# Financial speculation on US election



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm opening this in the investment section because I want to talk exclusively about financial speculation on the outcome of the US election. Let's talk about this like cold, unemotional traders. Is anyone speculating on the outcome? What methods exist?

The one I've heard about is the MXN/USD currency pair. The theory is that Trump's policies are bad for the Mexican economy and this is reflected in the currency pair. When Clinton's chances strengthen, MXN rises. When Trump's chances strengthen, MXN falls.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/20/news/economy/donald-trump-mexico-peso/

Click here for a daily granularity currency chart. You can see in this the effect of the debates (Sept 27 and Oct 10)
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$MXNUSD&p=D&yr=0&mn=1&dy=0&id=p13733692533

If someone really wanted to bet on this, they could simply open a position in the MXNUSD currency pair, which also affords high leverage.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

... or you can bet on Mexican ETF EWW.

Then again, by now Trump's loss will have been priced in, for the most part.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I agree the market prices these things to show their most likely outcome. So the highest probability outcome is already priced in.

But how about surprise events, like a debate that goes particularly badly for one person, or other news coming out. Those are things that change the odds and the price of the security moves rapidly as a result.

Perhaps it's just not worth making such bets. They would amount to random gambles.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

By now enough people would have made up their mind and in any case the voting has already started. One would be betting on Clinton dropping dead before the election.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

It seems to me conspiracy sites are betting on Hillary dropping dead from bad health. Some are also saying Trump will win so they can finally crash the markets and have someone to blame. If Hillary wins I think we will see a rate hike in Dec. so maybe a short term gold short opportunity.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Emotions cause actions. It does not matter who wins the election the cycles of positive & negative thinking cause the price vibration not the president.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Why not prediction markets... speculating on currency pairs is such a roundabout way of placing a bet on an outcome.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

I've had bets on Trump to win the primaries and the general for a while because the prediction markets never gave him a chance, and there was good value to be had. Was looking good when Hillary got chucked in the van like a side of beef on 9/11, but since then not so hot. Only hope I have is the 33,000 emails get released with damning evidence, of which there is some buzz. I also think there is a Trump effect not captured by the polls that will show up on election day ala Brexit (of which I bet on too). If not, oh well, I only had a small sum wagered.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I would buy now and sell after the bounce... I expect Trump to get a bump between now and election day.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't know if the prediction markets are legal. There were off shore US gambling sites of this nature, and they were illegal and shut down by the feds. Some people saw their money evaporate in the process while the authorities seized assets from the gambling sites.

There were other such sites running out of Ireland, and some of those got shut down. The popular one I knew of (intrade) appears to have gone "offline" with only a vague message on their web site.

If a currency pair can give similar exposure, I'd rather do that for obvious reasons.


----------



## DonnaBrooks (Oct 15, 2016)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

*not so much speculation, more of a probability forecast ...*

.

how americans have voted for president/senate/house since 1951.

the globe's article quotes BMO economist Robert Kavcic as pointing out that markets have prospered during years of unified one-party rule in washington, but have faltered during split years.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-meltdown-of-donald-trump/article32362394/


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

You can try binary options.

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...=795521&highlight=+binary+options+#post795521

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/15583-Binary-Options-Scam


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

'bout time someone started a thread like this thread james4! let's keep it going....
_" Don't be a Chump, Vote for Trump!"_


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....soooooo........assuming ms. clinton will win...... are there any particular stocks that stand out now, that will likely get a "bump" post-election...??


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I am thinking this is now priced in and probably gold will be going down for now. Maybe gold will then get the bump if it keeps dropping and gets deeply oversold until the election is over. The rest of the stock market should just continue the way it has and the speculation should shift to what the Fed will do in December.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Hillary will be bad for the Wall Street. There will be more red tape. Sensible regulation is good but I wouldn't bet on Hillary being sensible. The US economy will likely continue its downward spiral for the next 4 years, but no way to predict how the stocks will be impacted.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

mordko said:


> Hillary will be bad for the Wall Street. There will be more red tape. Sensible regulation is good but I wouldn't bet on Hillary being sensible. The US economy will likely continue its downward spiral for the next 4 years, but no way to predict how the stocks will be impacted.


What do you think she's going to do? Are you going to consider her responsible for new regulations that come from congress when she doesn't veto them?

A president heads the executive branch. Legislation comes from the legislative branch (ie: congress).

... and it's not like congress is going to introduce any legislation based on her recommendation. The senate may fall to Democrat control but I don't know how likely that is. The house of representatives is certain to remain under Republican control.

Hillary will be a lame duck, just as will Donald Trump. We can be certain that, on the regulatory front, there will be four more years of government that is just as sensible and equitable as the last six. lol


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Hillary will still be able to give pardons to the drug lords & criminals that donate to her fund as the Clintons have done in the past 

Possible to count a 5 wave ending diagonal in S&P, DJI, NDX from Feb 2016 wave 4 still not complete, Right look would have 5th wave start around election going into end of 2016. (not sure if this is right wave count)

9/56 year crash grid which contains most crashes lines up with correcting the diagonal in Jan, Feb 2017 9 Crashes in each sequence fall with in same time of year timing for when year starts is March not Jan.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And here we go! This is exactly why I suggested MXN.

The MXN/USD sharply dropped 1.8% today while a swing in odds is being seen towards Trump

In the final days of the election now, MXN/USD might really be the way to play your speculation on the election outcome. Also notice that stock markets do NOT like the possibility of a Trump election


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's an article on USDMXN and the very high correlation with candidate winning probabilities, according to Credit Suisse
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mexic...ry-and-its-about-to-go-haywire-160536119.html


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is very interesting. It turns out there's also a futures-like electronic gambling web site, run by the University of Iowa. It's an academic project to pursue the study that wisdom of crowds/betting money tends to give better predictions than other methods. The Iowa Electronic Markets are run by faculty at the University of Iowa Henry B. Tippie College of Business for educational and research purposes.

You can bet with real money, open to global traders.
https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

The vote share market currently shows (as of Thursday night) 55% democrat and 45% republican victory probability. That's so close!

In the 2008 election, The Iowa Electronic Markets predicted the resulting popular vote more accurately than journalists and Gallup.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is interesting. Today (Monday) there was widely believed to be good news for Clinton and a boost in her odds of winning.

Yet IEM gives her even slimmer chances than before. Clinton is now at 53% probability.

However, I noticed very low volume today on IEM. I think a problem with that marketplace is that, because they are taking deposits by mail, they stop processing new deposits at the end of October. This means that new money can't come online to bet today. I wonder if IEM's numbers are still meaningful today.

As with any market, low volume means that money is not speaking with conviction


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

It appears you can bet on the US election on BC Lotto

https://www.playnow.com/sports/other-sports/politics/us-politics?loc=happeningNow


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

No way! How do you interpret the numbers on that web page?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

james4beach said:


> No way! How do you interpret the numbers on that web page?


Pretty sure that means that you have to bet $1 to win $1.17 on Hiliary Clinton. A $1 bet on Trump would pay $4.50.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

doctrine said:


> Pretty sure that means that you have to bet $1 to win $1.17 on Hiliary Clinton. A $1 bet on Trump would pay $4.50.


This seems strange. If they are able to pay more than $1 for each candidate. what is the take for Lotto in this case?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

capricorn said:


> This seems strange. If they are able to pay more than $1 for each candidate. what is the take for Lotto in this case?


It works the same way that Proline sports betting works. Enough people are going to take the 4.5-1 odds for a flyer on trump (or because they actually believe it) to more than make out the 17% premium on clinton. Even the most heavily favoured sports team will pay out more than 1.
Unfortunately, there's no tie possible in voting (or maybe there is if you go to the supreme court). I'm sure you can bet over/under on electoral votes somewhere in the states. For example, maybe the over under is Clinton by 20.5 votes.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> And here we go! This is exactly why I suggested MXN.
> 
> The MXN/USD sharply dropped 1.8% today while a swing in odds is being seen towards Trump
> 
> In the final days of the election now, MXN/USD might really be the way to play your speculation on the election outcome. Also notice that stock markets do NOT like the possibility of a Trump election


How does one speculate on currency without using leverage? I wouldn't want to be exposed to the huge loss of, for example, 100x leverage just to turn a 2% fluctuation into a 200% gain. Is there a currency options market where one can make short term bets with small amounts of play money?


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

nobleea said:


> It works the same way that Proline sports betting works. Enough people are going to take the 4.5-1 odds for a flyer on trump (or because they actually believe it) to more than make out the 17% premium on clinton. Even the most heavily favoured sports team will pay out more than 1.
> Unfortunately, there's no tie possible in voting (or maybe there is if you go to the supreme court). I'm sure you can bet over/under on electoral votes somewhere in the states. For example, maybe the over under is Clinton by 20.5 votes.


Seems like an 'almost' sure way to make 17% overnight.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No, there is still a chance Trump could win. It's like saying that betting a roll of a die would give you less than 6 is a surefire way to make 17%.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I would buy now and sell after the bounce... I expect Trump to get a bump between now and election day.


I really should listen to my own advice...


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

andrewf said:


> No, there is still a chance Trump could win. It's like saying that betting a roll of a die would give you less than 6 is a surefire way to make 17%.


Oh, I know- that's why I had 'almost' in quotation marks.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

capricorn said:


> This seems strange. If they are able to pay more than $1 for each candidate. what is the take for Lotto in this case?


It depends on how much is being bet. Imagine that $1,000,000 in total is bet on Clinton. And $200,000 is bet on Trump. Total take is $1.2M. If Clinton wins, they pay out $1,170,000 and pocket $30,000. If Trump wins, they pay out $900,000 and pocket $300,000. The house wins either way. If more people start betting on either person, they can just dynamically change the odds for new betters to ensure they always come out ahead.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

One of the betting-based probabilities sources I look at says there is still 47% probability of Trump becoming president. This is close!

If Trump wins, I think stocks will drop and gold will soar.
If Clinton wins, then reversion to the mean and we get back to whatever the underlying market mood is, which is likely neutral to bullish, based on corp earnings as they come out.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

james4beach said:


> One of the betting-based probabilities sources I look at says there is still 47% probability of Trump becoming president. This is close!


Hmmm. Is that number odds of receiving most number of popular votes or electoral colleges?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

indexxx said:


> It appears you can bet on the US election on BC Lotto
> 
> https://www.playnow.com/sports/other-sports/politics/us-politics?loc=happeningNow


Can anyone in canada (I'm not in BC) get in on this? can you place a bet online? when does it close?
help please.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> Can anyone in canada (I'm not in BC) get in on this? can you place a bet online? when does it close?
> help please.


Pretty sure it's BC residents only but don't take my word for it. Contact BCLC.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

good luck & best wishes to all betting here
you are fun to watch!

back home on the farm, the big global banks & investment houses are all saying they've laid on extra emergency staff to cope with the mayhem

HSBC said to be expecting that Asia will be hard hit ce soir, as asian markets open right after US voting ends

.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

Manitoba - BC lottery

http://www.mbll.ca/content/manitoba-offer-online-gambling

https://www.playnow.com/sports/other-sports/politics


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

james4beach said:


> If Trump wins, I think stocks will drop and gold will soar.


A Trump victory would benefit value investors tremendously.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> A Trump victory would benefit value investors tremendously.


...who are still in the accumulation phase.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

atrp2biz said:


> Hmmm. Is that number odds of receiving most number of popular votes or electoral colleges?


That close-to-50% odds was based on electoral colleges, i.e. actual presidential outcome. But this information is now stale, and things change a lot day to day.

I have no horse in this race!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

james4beach said:


> The one I've heard about is the MXN/USD currency pair. The theory is that Trump's policies are bad for the Mexican economy


Mexican peso is down 9% tonight... if that doesn't normalize by the open, this is seriously disruptive to North American trade and will directly impact Canada & US.

It's really bad to have swings that big in major NAFTA block. It's going to kill all kinds of import/export hedging.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

doctrine said:


> It depends on how much is being bet. Imagine that $1,000,000 in total is bet on Clinton. And $200,000 is bet on Trump. Total take is $1.2M. If Clinton wins, they pay out $1,170,000 and pocket $30,000. If Trump wins, they pay out $900,000 and pocket $300,000. The house wins either way. If more people start betting on either person, they can just dynamically change the odds for new betters to ensure they always come out ahead.


thanks for explaining. it was hard to wrap my mind around this till you made me realize that odds are dynamic and house will change them to their advantage.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

It's very hard to see how this isn't bad for Canada's economy, but Keystone might actually get built. Also, Trump, combined with the Republican Congress will be able to sort out some of the taxation bottlenecks which have been hurting US economy. 

On the other hand the overwhelming ideology behind Trump is protectionism. This will be terrible for Canada; there is no way around it. And the craziness will lead to major uncertainties which has to be bad for all investors.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I hope he smashes down the charlatans who associate free trade directly with trade, as though being against NAFTA is being against trade. The whole idea is moronic.

It's like telling someone that not giving their goods away is being against doing business.

If Trump can improve the trade deficit with China and India, even a small amount, he could stop a lot of money from leaving North America.


----------



## Nerd Investor (Nov 3, 2015)

mordko said:


> It's very hard to see how this isn't bad for Canada's economy, but Keystone might actually get built. Also, Trump, combined with the Republican Congress will be able to sort out some of the taxation bottlenecks which have been hurting US economy.
> 
> On the other hand the overwhelming ideology behind Trump is protectionism. This will be terrible for Canada; there is no way around it. And the craziness will lead to major uncertainties which has to be bad for all investors.


Hopefully we can be pro-active and leverage his distaste for Mexico, China etc. into being pro-Canada. "Look Donald, you have to trade with someone right?"


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

UHG. What the hell...my President Trump plays aren't paying off. I don't even think I'll break even...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

This should be too obvious but don't assume any politician will keep his campaign promises.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This should be too obvious but don't assume any politician will keep his campaign promises.


What are the odds on him releasing his tax returns now that the election is over?


----------



## Kropew (Nov 24, 2013)

nobleea said:


> What are the odds on him releasing his tax returns now that the election is over?


nonexistent


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

peterk said:


> UHG. What the hell...my President Trump plays aren't paying off. I don't even think I'll break even...


Did you go long on baseless rhetoric and lies?

Lol


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty says that trump masterminded his entire campaign right into the oval office

possibly trump even masterminded that sickening plunge in asian markets last night
make them furriners take it on the chin so north american markets could open nice & easy this am

.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

TomB19 said:


> If Trump can improve the trade deficit with China and India, even a small amount, he could stop a lot of money from leaving North America.



on the other hand we could stop buying cheap goods


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> I hope he smashes down the charlatans who associate free trade directly with trade, as though being against NAFTA is being against trade. The whole idea is moronic.
> 
> It's like telling someone that not giving their goods away is being against doing business.
> 
> If Trump can improve the trade deficit with China and India, even a small amount, he could stop a lot of money from leaving North America.


Don't believe Trump was elected to be the President of North America. If he puts up trade barriers, Canada will end up on the other side. Of course everyone will lose, including the US, but as a trading nation Canada has more to lose than many.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

mordko said:


> Of course everyone will lose, including the US, but as a trading nation Canada has more to lose than many.


How do you figure that?

I watched a CBS segment on Mexican operations that will be damaged by a Trump presidency. They toured a concrete plant and tried to frame it as, "All of our raw materials come from the US. If we go under, think about all of the American jobs that will be lost." What a bunch of crap.

... like the US will stop needing concrete if Trump wins. Someone will re-open a plant in the US, buy the same materials from the same suppliers, and have a nice business at a slightly higher production cost than the Mexican equivalent and they will employ Americans in the process. That's called capitalism.

I don't know if the plus minus will be worth while but I know that you can't have too much of the population sitting around, collecting welfare, while you send jobs to other countries and expect to prosper.

If Trump implements some of the things he has said he will, I expect he will fuel inflation in a pretty substantial way. Anyone who holds equities should do quite well. Anyone who holds cash, will not fare as well,... as inflation is the enemy of cash.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

mordko said:


> Don't believe Trump was elected to be the President of North America. If he puts up trade barriers, Canada will end up on the other side. Of course everyone will lose, including the US, but as a trading nation Canada has more to lose than many.


See... this is more BS. It is framed so badly, it is straight up wrong.

He didn't say he was going to stop trading with anyone. He said he would alter the agreements, where it makes sense, to favor the US.

Trump could easily hurt Canada. We don't know, yet.

Much like the Brexit rhetoric tried to tell Britains that Brexit meant not trading with Europe. ... but a lot of Brits were around before the EU and they remember they were able to trade with Europe just fine, albeit with a somewhat but not totally different dynamic.

Better? Worse? Perhaps either but not an apocalypse. That's ridiculous and I think almost everyone sees through it.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Trump can't uninvent China, Mexico and the internet. It is not going back to the 19th century or whatever you can remember so fondly. 

What he can do is put up trade barriers (like before NAFTA) and punish US companies for investing abroad (as he threatened). Canada has a fair share of US investment from various Fords, GMs, etc. And Canada exports a humongous amount of products south of the border, a heck of a lot more than prior to NAFTA. Canada would be hurt along with Mexico. 

In general, there has been quite a bit of growth thanks to various trade agreements and trying to reverse that is bound to course a self-inflicted recession and a lot of pain. 

Protectionist idiots have been around for a long time. Every time they succeed, the economy suffers.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

While for some Brexit was about protectionism, for most Britons it was about economical and political independence from bureaucracy in Brussels. UK is trying to negotiate free trade on the same terms as what it has now.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

The internet, China, and Mexico do not rule the us. Corporations do. Trump is the first non-corporate owned president I can remember.

I'm not going to write him off yet and I'm not selling my holdings to live in a cave. This may not be all bad for equities.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> Anyone who holds equities should do quite well. Anyone who holds cash, will not fare as well,... as inflation is the enemy of cash.


High inflation is also the enemy of equities. Protectionism is also the enemy of equities (should be self-apparent).

In general, I expect very high volatility, which is not necessarily bad for those who are buying... Still, anyone who is not scared is crazy.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Like Mordko I also expect lots of volatility in the coming months....

Trump scares the [email protected]#$ outta me. I can appreciate many U.S. voters were not happy with the "establishment" but they have no idea what they have done.....

Unfortunately 10-15% of the U.S. population lives on food stamps. They don't know any better. They are just trying to eat food to survive. Very, very sad. A country of a few haves and millions of have-nots. It's not going to get better.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

TomB19 said:


> Trump is the first non-corporate owned president I can remember.


Are you kidding?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> It's not going to get better.


 did it got better during 8 years of Obama?!
Would it be better if Hillary would win?!
I doubt....


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Considering the bag of crap Bush left him (that's Trumps party) don't think he did that bad.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Oldroe said:


> Considering the bag of crap Bush left him (that's Trumps party) don't think he did that bad.


After EIGHT years of the longest non-recovery in history you are still blaming Bush? Why not George Washington?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Non-recovery? Unemployment is way lower, the market has recovered, etc. You're living in a bubble if you think we're still in recession. This, boys and girls, is what is known as financial repression.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Non-recovery? Unemployment is way lower, the market has recovered, etc. You're living in a bubble if you think we're still in recession. This, boys and girls, is what is known as financial repression.


The fact that Feds pumped paper into assets and lifted the markets with their easing says little about the state of economy. Unemployment numbers depend on how many people are actively looking for work. If people despair and stop looking, unemployment falls. Here is the plot which is far more reflective of how the recovery is progressing http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Pretty much every economist accepts that this has been the worst recovery/non-recovery in the history of recessions, although they argue about the reasons. http://www.epi.org/publication/why-is-recovery-taking-so-long-and-who-is-to-blame/


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

So who would you blame.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

How about the administration which was in charge for 8 years and routinely torpedoed anything that was good for the economy while burdening business with Obamacare and red tape in general? Keystone is a good example but there are many.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

wage suppression outside few industries and states is real for people. Vote pattern reflected it.
places that recovered (along the two coasts) voted one way and rest of the country that was left behind voted another.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't understand why Canadian utilities and REITs are sinking...hence there are rumors that Canada may cut interest rates


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> I don't understand why Canadian utilities and REITs are sinking...hence there are rumors that Canada may cut interest rates


It's the other way around. REITs and utilities suffer when interest rates go up.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

mordko said:


> It's the other way around. REITs and utilities suffer when interest rates go up.


Exactly! That what I was talking about... Canadian interest is not going up in any foreseeable future, on opposite and can be cut... so why utilities/REITs are sinking?!


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

And Bush had 8 years to create the largest financial collapse PERIOD.

And he owns it.

The insurance company's will fight tooth and nail to keep Obamacare.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> Exactly! That what I was talking about... Canadian interest is not going up in any foreseeable future, on opposite and can be cut... so why utilities/REITs are sinking?!


It looks like there are some inflationary pressures kicking in. Preferred resets have gone up as well. Bonds are down. 

After all, if we are to expect more protectionism and less trade then prices will go up.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Oldroe said:


> And Bush had 8 years to create the largest financial collapse PERIOD.
> 
> And he owns it.
> 
> The insurance company's will fight tooth and nail to keep Obamacare.


It was Clinton who deregulated the finance industry and paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> It was Clinton who deregulated the finance industry and paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis.


Do you think Bush would not have if Clinton didn't?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The fundamental government-related reason for 2008 was Clinton forcing businesses to lend mortgages to people who couldn't afford it. Bush didn't cancel the system but stuck with it.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

And I thought it was Reagan we are open for business speech.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> The fundamental government-related reason for 2008 was Clinton forcing businesses to lend mortgages to people who couldn't afford it. Bush didn't cancel the system but stuck with it.


Gubmit made me do it? I don't think so.

That explains a part of the problem, but it was middle class people accepting crazy mortgage terms because real estate prices would go up fast enough to make up for it.


----------

