Entries in reverse chronological order, most recent on top:

****************************************************************************

August 30, 2008 8:17:19 AM PDT Robert Yan wrote:

Hi Folks,

I think McCain's choice of Palin is tactical. I think he's trying to garner as much as he could all those women who have the same believes as Palin, but so far are not quite vocal as the Clintonites. Think of the ' silent majority ' theme of the Nixon years. Appeal to the Clintonites with NRA & pro-Choice ? Doesn't make sense. He's trying to rally each & every one of the religious right to come out & be counted.

Robert

****************************************************************************

Aug 29, 2008, at 7:08 PM, OSWALD FUNG said this about Palin:

I failed to understand what's McCain's reason behind picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Was it for her age, her beauty (face value), her gender, or her pro-life and pro-drilling ideology? Certainly her inexperience in Federal politics would be a concern for the Republicans. She must be an unknown to many voters. I agree with Reginald that McCain hopes to attract votes from Hillary's women supporters who are still bitter with losing the nomination to Obama, or who are uncomfortable to vote for a black President.

Three months ago, I thought a dream team for the Democrats would have Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate with Obama as V.P. Whatever the American voters choose they will have to live with the consequences, just like what they had lived through in the past 8 years. I won't be entirely surprised that McCain gets elected in November. If so, it would be sure that he will last the full term if he is in good health, for no one with any sanity would want a 44-year old rookie to assume the position of President. It would be a scary scenario for Democrats and Republicans alike. On the other hand, I am concerned about the safety of Barack Obama, an issue that not many wish to talk about.

If McCain becomes the President, I hope he would last only one term. It would almost be certain that Hillary Clinton will become the candidate for the Democrats in 4 years.

Oswald Fung


*****************************************************************************

August 29, 2008 1:30:58 PM PDT More thoughts from Reginald Mak:

Wow, what a shocker.

McCain just picked Sarah Palin, a 44-year-old Alaskan governor with less than 2 years in her current job, as his running mate.

She is darn good looking, being a former beauty queen. But she is younger than the 47-year-old Obama, and has even less experience than Obama. While McCain may have lowered the average age of his team, he has all but neutralized his strongest weapon on experience against his opponent, especially since Obama has picked the 65-year-old seasoned Joe Biden as his running mate.

It is probably total miscalculation on his part. McCain most likely counted on gaining votes from some of Hillary Clinton's supporters left on the table with this choice of a woman. But this up-for-grab group of voters was made smaller with Clintons' all-out support of the Democratic ticket a couple of nights ago. Besides, the anti-Obama Clintonites are generally strong-willed feminists and pro-choice. Palin, a former beauty queen and anti-abortionist, will not appeal to this group of voters that McCain hopes to scoop up. I personally think that he has just yielded a few points to Obama, who may have a tough time keeping his broad grin on McCain's choice. It underscores the point I made about McCain's judgment on major decisions, as compared to Obama's.

McCain could be a big genius, or suicidal. We will soon see.

Reginald.


***************************************************************************

August 27, 2008 8:05:49 PM PDT This from our own financial expert, Reginald Mak:

In response to Robert Yan's invitation, I will share some of my thoughts with you on U.S. politics and the economy.

A disclosure is in order. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and my past record of picking the winning horse in a presidential race has been lackluster.

There is little chance that I will cast my vote for McCain in November.

Like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle and Wolfowitz, McCain has a penchant for the use of military power. He may not be as wicked, but his judgment is often questionable. Like the neo-conservatives, he may well endorse the notion of pre-emptive intervention or strikes, which I philosophically abhor because the practice would stack all the cards in favor of bigger nations with greater military might. If all the nations should adopt such a policy, what horrible chaos would result for this world. His close association with Joe Lieberman whose agenda I do not trust, his early vote in supporting the Iraqi war, his "Keating Five" scandal and his major flip-flops in policy endorsements recently, understandably for political expediency, are some of the misdeeds that I would hold him accountable for. Overall, his report card is not too terrible though, for someone who has been in politics for decades. Yet, the election of McCain would increase the likelihood of further U.S. misadventures into Iran and other hot spots, and his recent strident tone on the Russian/Georgia mess could make the rebirth of a cold war more likely.

Obama's short resume worries me a little, but his judgment so far seems superior, and his IQ much higher. In general, he appears to be a more thoughtful man.

The success or failure of a president hinges more on the people that would provide him with advice. I will take my chances with Obama.

Who is more likely to win in November? From what I can see, it's going to be a very tight race. Even though Obama has been leading in most polls, the gap is narrowing. Furthermore, the polls are really not reliable. Many may tell the pollsters that they would pick Obama. But when they are behind the curtains of voting booths, innate racism may take over, causing them to cast their votes for a "safer" white over the "risky" black.

I had believed that Hillary Clinton would have been a stronger candidate to beat McCain (I still do), and failing that, an Obama-Clinton ticket would have been stronger than most other combinations. Yet a different choice has been made.

Joe Biden is gaffe-prone. Some pundits suggested that Biden likes to hear himself talk. (As the Chinese would say, "yan duo bi shi" (mandarin, -jk!) Nevertheless, he provides the ticket with a more heavy-duty resume, and he can be a ferocious bull-dog in the ongoing campaign. After all, the Republicans have shown the nation that they have a much meaner attack machine than the Democrats. Obama is too mild and too gentlemanly. Biden should help to level the playing field somewhat.

"How will election results affect Iraq?" With recent statements from the Iraqi prime minister demanding the U.S. to leave his country, it is more likely to be a question of the timetable for the U.S. to end its occupation. McCain, who previously insisted that the U.S. could be there forever, or 50 years, recently named a target date of 2013. The Democrats will likely make it sooner. The Republicans would probably take longer to withdraw and could even reverse their withdrawal if adverse conditions develop, making "face-saving" necessary.

Of course, the biggest concern for U.S. foreign policy is the dangerous propensity of the current crop of Republicans for confrontations and interference in other nations' affairs.

"How will the U.S. and the world economies be affected by the results of the November election?"

'Unpredictable' is my answer.

First of all, the effects of U.S. policy on foreign affairs on the economy would probably trump the collection of all domestic initiatives. Contrary to general perception, the "free-spending" Democratic administrations have on average performed better for the stock market than the "tax-cutting" Republicans. We can be stingy on smaller expenditures and blow the budget with a $2+ trillion war. That's how the current U.S. administration has created a big gaping hole in the budget and will be leaving a lot more bills for future administrations to pay. The current national debt has now exceeded $9.6 trillion, and is fast approaching $10,000,000,000,000. It amounts to an average share of over $100,000 per U.S. family!

But some of the biggest protectionists and anti-trade legislators are actually on the Democratic side. We hear some of the worst rhetoric for protectionism and against trade from such ideologues like Pelosi and Schumer on and off the legislative floor all the time, perhaps to score points with the powerful labor unions while showing little understanding of international economics.

Such is the dilemma.

A good way to describe an advanced economy is that it is a huge puzzle with many moving parts. Political actions can have unforeseen impacts on the economy.

As it stands, a recovery in the U.S. economy may be many months away. The damage to the economy this time is very severe. Repair of the financial sector will take time. Many bold and aggressive remedies had to be taken, and repeated stimulative actions by the government this past year to increase liquidity may now have reared the ugly head of another monster, inflation. The Federal Reserve just signaled that the next interest rate move would be on the upside. With a much weakened economy, however, that action may have to be delayed.

So the next president will be facing a delicate choice on the economy, whether to reignite the economy boldly or to tread carefully to keep inflation under control.


************************************************************************

Here is a good article on Obama in this week's Newsweek, comparing Obama to Carter and first term Clinton. (click to download pdf copy)

***********************************************************************

Monday, August 25, 2008 7:45 PM Robert Yan wrote:

Subject: US Election

Hi Joe Ku & Reginal & all of our US friends,

Now that the Democratic convention is on, what is your opinion on the candidates.

If Obama wins the presidency, what kind of changes he'll implement. What's going to happen in Iraq.

Ah Mak said he is ready to discuss. So lets have it. I guess as an investment counsellor, he's the one who'll study the coming events with zeal. We in Canada are extremely interested in this as well because of the close ties both in culture and commerce.

Robert


**********************************************************************

August 17, 2008 10:47:59 AM PDT Moses Wong wrote:

Ok, this time for a change, instead of giving my opinion up front, I am soliciting yours on some observations I've made and posing some questions.

What do you think about the promise Beijing made to designate several demonstration areas and to allow people to openly express their opinions? (So far, no organizations have been approved and the areas remain empty). What do you think about the slogan "One World, One Dream" means? Whose World, and whose Dream? Are Taiwan and Tibet not part of this world? (Taiwan is not allowed to take part in the World Health Organization!). As for Tibet, its a totally different story. Granted, Taiwan is allowed to take part in the Olympics games but look at the flag its carrying. Somebody is twisting somebody's arm not to let the "Blue Sky, White Sun and Bloody Red Ground" to enter Beijing. Come on, be a sport, let the KuoMingTang flag show up in the Birdsnest and I bet they'll get a tremendous applause and great admirations and praises from the media.

What do you think about the situation of the Catholic church in China? They elected their own Bishop but refused to have ties with the Vatican. During the Olympics, suddenly there are foreign priests saying mass in the church to appease the public.

One last question. What do you think about Beijing after the Olympics? Would there be a economic backlash? An improvement on human rights? A truer "One World, One Dream" demonstration and acknowledgment?

Gentleman, turn on your keyboards.

Moses