en-us http://www.keithwatanabe.net/index.php Keith Watanabe's Website http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/1/18/bf99900ad345f5c9da6bdfaefc163b06.html
It doesn't look good boys and girls.

One thing I learned though is that fortunately markets are highly cyclical. After weathering the storm from the dot com fall, I realized that if you manage to persist, you probably just need to lay low for about 2-3 years. That's how long the dot com fall out took. But some good came out of that (Google, Skype, the numerous buyouts) and the fact that technology got confidence back likewise instilled confidence back into me about the industry.

The housing market has trickled into the finance market in profound ways. But then again the financial market has always been a sleazy one; anytime you involve money, the sin of greed pops up and people are more willing to sell their souls than benefit mankind. That said, despite having all the excess housing, it'll be very good for people looking to break into the US housing market within the next 3 years. The Federal Bank has intervened in cutting the lending rate and probably will continue to do so while the US economy falls. That implies that interest rates will eventually feel the effects, especially as less loans are taken out. For the individual it means that those who weren't able to get into the housing market at the right moment will have a new chance to sneak in. At that time though, the US government will probably do some watchdog service to ensure that financial institutions will have some checks and balances to prevent customers who aren't able to handle such payments. In short, a lot of potential good but only in the future.

Unfortunately though, it's still going to be rough for people. The climbing gas prices haven't come to a screeching halt yet. And the country is excessively spending for wars. That does little good for the little people stuck in the middle of all this. As a result, much of the political Presidential campaigns have turned towards the economy and what each contender will do.

So far, I haven't been that impressed with most people, except Obama. I think he's more clued into what the average person might feel, so hopefully he'll really help provide tax relief to low to medium income families. Bush's own plan for handling the situation wasn't impressive at all. The stock market wasn't receptive at all with his plans, dropping after feeling disappointment. Then again, I feel that when Bush took power, most people were disappointed in the choice and sold off since people realized that he added no value to the domestic economy. And truthfully outside of military spending, Bush has improved zero things domestically (doing just the opposite).

While the stock market will mostly be driven this year by the fallout from the housing bubble, the thing on everyone's minds that will drive the US economy for the next 4-8 years will be the next presidential candidate. I think that America's investors will go into hibernation this year and wait to see the impending election. The economy potentially can recover quicker if the next president is domestic friendly. In that case, I think that Obama or Edwards would make good choices in this regard. I'm too wary of Clinton and her recently pathos plea; it was unprofessional conduct on her part and hopefully people are smart enough to see beyond the tears to realize that you still need a platform and strength as a world leader. Crying will make you seem weak (the only positive thing I can say about Bush is that people fear him. Not because he's intelligent, a strong character, etc., but because he's an idiot that believes in his own hype and has enough power to back himself up).

Either way, I think a lot of people will lay low this year. But in terms of jobs, engineering is still doing quite well.
]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:30:16 -0700 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/1/18/bf99900ad345f5c9da6bdfaefc163b06.html http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/1/23/0b1a0996c4bf87fb4a9ddc0b83c16853.html
I talked to my mom this past weekend and found out that she barely follows the campaigns. I can't blame her because it's become nothing more than wrestling promo, without the 5* match! What's worse is that the campaigns presented within the parties have descending into this, especially the Democrats. To me this is utterly sad and since the world is watching, I get the feeling that many people feel uneasy about any contenders at this moment.

For Clinton, it's a real disappointment to see her take the low route. Her husband did an excellent job during his election against Bush back in '92. A lot of what Clinton did that was so positive was that he practically ignored Bush whenever Bush attempted to assassinate Clinton's character. Clinton, whether or not he was truthful, would attempt to convey his plans. As a president, that's basically what you need to do. In Hillary's case, she broke down and cried (from what I read) to grab one state.

Hillary, I support the notion of having a female for a president one day, but at this moment, I cannot respect nor believe in a leader who utilizes pathos to gain votes. One, it makes you look weak as a leader to the world. And more importantly it makes you an obvious liar. It's already known that as a politician you're a liar by nature. But you don't have to be an obvious one. It simply insults the public's intelligence and tells me that you're willing to resort to desperate tactics in order to gain victory.

As for Obama, I have no problem supporting him. I feel he's going to be the better candidate in the end. But I think it's completely disrespectful to have someone degenerate these debates into something like the start of a schoolyard fight. The US needs someone better from a moral point of view than that. The country knocked out the Republican party because people grew easily sick of the underhanded tactics that the Democrats had portrayed for many of these people. Don't you think that the country deserves a little respect by focusing exclusively on repairing itself, especially with the upcoming recession?

To both candidates: America and the world need to at least hear concrete plans on how you intend to bring the nation back. The world fears and despises America because of the true terrorist of Bush and what he's done to engender a highly aggressive and prejudice image of America that essentially took the country back to the McCarthy era. We are in the year 2008 and we have learn to grow beyond simple ignorance and prejudice as a global society. Or have we?]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:58:53 -0700 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/1/23/0b1a0996c4bf87fb4a9ddc0b83c16853.html http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/4/21/6a587de85f0d7ce01520a55b0e9c1e99.html
Clinton called for investment in alternative energy, higher fuel economy standards for vehicles and a one-year moratorium on additions to the nation's strategic oil reserves.

To me this quote lacks details and concrete evidence to demonstrate that Clinton has any inkling on truly handling a critical problem in America. Let's pick apart each point one by one:

• Investment in alternative energy. Sounds great, but does she even know what alternative energy is? What sources? How much is an investment? Do we invest in research money by planting billions of dollars in scholarships at the university level?
• Higher fuel economy standards for vehicles. Look the Democrats tried this. Certain states tried this. But the whiny crying Detroit automobile factories for whatever reason decided that they can't do this for whatever reason. Now, if Clinton pushes for this, doesn't that alienate one of her biggest allies going against McCain in the coming November election? Also, what are these higher standards? What numbers can we have? I don't think that a minimum of 33 MPH/gallon is that great of an enforced standard. Why not shoot for 100 MPH/gallon? It's like they're aiming for the lowest common denominator rather than shooting for a number that would alleviate a nasty problem.
• One-year moratorium on additions to the nation's strategic oil reserves. How much oil do we have? Is this enough? What happens afterwards? Doesn't that mean that prices will simply spike up once again once that one year grace period finishes? Doesn't this still mean these wealthy oil muthafuckers still get away with murder in hanging the American public by a noose over their control on the gas prices?

Later, she adds:

There are many places in our country, and there are many families that are already in recession. They are under so much economic stress.

There's really no content in what she's saying here. It's empty words that focus on key fears on the American public. BUT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS EXACTLY WHAT SHE WILL DO.

To me, to win this election, the upcoming hopeful needs to focus on small, concrete key victories that people can believe in. Not grandiose ideas. I think a lot of the American public, especially young people who will be affected most, are becoming disgruntled by the American government. Doesn't matter if the next politician is a Democrat, Republican or anything. There's no trust that the American public can gain since these politicians end up destroying their own credibility. In the end, the race becomes a mere episode of Plato's "Lesser of Two Evils." And again, that doesn't mean it's good for people.

At this point, Clinton is just delusional about her chances and platform against Obama. She should really concede and support Obama 100% to beat McCain with certainty. Instead, this whole scenario is just about Clinton's ego. Sorry, but that's not why we elect people into power (well, at least that's what I hope a sensible believes in).]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:55:34 -0600 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/4/21/6a587de85f0d7ce01520a55b0e9c1e99.html