"Global Markets Rally Adds Billions, As World Relieved that 39-Year Old Who Married His High School Teacher Will Lead France."
Manny Mota...Mota...Mota (OK, not a helpful title...this blog is mostly about Economics, the Markets, Politics...and during the football season also about the New York Giants)
"Against All Odds, the U.S. Tobacco Industry Is Rolling in Money"
"is set to sign a sweeping directive to dramatically shrink the role climate change plays in decisions across the government..."Fear not though Global Warmists. After 4-8 years of negative US leadership, and the attendant lack of leadership from the followers around the world, I'm sure the fight can be resumed easy-peasy sometime around 2024.
Frankly, I see less risk in any number of institutions with names like Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, Clorox etc. In today's world, these are the less risky bets and the US government ought to pay me a premium for capital that I could otherwise tie up in the equity of these institutions....What type of institution will act with speed, wisdom, and effectiveness? Shouldn't you pay more for these qualities and less for the lack of these attributes? I believe so, and I think this will be the new reality a few years down the road.
Do you prefer Marmite debt over La Belle France?
Unilever NV, with its A1/A+ credit rating, managed a yield of just 1.03 percent for the 600 million-euro ($641 million) 10-year bond it issued Wednesday. France's Aa2/AA rating doesn't seem to be doing it much good, since its 10-year yielded a few basis points more at the time.
Unilever is at least cash flow positive whereas France does have an ever-expanding deficit, but is the market really saying that Unilever has greater placement control of toiletries than a major European sovereign has in raising taxes?Who could have seen this coming??
The more she speaks, the better for conservatives.That is true, but there is more. Over the last, oh say, 20 years, the Democrats have abandoned (abandoned in the sense of kick, punch, hog-tie, spit on and then walk away from) certain very large electoral swaths...men, the South, and married women. Even regular Democrats, to say nothing of "liberal Democrats," have been all but swept from the South.
That anybody expected even the most basic level of governance from Obama, let alone monumental and transformative things, is the story of greatest import here. And it is not that the hope, dreams and expectations placed into the Obama vessel were so grand, it is that the vessel that is Obama is so small. I have said it before - in November of '08 I said we bought ourselves a pig in a poke. Later I said that disappointment and pain is what we deserve given that we elected a man of no consequence and no achievement to the highest office in the land. Why we expected a man with no discernable track record or proven record of leadership to lead and to achieve in the name of this massive and complex society is a story of historical proportions. Did we think that plucking just any man off the street - essentially what we did - to wield enormous power was wise? And a young man to boot. And a man who never held a job at a profit-making organization. Why did we think that the wisdom acquired over a long life and the first hand knowledge of commerce gained by private sector work somehow weren't relevant anymore? Why did we think that - after over 200 years of electing (with a few exceptions) staid, boring, but presumably wise, adults, who could draw to them the counsel and assistance of many more wise, older adults - we needed a rock star of relative adolescence? Why did we think that a man with no knowledge of the private sector would lead a mostly private sector nation out of a severe economic slump? Why did we think that a man who consorted with raving America-haters would inspire a mostly proud and patriotic nation to excellence? Why did we think that a man who views our role in the world as flawed would draw our allies nearer to us? Why did we think these things?From Day one, I saw this.