will face upon assuming power.

Political contests at any level can be fierce and bitter, and some might argue that all politicians gain from the campaign.  But the relentless national pressure and scrutiny of the modern US presidential campaign is a thing apart.  After 19 long months of campaigning against both the Clinton organization and the punches thrown by the Republican candidate and his party, and after building and running a powerful political entity in his campaign machinery, there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama is vastly more qualified to be President of the United States than he was at the start of his journey.

I see no need to belittle the executive exprience of Sarah Pulin.  Compare it objectively to that of Barack Obama OR John McCain and you will find it lacking.  As things currently stand, she is not at all qualified to be President.

During the campaign season, each candidate makes only one decision that is firm and is guaranteed to have an impact on the course of his or her term in office.  Only one decision is made by which we can evaluate the candidate's judgement and the method by which they will set up and run the massive federal government that, for good or ill, has a tremendous impact on the lives of every single American.  That decision is who to choose as their running mate.  That decision reflects the considerations and judgement that will go into filling out the Cabinet.  Do not forget, an effective Vice President can also serve as the President's voice in the Senate.

Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  A potent statesman,  a highly respected senator, probably the most qualified Democrat to step into a position of power aside from those who have actually lived in the White House. 

John McCain chose Sarah Pulin.  He appears to have made the decision purely as a political gambit.  This is not a risky decision based on political consequences - it is a risky decision because one in four elected Presidents have died in office leaving power to the Vice President. 

That's a powerful and scary argument regardless of the age or health of the various candidates.

McCain's pick says one of two things:

1)  Barack Obama has enough experience to be President.

2)  McCain lacks the judgement to be an effective President.

Or both, of course.