Const economy = [
“People living check to check”,
“Landlords living month to month”,
“Corporations living bailout to bailout”,
“Governments living war to war”
];
I’m nervous Trump seems to be pushing so hard for rate cuts given this reality of what seems like uneasy inflation.
That will likely benefit hard assets like real estate and those with big stock portfolios, as top blue chips generally have some pricing power to offset increased cost, but I think real income will drop and you’ll get all sorts of weird second order consequences.
If I had enough confidence in it, an interesting bet might be borrowing to invest in big tech blue chips. You’re betting that Trump gets his way with the Fed politically, tech benefits from low rates, tech has power to raise prices, and that Trump will inflate away your debt.
Won’t be good for most Americans, but if you can’t beat em, join em?
The Fed only controls the overnight rate, the shortest term rate. If it loses its reputation for independence we may well see higher long term rates even if they cut the overnight rate to zero. That would be quite bad for real estate.
The next step if that happened could well be the puppetized Fed expanding the balance sheet to buy long term bonds. That would probably be bad for everything. Except perhaps gold.
When I see sub 40 percent approval rate for both parties in congress… we’ve almost reached the moment where a majority of people believe both democrats and republicans have a negative view yet the 3rd parties will remain elusive due to gerrymandering districts.
Congress' approval ratings are always under 40%, and have been for as long as they've been taking data.
And yet most actual Congressmen have a high approval rating within their district. Incumbents have an extremely high return rate.
The problem is never your Congressperson. It's always because Congress is filled with other districts' Congresspeople.
I don't think you'll fix that by un-gerrymandering. If anything, I bet you'll get even higher approval ratings for the incumbents, since you'll have fewer "cracked" districts (boundaries drawn to make a group a minority in two districts instead of the majority in one).
Ending gerrymandering might get a Congress that better reflects what people want. But mostly, what people want is for "the other guys" (whoever is not in your party) to win.
13 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 35.1 ms ] threadThat will likely benefit hard assets like real estate and those with big stock portfolios, as top blue chips generally have some pricing power to offset increased cost, but I think real income will drop and you’ll get all sorts of weird second order consequences.
If I had enough confidence in it, an interesting bet might be borrowing to invest in big tech blue chips. You’re betting that Trump gets his way with the Fed politically, tech benefits from low rates, tech has power to raise prices, and that Trump will inflate away your debt.
Won’t be good for most Americans, but if you can’t beat em, join em?
{not financial advice}
The next step if that happened could well be the puppetized Fed expanding the balance sheet to buy long term bonds. That would probably be bad for everything. Except perhaps gold.
And yet most actual Congressmen have a high approval rating within their district. Incumbents have an extremely high return rate.
The problem is never your Congressperson. It's always because Congress is filled with other districts' Congresspeople.
I don't think you'll fix that by un-gerrymandering. If anything, I bet you'll get even higher approval ratings for the incumbents, since you'll have fewer "cracked" districts (boundaries drawn to make a group a minority in two districts instead of the majority in one).
Ending gerrymandering might get a Congress that better reflects what people want. But mostly, what people want is for "the other guys" (whoever is not in your party) to win.