Gyroscopic Investing

One interesting option I've considered is if Trump loses the Republican nomination and runs as an independent against both a Republican and a Democrat. That could be really interesting.

Everything will be exactly the same, except different.

In 2020, Dems will nominate Elizabeth Warren who will rail against plutocrats in banks, Wall Street, and offshore tax havens; but for taxes on Roth IRAs over $1 million, tighter capital controls, and Obamacare Plus Free Everything. Ironically, the Russians -- who will be found to have had nothing to do with the outcome of the 2016 election -- will be inspired to seriously hack the 2020 election, thereby assuring the return of the chaotic Donald to office for another 4 years. Only in America, baby!

MangoMan wrote:This morning's news included the jobs report which again exceeded expectations and the 1 million mark. The stock market is way up since his election as well. As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid".

In spite of all the chaos, will people throw the guy out if the above continues?

Obama's stock market and unemployment advances were stellar. For this reason I thought Hillary had it in the bag despite being a terrible candidate.

I'm not so sure things like that matter in the same way they used to for some reason.

Maybe not. Maybe folks will hop back on the economy train.

The stock market only affects the small minority of people like us. The unemployment rate is indeed getting better, but masks low labor force participation rate (especially for males), near-zero wage growth, an unfavorable distribution of full-time jobs vs part-time jobs, and most of the new jobs being in low-paying dead-end fields like retail and hospitality. The skyrocketing costs of college, healthcare, and housing in nice places play into this too, since they are far outstripping many people's ability to pay for them.

It's not "the economy" but rather how people feel about their prospects. Elites like us feel good and have for a long time. Many others don't feel optimistic about the future and haven't for some time.

moda0306 wrote:

MangoMan wrote:This morning's news included the jobs report which again exceeded expectations and the 1 million mark. The stock market is way up since his election as well. As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid".

In spite of all the chaos, will people throw the guy out if the above continues?

Obama's stock market and unemployment advances were stellar. For this reason I thought Hillary had it in the bag despite being a terrible candidate.

I'm not so sure things like that matter in the same way they used to for some reason.

Maybe not. Maybe folks will hop back on the economy train.

To be clear, I'm not making the argument that Presidents have very much control of the "business cycle," nor do I value much any more the traditional indicators of "economic success." GDP can go f'k itself. Employment is extremely important when you are on the edge of a financial cliff, but if we truly are building up WEALTH rather than just economic activity, it should become less and less important over time, which is obviously not the case, and very few people are willing to talk about it. The publicly traded stock market is one sector of wealth but its direct affect on the wealth and income of the average American is minuscule.

If I were "king for a day," I'd make one of the measures of prosperity the average net worth per quintile of the country, including non-financial assets such as house, land, etc, and by asset type (real estate, farm land, "stock market," liquid savings, etc). Also would be a full income statement by quintile. The stock market, employment rates, home-ownership rates... these are just pieces of the picture that politicians try to talk about one at a time as it suits their narrative. A true stuard of U.S. prosperity would look at the full economic picture.

The lefty eco-nazi in me would probably also have some key ecological indicators worked into the mix... so one can't "add" to wealth by "developing" a forest into a f'king parking lot, but I'll start with simple stuff like comprehensive financial statements rather than cherry-picked crap that people can selectively grab or ignore as it serves their political goals.

Man I'm a wind bag...

Pointedstick wrote:The stock market only affects the small minority of people like us. The unemployment rate is indeed getting better, but masks low labor force participation rate (especially for males), near-zero wage growth, an unfavorable distribution of full-time jobs vs part-time jobs, and most of the new jobs being in low-paying dead-end fields like retail and hospitality. The skyrocketing costs of college, healthcare, and housing in nice places play into this too, since they are far outstripping many people's ability to pay for them.

It's not "the economy" but rather how people feel about their prospects. Elites like us feel good and have for a long time. Many others don't feel optimistic about the future and haven't for some time.

Exactly... the stock market is a complete joke to focus on as a direct indicator. Sure, it can tell us some things about what the market THINKS future large company profits will be in the future, but to equate that to the direct situation middle/lower class Americans are in is a joke.

Labor market numbers are extremely important, but that should tell us something... wasn't capitalism and all this civilization supposed to create WEALTH? And what is wealth if not options to not f'king work for a few months without your entire life falling apart? Yes, any ONE American can make this happen for themselves... but if you look at the system as a whole, it is not designed in a manner that will let any critical mass of Americans or any other society to slow down without getting shot off the back of the treadmill.

But now we can't even talk about it, because if too many of us start looking around and asking questions, that alone will blow the house of cards down. We just have to keep ignoring it, perpetuate the petro dollar, put our kids through school, invest in the stock market, work our job, and maybe expand unemployment benefits a bit to keep the proletariat from gumming up the treadmill too much.

:/

Trump won't be on the ballot in November 2020.

I Shrugged wrote:Trump won't be on the ballot in November 2020.

Now THAT is an assassination threat if I've ever heard one so bureaucratically stated.

Desert wrote:

I Shrugged wrote:Trump won't be on the ballot in November 2020.

What about Pence?

He's still on the fence.

Pointedstick wrote:The stock market only affects the small minority of people like us. The unemployment rate is indeed getting better, but masks low labor force participation rate (especially for males), near-zero wage growth, an unfavorable distribution of full-time jobs vs part-time jobs, and most of the new jobs being in low-paying dead-end fields like retail and hospitality. The skyrocketing costs of college, healthcare, and housing in nice places play into this too, since they are far outstripping many people's ability to pay for them.

It's not "the economy" but rather how people feel about their prospects. Elites like us feel good and have for a long time. Many others don't feel optimistic about the future and haven't for some time.

+1. This is exactly what befuddled the 2016 election: a large slice of the voting population let the rest of us know that they didn't like being left out of the economic party. What's changed since then? Nothing that I can see. When the economy is reported as doing well, that means corporate profits are up. Great for stock holdings, but it's only a small part of the overall picture.

I was hoping that the Democrats & Republicans would get the message, but they haven't and it seems that they never will. No idea what the voting bloc that put Trump into office will do in 2020 though, and that will probably decide the election. They might latch onto another populist candidate, or stick with Trump if the Republicans let him keep the nomination, or just not even bother to turn up. If the latter, the Democrats will win. They're correct about the changing demographics being in their favor, and by 2020 that advantage will only increase.

Simonjester wrote:another possibility is that trump gets stymied on most of his promises and the congress gets blamed (likely rightfully so) and the populist movement that elected trump goes after them (while keeping trump).. i just read this morning that Congress's approval rating has dropped to 10% among voters and is down from 18% among republicans to 14%... the uniparty establishment was soundly rejected in 2016 there is nothing going on that i can see that would bring them back into favor.

I agree with the theme of this, but I don't think Trump is a shoe-in for the nomination, or if he's nominated he will win the Presidency again. It all depends who he has to go up against in the GOP primaries and the General Election.

People wanted a Firebrand Change Candidate in 2016, that's what they voted for when they voted for Trump, but he was always just a Firebrand Clown. Now, if a real Firebrand Change Candidate emerges for 2020... watch out. This will likely be no one we have seen before. Someone with Trump's fire, not a house fire, a useful fire. Someone with skills and someone who can dominate the playground in a strong but good way and get things done.

Simonjester wrote: one possible exception to my comment above might be war.. the powers that be love a good war, it equals money in the bank for the military industrial complex and the establishment politicians that they fund, and it scares the public into fearing making changes at home while we are fighting.
when the war drums start beating you can bet there are calculations being made by unpopular leaders to get reelected and save their positions in power..


yes a better more real Firebrand Change Candidate would have a strong shot at beating trump... i would love to see that happen...

I voted for "he'll choose not to run again." Politics is hard, he's going to be ~ 75 years old, and he's got a low approval rating most of the time. Then again, I was surprised he made it this far.

ochotona wrote:People wanted a Firebrand Change Candidate in 2016, that's what they voted for when they voted for Trump, but he was always just a Firebrand Clown. Now, if a real Firebrand Change Candidate emerges for 2020... watch out. This will likely be no one we have seen before. Someone with Trump's fire, not a house fire, a useful fire. Someone with skills and someone who can dominate the playground in a strong but good way and get things done.

It's a very likely possibility. The "takeaway" from the outcome of the 2016 election is that a non-establishment candidate CAN win. I'll wager that candidate won't be Trump simply because it doesn't have to be. And now that the base is aware of what enormous power it yields even without the endorsement of either party, I'd expect that the non-establishment candidate in 2020 will be flying it alone.

TennPaGa wrote:The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust anything the man says.[/size][/font]

To bring it back to investing, that's why I am really glad to be 100% out of US Stocks, per Antonacci GEM Dual Momentum, because I will be little less in the cross-hairs when whatever comes next comes next and then settles in for a bite. I'm thinking Debt Ceiling / Government Shutdown.

dualstow wrote:

Desert wrote:

I Shrugged wrote:Trump won't be on the ballot in November 2020.

What about Pence?

He's still on the fence.

I just wanted you to know that someone still appreciates your wit, dualstow!

I would not could not with a Pence.

Interesting poll. So far 53% of us think Trump will be re-elected.

Kriegsspiel wrote:

I Shrugged wrote:Trump won't be on the ballot in November 2020.

Now THAT is an assassination threat if I've ever heard one so bureaucratically stated.

I figure it this way:
10% chance he doesn't serve 4 years
20% chance he decides not to run again
40% chance he loses in the primaries

jhogue wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:15 am Everything will be exactly the same, except different.

In 2020, Dems will nominate Elizabeth Warren who will rail against plutocrats in banks, Wall Street, and offshore tax havens; but for taxes on Roth IRAs over $1 million, tighter capital controls, and Obamacare Plus Free Everything. Ironically, the Russians -- who will be found to have had nothing to do with the outcome of the 2016 election -- will be inspired to seriously hack the 2020 election, thereby assuring the return of the chaotic Donald to office for another 4 years. Only in America, baby!

You heard it here first! Happy New Year!!

ha!
Happy New Year Mr (Or Ms) Hogue!

If Elizabeth Warren ends up as the Democratic candidate, we are in for one wild ride. She's part Bernie Sanders, part Trump, and part crazy. Despite how vocal she's been against Trump, some of her positions align with his (e.g. on trade & globalization) and she's almost as much of a loose cannon. Some things she says are real zingers, like this little gem:

She observed that "the current generation of corporate winners" would have to pay their fair share in order for "the next generation of prosperous American companies" to be ushered in along with investments in "broad-based economic growth" to be feasible.

This is going to be interesting. Two Trump-like candidates, one extreme left and beloved of the press, and one right-center and reviled by the press. About the only thing I can predict is that the polls will once again be dead wrong.

I agree Warren will be interesting, but I wonder if she shot herself in the foot with the whole Native American thing. You can be sure Trump won't ever let her live that down.

I’m gonna get me a beer.

-Elizabeth Warren

LOL!!!!!

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:59 am I agree Warren will be interesting, but I wonder if she shot herself in the foot with the whole Native American thing. You can be sure Trump won't ever let her live that down.

I hear her plan is to win 1/1024 of the vote and declare it proof that she really is the president.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:59 am I agree Warren will be interesting, but I wonder if she shot herself in the foot with the whole Native American thing. You can be sure Trump won't ever let her live that down.

Cort, you may be right, but I think it is possible that the whole Pocahontas story may appeal to a certain niche of her voting public- much as stories about Trump's wives and girlfriends have had an undeniable appeal to some of his base. When you are running for President, there is no substitute for name recognition, and even bad publicity is still publicity.