If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[JBird]

The people who are actually gifted enough in business and economics (unlike Trump) have better things to do with their time than become President (because they are so gifted). Gates and Buffett come to mind.

 

What? His net worth is 10+ Billion. Not gifted enough in business or economics?

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

 

 

[rb]

I think there are a lot of closet trump supporters. I was 2x Obama voter. Was at Grant Part to witness history in 08'. Don't regret the last 8 years. However, I've noticed what this kid talks about....as my foreign friend says "we shall see"

 

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-dialogue-with-a-22-year-old-donald-trump-supporter/484232/

 

 

Edit: This post has nothing to do with my leanings I reserve the right to keep that private. I will say this though I'm about where I think Munger is. However I wanted to share this because it is just similar to my observations of my peers.

I have heard a lot about this idea of the closeted trump voter.

 

In fairness I believe that there are a few people like that. In reality I don't really think that it's very meaningful. I'm a boring numbers and data guy so please excuse me for that. But let me introduce a tale of the presidential election on 2012. I know that it was an eternity ago. But during that election Mitt Romney polled like crazy with independents and indeed he won independents by 5 points. That's why Republicans were absolutely sure they were gonna win the election. And it's wasn't a bad assumption. You win independents by 5 points, you win the election. The problem which they did not realize is that a lot of those independents were closet republicans - people that were going to vote republican anyway but could not identify themselves as republicans because some of the later policies of the republican party.

 

My feeling is that the closeted trump voter of this election is the closeted republican voter of yerster-year election and thus it doesn't make much difference to the whole calculus. But it makes for much better copy.

 

My opinion, which may be wrong, but at this point is a right as anyone's, is that the election will be tight but will go mostly along party lines and will be quite similar to 2012. Trump will probably flip Ohio and Hillary will get North Carolina and maybe Arizona (a long shot but that state will probably be close).

[rkbabang]

 

I think we over blow what Trump or sanders or whoever could honestly get done in 4/8 years...Even Obama has had a real struggle doing what hes done..American citizens in general seem(there's fringes) to have a good head on them and gets it right more often than not....so until they resend elections every 4 years I'll just go along my merry way. Were far from the tyranny we like to think we are.

 

 

In a way I almost feel we do this "election mania" every 4 years, like they did the Subprime maina but to a lesser degree.....human beings take their cues of each other soo much.....Social proof anyone?

 

Very good points and all true.  I'd just like to point out that we are also far from the having freedom we think we have.  We are somewhere in the middle and (the government at least) is heading in the wrong direction (albeit slowly).  This is one of the best articles I've read on the matter.  No president has the power to really do anything meaningful (in a good way), but has some power to inhibit good things from happening in the private sector.  It is an obsolete system and way of doing things, which if it was every really necessary (this is debatable and I'm not sure I really know the answer), it is certainly becoming less and less so as time goes by.

 

https://fee.org/articles/is-politics-obsolete/

 

 

EDIT: The one exception to the point that the president can't really accomplish that much is foreign policy, which is why I think that is the only thing you should really focus on.  The president can really muck things up in this area anything from getting thousands killed unnecessarily to starting a world war with the possibility of ending all human life.

 

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

The people who are actually gifted enough in business and economics (unlike Trump) have better things to do with their time than become President (because they are so gifted). Gates and Buffett come to mind.

 

What? His net worth is 10+ Billion. Not gifted enough in business or economics?

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

 

I've seen these articles before talking about how trump would have been better investing in index funds.

 

These are simplified analyses that just look at starting net worth and ending net worth, with dividends reinvested.

 

2 Fatal Flaws in this Analysis:

(1) What they dont take into account is spending along the way.  Dividends would not have been reinvested, and there may have been drawdowns on principal.  They assume all of your wealth remains invested with no drawdowns.  Trump lives an extremely expensive lifestyle (he owns his own 757). 

(2) The word "Tax" is not even mentioned in this article.  index funds are tax-efficient, but dividends would still have been taxed. 

[Jurgis]

I think it's stupid to value any businessman/entrepreneur by comparing their results to index fund. It's valid way to value investors, but businessmen have other goals rather than just replicate or outperform market returns.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

I think it's stupid to value any businessman/entrepreneur by comparing their results to index fund. It's valid way to value investors, but businessmen have other goals rather than just replicate or outperform market returns.

 

Indeed.  The other flaw in comparing trump to S&P is his holdings have been real estate rather than diversified across S&P 500.  Real estate arguably has a different cost of capital. 

[rb]

The people who are actually gifted enough in business and economics (unlike Trump) have better things to do with their time than become President (because they are so gifted). Gates and Buffett come to mind.

 

What? His net worth is 10+ Billion. Not gifted enough in business or economics?

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

 

I've seen these articles before talking about how trump would have been better investing in index funds.

 

These are simplified analyses that just look at starting net worth and ending net worth, with dividends reinvested.

 

2 Fatal Flaws in this Analysis:

(1) What they dont take into account is spending along the way.  Dividends would not have been reinvested, and there may have been drawdowns on principal.  They assume all of your wealth remains invested with no drawdowns.  Trump lives an extremely expensive lifestyle (he owns his own 757). 

(2) The word "Tax" is not even mentioned in this article.  index funds are tax-efficient, but dividends would still have been taxed.

Let me first start with the fact that I don't see what one's personal wealth or ability to create wealth have with one's ability to be president. But Trump keeps bringing his wealth up so i guess an analysis of said wealth is warranted.

 

Now, 1) I think that a comparison of his wealth to an index fund is reasonable. Most of what Trump calls his net worth is a capitalization of his name. That makes him more like a company than a person so a comparison with other companies is reasonable.

 

2) Trump has indeed been spending like a drunken sailor to fund his lavish lifestyle. But so do a lot of companies. Lots of companies spend a lot on aircraft, executive apartments, etc. This translates into lower net income and thus lower valuations. Companies alse have to pay for CEOs. Trump doesn't

 

3) Index funds are very tax efficient, but so is real estate. Of course we don't know right now, but i somehow have the feeling that Donald Trump is very tax efficient.

 

4) I don't see why business people's performance shouldn't be benchmarked to an index. If your job as a businessman is not to generate value then what is it? If I can be brain dead and sit on an index and generate more value then you can then how are you a good businessman?

[JBird]

Asked to explain the political ascendance of Donald Trump, Dr. Stephen Hawking said, “I can’t.”

 

“He is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator."

 

Demagogue. It's the perfect descriptor.

[Jurgis]

4) I don't see why business people's performance shouldn't be benchmarked to an index. If your job as a businessman is not to generate value then what is it? If I can be brain dead and sit on an index and generate more value then you can then how are you a good businessman?

 

Businessperson's goals can be creating something new (new technology), something good for the world (beautiful RE), something good for community (jobs, etc.) and so on. None of these likely apply to Trump, but they do apply to other entrepreneurs.

 

If every business person benchmarked to the index, we would not have >50% of the businesses. This is unlikely to be positive. (If every investor benchmarked to the index, we would not have >90% of active investors - which actually might be positive  8) ).

[JBird]

If every business person benchmarked to the index, we would not have >50% of the businesses.

 

Where are you pulling this number from?

[Jurgis]

If every business person benchmarked to the index, we would not have >50% of the businesses.

 

Where are you pulling this number from?

 

My ass.  8)

 

In general though, wouldn't 50% of businesses underperform the index on average?  ::)

Edit: comparing to market weighted index, the number of underperforming businesses can be larger or smaller than 50%. My guess is that long term, the number approaches 50%, but there is no guarantee this is true.

Edit 2: I don't think it made sense to make another post on this, but after thinking some more I believe that, yes, more than 50% of companies underperform the index. Otherwise, it would be much easier for us to outperform the index when investing. I know it's still hand waving argument though. :)

 

I guess we did not establish the rules at which point the great businessperson gives up and closes the shop when they see that their business is underperforming the index...

[cwericb]

JBIRD quoted Stephen Hawking describing Donald Trump as a demagogue. The definition of the word seems to fit “The Donald” like a glove.

Demagogues relentlessly advocated action, usually violent, immediately and without deliberation. Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed, pursuing power, telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority, and accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation.

 

Certainly there are times when Donald’s odd and crude behavior is amusing and entertaining - but of course that fits the definition of  a “buffoon”.

 

As some say, “America sees this as an election. The rest of the world views it as an IQ test.”

[Dustin T]

What I like best about CoB&F is that it's largely a troll free zone, when I saw this thread I feared it would drag out some trolls. I'm glad this hasn't devolved into a typical internet message board flame war. Though a few of these messages may have tiptoed a little close to that abyss. Kudos to all of you for resisting that temptation.

 

The world is full of Kool-Aid drinking types that manage to convince themselves that one side has the right of it and the other is evil and out to demolish the world. I'm glad to be blessed with some very intelligent friends from across the political spectrum. Being able to see the world through their eyes helps immeasurably in understanding the issues and not just the straw men both sides use to represent their opponents. 

[Jurgis]

Anyone know how to short pessimism?

 

By being optimistic.

 

I am optimistic. But I realize that I am part of top X% (5? 3? 1?) of population, so I might not be seeing all the issues of general population. E.g. RE prices are tough to afford for general population on most of the coast markets.

[Packer16]

For all of those who are skeptical of Trump, you should read Scott Adams, Dilbert blog.  It provided me with a lot of insight divorced from the media induced bias of listening to Trumps words without watching his actions.  I was also curious why would guys like Wilbur Ross & Carl Ichan, two folks who are accomplished business people would support him if he is as dangerous as some claim.  Just a contrarian veiwpoint.

 

Packet

[Jurgis]

I was also curious why would guys like Wilbur Ross & Carl Ichan, two folks who are accomplished business people would support him if he is as dangerous as some claim. 

 

Cause obviously "accomplished business people" cannot be wrong. We just need to clone their opinions. Oh wait.

[Packer16]

I am not saying they are not wrong but when folks who have contrarian traits have beliefs that differ from the "obvious" consensus view, it is worth examining these contrarian views as they may have some very good merit.

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

I was also curious why would guys like Wilbur Ross & Carl Ichan, two folks who are accomplished business people would support him if he is as dangerous as some claim. 

 

Cause obviously "accomplished business people" cannot be wrong. We just need to clone their opinions. Oh wait.

 

Obviously accomplished people in all walks of life can be (and often are) wrong and most people realize this. But what so many tend to not realize is that the "common sense" majority opinions held by most "reasonable people", the things that "everyone knows" to be true, are also often wrong.  And these mistakes are not usually realized until entire generations die off and future generations look back and ask "what were they thinking?".  Although what is unique about the modern era is that information is shared so quickly that opinions on many subjects are changing within decades by the same living people rather than in centuries by different generations of people.  We think of this as normal for public opinion to change so quickly, but it really is something completely unique and new.  I suspect that this is accelerating and "decades" will become "years" before you know it.  Progress in culture as well as technology is progressing at an accelerating pace.  Government however is still mostly static, slow, inefficient, and unadaptable. It is an old model from a past time.  This comment is more about your statement about whether it is wise to follow others opinions blindly, then it is about Trump and whether or not he's dangerous.  Of course, he's dangerous.  Anyone who wants to be president is.

 

[Jurgis]

The reason I call the left out is because for the last 8 years its been "cool" to be liberal.

 

What? Where?

 

Investment forums? I've been tarred and feathered for any left-leaning posts everywhere. OK, so investment forums are naturally right leaning, but still.

 

Society? You mean with Republicans capturing Senate and House somehow you feel that "for the last 8 years its been "cool" to be liberal."? That's ridiculous.

 

The only thing liberals had was Obama. And actually Obama is way more center leaning and business friendly than Republicans acknowledge. I'm not criticizing him for that, but I'm amazed at the right vitriol directed at pretty centrist president.

[rb]

I don't even understand what he was trying to say, except that maybe he has a problem with liberals? I don't know?

[Palantir]

Why does Trump hate Mexicans? A federal judge can't do his job because he is of Mexican origin? If a conflict of interest exists, (I don't think it does) it is because Trump created it.

[DTEJD1997]

hey all:

 

One fundamental problem with this thread & the question of who to vote for is the PRESUMPTION that Hillary gets the democrat nomination.

 

While I think it is STILL likely at this point...the odds of her stepping down OR being indicted have gone up considerably (Email & charity problems).

 

Additionally, should she lose the primary in California, that could put pressure on super-delegates to switch to Bernie Sanders.  While I don't think it likely that Bernie can win the nomination, he still has a chance, ESPECIALLY if super-delegates panic and are willing to jump ship.

 

Finally, the powers that be, might panic and tell Hillary to get out.  I don't think that is likely, but the odds are greater than zero.  I would put the odds at something like drawing to an inside straight, mid single digit percentages.

 

Add it all up, and Hillary has some real problems.  She does not have it "locked up" at this point.

 

One final thing....this is a real "cage match" election.  Hillary MUST WIN...for if she does not she has two problems:

 

A). Trump has said he wants her arrested and charged.

B). A lot of very powerful backers have given her & Bill quite a bit of money on the presumption that she will become president.  If she doesn't, they are going to be very, very upset on their investment.

[Cardboard]

If it is not Hillary, then I think that Joe Biden jumps in. A nice, charismatic guy without Hillary's baggage. The big supporters that you are referring to will never endorse crazy Bernie.

 

Although, some will say that this is some right wing conspiracy, there was likely a deal made between the Clintons and Obama during the election in 2008 and 2012 or that Bill would support Obama during the two elections in exchange for Obama to support his wife in 2016. There was no love between the two camps. If Hillary is indicted, then Obama gets freed to support his VP.

 

His son likely wanted him to run too. By the time this happens, if it happens, Joe will be ready to run.

 

Cardboard 

[Palantir]

Can any of Trump's supporters tell me why a judge of Mexican descent cannot do his job?

[rb]

They probably can tell you something. Not sure it would make much sense. Trump's own campaign couldn't even check the website of whatever organization the judge is part of. They just saw something about La Raza and off they went to the races. If I were to make such a mistake in a deck to a client I would probably be fired on the spot, not allowed to try to run a country.

 

Edit: Maybe a better question is why would someone who's supposedly worth $10 billion engage in such a filthy and despicable enterprise as Trump U just to net 5 million? Is it cause he needed the money or just for kicks? Btw, I don't think he needed the money.