RealClearPolitics betting average, today, has Harris-Trump 52.3 to 46.3.
Source: RCP, accessed 9/22/2024, ~ 3pm CT.
PredictIt, the only platform able to operate in the US, is excluded from the RCP average now (it wasn’t a couple weeks ago), and has Harris-Trump at 58-45, up by 13 cents.
Source: PredictIt, accessed 9/22/2024, ~ 3pm CT.
Clearly, not all markets are asking the same question, and each platform has different constraints (betting limits, where operable, etc.). Still, this seems like a large gap (6 cents vs. 13 cents).
By the way, despite differences in the early days of the Harris campaign, seemingly near-equivalent bets are registering similar odds now: 58-45 Harris over Trump, 59-44 for Democrats over Republicans for White House, 58-42 Harris is 47th President.
Most recently, Nate Silver’s carefully mathed up model (which cannot be calibrated, just jiggered according to logic), has Harris at 49%, Trump at 46.3%. Those with advanced degrees in math may notice an oddity – a 4.7% oddity. Never mind that. Reasons.
Silver works at getting the quirks of the electoral collage factored in, and that keeps the odds of a Democratic win tamped down relative to poll results.
Returning to the old greed inflation debate, I found this story about dairy traders in the EU interesting:
Profits of dairy traders vary widely
https://www.farmerbusiness.com/dairy/article/684/profits-of-dairy-traders-vary-widely
Prominent Dutch companies like Hoogwegt and Interfood are also leaders on a global scale, but they cannot rest on their laurels. Challengers and newcomers like Numidia and Cefetra Dairy are proving to be fast growers. And other established names are also pursuing turnover in a market that is shrinking in Europe. Based on public Chamber of Commerce data, we assess the financial balance from large to smaller companies. The common denominator is that turnover was under pressure in 2023, after a year with extremely high prices the year before. Furthermore, it appears that net profit margins vary widely.
The table on profits margins also shows the sales of the major traders and the top 3 (Hoogwegt, Interfood, Numidia) capture most of the EU market. A caveat about some of those low report net margins – some of these traders are subsidiaries of dairy multinationals so transfer pricing games are at play. And companies like Hoogwegt are privately held so their financials are not report publicly.
But I did look at some of the recent financials for Interfood and Numidia. It seems that the operating expenses of these traders are a mere 1.8% of sales as they really do not do that much. I would guess a fair gross margin (sales minus what they pay the dairy producers as a percent of sales) should run between 2 1/2 percent and 2 3/4 percent, which has been the case an average for Numidia.
But mighty Interfood generated 5.9% for a gross margin for 2023. That strikes me as some sort of monopoly power going on aka greed inflation. The EU needs their own Kamala Harris!
More than 700 high-ranking national security officials endorse Harris
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-than-700-high-ranking-national-security-officials-endorse-harris/ar-AA1r02nK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ca94b5cbff29430bb02aacbb490a4c82&ei=18
More than 700 high-ranking national security officials have endorsed Democratic candidate Vice President Harris in her run for the White House, with some leaders expressing concerns about former President Trump’s “scary authoritarian streak.”
“Vice President Harris has all the leadership qualities needed to be a strong commander in chief. She’s prepared. She’s strategic. She’s understands all sides of an issue,” retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael Smith told The Hill. “We saw as much during the debate.”
“As we’ve seen for nearly a decade, however, former President Trump has none of those qualities, and he has a scary authoritarian streak,” Smith, who is also the president of National Security Leaders for America, added.
The letter endorsing Harris consists of 741 former high-ranking national security officials, including 233 general and flag officers. Among those 741 officials are 15 four-star generals, 10 former Cabinet secretaries and 10 service secretaries as well as leaders who served in Republican administrations.
“We do not agree on everything, but we all adhere to two fundamental principles,” the letter reads. “First, we believe America’s national security requires a serious and capable Commander-in-Chief. Second, we believe American democracy is invaluable.”
“Each generation has a responsibility to defend it,” the letter continues. “That is why we, the undersigned, proudly endorse Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.”
The signatories praise Harris as the more diplomatic and realistic candidate for office, distinguishing her from former President Trump, who they call “impulsive and ill-informed.” The letter cites Trump’s relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the terrorist leaders of Hezbollah.
“Our endorsement of Vice President Harris is an endorsement of freedom and an act of patriotism. It is an endorsement of democratic ideals, of competence, and of relentless optimism in America’s future,” the letter concludes.
This endorsement comes after more than 100 former GOP national security figures endorsed Harris earlier this week. That letter cited Trump’s “demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior” as president as reason to support Harris, who they say “possesses the essential qualities to serve as president.”
Starting to see handicapping for Kamala’s cabinet. Here are some I care about.
Secretary of State, ’cause Blinken is apparently leaving:
William Burns – Current CIA Director, 32 years as a foreign service officer, deputy secretary of state, president of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. Able negotiator. Vast experience. I don’t know his policy views.
Christopher Murphy – Senator from Connecticut, career-long politician. Murphy was among the most outspoken members of Congress in opposition to U.S. support for Saudia Arabia’s war in Yemen. Strongly opposed to Russian aggression. Friend of Kamala.
Christoph Coons – Senator from Delaware, having defeated a witch for the seat in 2010. He worked as a lawyer in the private sector before first seeking elective office in 2001. Greenhouse gas activism got him entangled in an ExxonMobil influence scheme. He is more strongly associated with carbon capture than other, less industry-friendly approaches to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Big supporter of Israel, including in its current war against Palestinians. Only one of the three who hasn’t attended Oxford.
Secretary of Defense:
Michèle Flournoy – Former under secretary of Defense for policy. Vast experience. Was in the race to be Biden’s Defense Secretary. Has been described as a classic liberal internationalist.
Colin Kahl – Former under secretary of Defense for policy. An academic until joining the Obama administration, where he won high marks. Basically a Biden guy.
Mara Karlin – Former assistant secretary of Defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities. Rose through the DoD civilian ranks, and has time in academia. She had a huge role in crafting Biden’s military policies – serious planning skills. A Biden guy.
Treasury:
C’mon. Janet stays. Please, please, please stay, ’cause, well, in ascending order of offensiveness…
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo – Former governor of Rhode Island. Venture capitalist.
Ajay Banga – World Bank President. Previously executive chair of Mastercard. Has worked with Harris.
Jamie freakin’ Dimon. Katey Porter isn’t gonna like this.
Cabinet Republican:
Adam Kiplinger, Liz Cheney, Meg Whitman. You don’t need me for background on these guys. Commerce is mentioned. Commerce often goes to someone with big political weight but not much of policy brain. It could serve to isolate the Republican from most policy making.
I would think Susan Rice’s name fits in here somewhere if she hasn’t taken her own name out of the hat.
I just watched Trump toadie little Lindsey Graham being asked on Meet the Press about what Marc Robison has said in the past. Of course this little weasel said there were two possible states of the world:
(1) He spent most of his time harping on the possibility that CNN and others have lied about Robinson’s past comments which would mean Robinson should get a lawyer and sue his accusers. Of course it is equally plausible that the Earth is flat. But hey – little Lindsey cannot say possibility (2) can be true.
(2) Now if these accusations are true (they are of course) then Robinson is unfit for office.
Now think about that in terms of Donald Trump who has said a LOT similar to the racist sexist trash coming from Robinson. The logical conclusion as far as I can tell is that Trump is unfit for office. He is unfit but little Lindsey still supports the racist in chief. MAGA.
Kinda on topic – capping credit card interest rates:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-cap-credit-card-095900487.html
Trump says he’d cap credit card rates at 10%, temporarily. What do you know – price controls.
Cato and The National Review have both come out against the idea. Back in 2023, the Heritage Foundation did, too:
https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/price-controls-credit-card-interest-rates-will-compound-bidenomicss
Waiting to hear from them this time.
The politics of the idea is clear; credit card rates are eye-popping:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TERMCBCCALLNS
Trump’s base includes lots of people at the low end of wages, and they tend to be at the high end of credit card rates and have a tough time digging out once card balances rise. This is a direct grab for an issue that Democrats typically campaign in.
Vance argued for interest rate limits before he was Trump’s buddy, but hasn’t recently. Could be his idea. His rich, conservative-elite backers may not like this one.
I am sure they don’t worry too much. Mexico will pay for it. Or they know its just something he is saying to con the voters for their vote – not an actual policy proposal.
Antoni has been on a tear claiming high interest expenses = RECESSION. I guess Trump has throw his favorite fake Ph.D. a bone. Good boy EJ good boy!
The People’s Bank has cut its 14-day rat by 10 basis points. Small potatoes, but at least it’s something.
China’s inflation rate in August was 0.4% m/m, 0.6% y/y, so there is reason to cut rates. There is also some question whether rate cuts do much good in current circumstances.
https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/china/#title-curve
China’s nominal interest rates are lower than ours. Of course their expected inflation rate must be low so their real interest rates are likely on par with US real interest rates. And of course I still think US rates are too high.
Speaking of political markets, DJT has traded to a new low today, down roughly 7% from Friday’s close, at $12.61 (10.33ET). Maybe Trump isn’t selling, but somebody is.
Hey – it is still overpriced.
DJT was trading over $40 a share before Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris. DJT is now less than $12.70 a share. Cause and effect?
More China, and India. India has once again said it will not join the China-dominated Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/23/india-rules-out-joining-rcep-accuses-china-of-non-transparent-trade-practices.html
Not new news, but the reason offered is that Chinese trade policy isn’t transparent enough to make membership worthwhile. Pig in a poke.
This decision regarding the Partnership is in keeping with India’s attitude toward another of China’s big influence efforts, the Belt and Road Initiative. India is the only member of the regional Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to refuse to endorse Belt and Road.
From China’s point of view, this is a diplomatic failure. More members means more influence, and having India inside the Partnership would increase the appeal of membership for others. Same for Belt and Road. This is a hole in China’s diplomatic boat.
These days, it’s easy for us westerners to see India’s behavior through the lens of the Ukraine war; trading with Russia keeps the killing machine fed. India’s long history of non-alignment offers another perspective. Colonialism is a big deal in India’s history, and led India to non-alignment. Why give hegemonic powers – the U.S., Russia or China – a say in India’s affairs? Same answer to China’s influence operations as to U.S. sanctions.