People keep using this to try to trash on DJT. The fact stands that absolute heavyweights ranging from Dimon to Gundlach, Daleo, Icahn and Buffett have weighed in decidedly positive (alongside resounding markets in general) on DJT’s economic platform. But liberals are so hell bent on hating all things DJT they can’t recognize an obvious potential positive when it’s staring them in the face. They’d rather crap on anything he puts forward and possibly pull the rug out from under the first breath of life markets (potentially dropping their own portfolio by ~10%) and the industrial sector have seen in 8 years. This amount of evidence against the liberal economic prognostications is about as close as you can get to being conclusively shown wrong in economics. Remember when markets and the economy would all collapse if he were elected?
The fact is since the first trade case went up in 2015, the steel industry has come raging back in the US and Europe has followed suit. Look at HRC steel prices or quotes on X, MT NA, NUE and STLD. This brings by US steel’s estimates about 10,000 jobs back from shuttered capacity over the next 5 years. Jobs that come with union benefits to uneducated rust belt communities. This is the same steel that can competitively feed infrastructure development and will utilize largely North American MET coal in the case of blast furnace producers. A border adjustment tax could just as easily become a VAT tax (used by every other developed country) to help restore a structural current account deficit. Wish away, but there’s not an economist that will tell you you can run a perpetual CA deficit (and Buffett has raised the alarm on this, calling for a tax) and we now know that services alone won’t do it by direct evidence. Add to that infrastructure stimulus and tax reform and you’re really starting to get somewhere.
Flip to healthcare reform. It’s not what democrats want exactly, boo hoo, it never is. But you accept a compromise and take this as one iteration in a health care system that will probably take a few political cycles to dial in.
I get that Trump’s unlikable but this non-stop pissing and moaning is worse.
BS: Certain things about his platform are without a doubt pro growth. Lowering taxes, having a holiday to repatriate offshore money, getting rid of regulations (in a pretty ham handed and stupid way), the multi trillion dollar government spending on infrastructure. They’re all pro growth. Noone disagrees. I don’t disagree. I just think he won’t deliver on what he says. This interview describes in more detail why the market is overestimating the growth he represents at current levels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxAGU64FuSI
None of that matters. He’s shown he intends to push through on his campaign promises and force the GOP to get off their hands. If it fails to go through it will be the fault of small minded people in this country and the legislature. He’s president, not dictator and he’s bringing a solid platform (that’s superior to the alternative) where it counts. People should be getting behind that.
The youtube video is just an unoriginal interview from a mid tier investor that highlights the implementation risks we all know exist.
Also, to PA’s point it’s hard to ridicule a guy as clueless who came in dark horse and propelled himself into the presidency by delivering an on point campaign strategy. So a few campaign promises might not work out? Shocker. Welcome to US politics. I didn’t even vote for the guy but as an unbiased observer it seems to me that these points I’m raising should be obvious on some level to anyone who hasn’t let their own emotions cloud their POV.
It is really too early to say how DJT econ policy will play out. If he can’t get things passed that is on him as much as the legislature. It is part of the job of the president to push and motivate and it’s his party across the board right now.
Not really. When the A Team of investing (and all of markets) weighs in, it’s as conclusive of a result as you can get. When the legislature fails to pass a good plan presented to them because of partisanship issues or ignorance, they have failed their role. They aren’t children and they aren’t there to be motivated or handheld. This is their job. When the people fail to pressure their government to pass that form of legislature because they’re too busy obsessing over a twitter account, they’ve failed themselves. As I said, it’s a presidency, not a dictatorship.
Not to get too into the weeds because I think we’ll have to disagree on the role of a president as a leader, but “A team” finance people often agree with presidential policies that are in their favor. It’s lobbying. Dimon actually criticizes Trump’s stance on immigration, NAFTA, China and defense spending, among other things. I’d assume some of these stances are positive for JPM and negative for your sector coverage, and I’d expect you to disagree Incidentally, as long as you hold all presidents to the same standard, the standard itself is something on which disagreement is fine.
Birdman - what are you doing? Do you like arguing with walls? When I first started posting here a few years ago all PA did was brag about the shorts he had on the US equity markets. How are those working out? Think you’ll ever hear him walk those comments back? No, he just moves on to the next thing. Don’t waste your time. Trump used to be a talking point about how the US was a disaster, now he’s some genius. Yawn.
This topic was about books. I like books. Let’s talk about books.
I’m mowing through Thinking, Fast and Slow. It’s fantastic.
Yes, but people like Gundlach, particularly Buffett (known for objective honesty - remember Buffett tax?) and Dalio (can benefit off of any market) have no real skin in the game. I’m not saying people need to agree with every policy (or even like him). I didn’t even vote for the guy, all I am saying that there are broad swaths of the economic policy that should be easy to agree with and pass.
Legislature are leaders of the nation as well as this is a democracy. I know it’s understandable to view them as children and forget they are appointed as leaders, but they’re not and need to pass the best laws for the country. I’d say the same things four years ago if we rewound to the failure of any form of legislative action. Anything but them doing their job is abject failure on their end.
On the subject of the art of war, and other fundamental/foundational texts, I heard this review of hamlet once, by some young kid. “I don’t see what the big deal is, it’s just a bunch of famous quotes strung together.“
Agreed. An important part of the job is being able to schmooze and being flexible enough to cross the aisle in order to win bigger fights down the line. The whole system is built on compromise. Presidents are as responsible for gridlocks as the other elected officials (if not more).
As much as we live in a highly polarized political environment today, no one will convince me that there is more loathing today than during the Tip O’Neill/Reagan era in the 80s or the Gingrich/Clinton era in the 90s. The difference being that Reagan and Clinton worshipped the political game. They absolutely loved it. Obama was the polar opposite and didn’t enjoy that part of the job. His idea of reaching out was keeping Republicans such as Gates and Bernanke to key positions.
Also found the art of war pretty simplistic but assumed it was in the translation. Always been a fan of catcher & The Stranger. Excited for the CFA to be over with so I can catch up on some reading have a few good ones to pick from
II is worth a read. The updated version with commentary by Jason Zweig, which pulls in up through the internet boom/bust, makes for a good play off Graham’s original text (updated up through the mid 70’s if I remember correctly).
Of course I just finished Black Swan a few weeks ago so now I don’t know what to believe.
So you guys must have really hated Obama the last 7 years, talk about the model of a polarizing figure unable to get anything implemented across the aisle amiright6?
