Political Posts

[Sweet]

A good idea I think.

 

A couple of point of clarification, if you talk about damage to Disney’s IP, or Tesla’s brand being damaged by Musk, is that political?  If yes, should it instead be discussed here instead of the investing threads?

The threads merged, tariffs, Ukraine-Russia, but China and Israel war too?  Can we talk about tariffs in macro?

[Blake Hampton]

Welcome to the arena.

[gfp]

WSJ article on JB Pritzker's presidential aspirations...  Not a good plan for the democrats (in my humble opinion!).

 

I've talked to liberal friends for years about the possibility of Jamie Dimon running as a democrat and it has always surprised me how much of a non-starter they claimed he was.  I have no idea if Jamie would ever consider it and I have no idea what party he might choose to run with if he did.  But the fact that liberal friends won't even consider him a viable option makes me think they don't have a good grip on the electability issues their candidates keep facing.

 

I'm not an expert on JB or Illinois but I just don't see this as a winning plan

 

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/americas-second-richest-elected-official-is-acting-like-he-wants-to-be-president-8b30efa0?mod=wknd_pos1

[Dinar]

6 minutes ago, gfp said:

WSJ article on JB Pritzker's presidential aspirations...  Not a good plan for the democrats (in my humble opinion!).

 

I've talked to liberal friends for years about the possibility of Jamie Dimon running as a democrat and it has always surprised me how much of a non-starter they claimed he was.  I have no idea if Jamie would ever consider it and I have no idea what party he might choose to run with if he did.  But the fact that liberal friends won't even consider him a viable option makes me think they don't have a good grip on the electability issues their candidates keep facing.

 

I'm not an expert on JB or Illinois but I just don't see this as a winning plan

 

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/americas-second-richest-elected-official-is-acting-like-he-wants-to-be-president-8b30efa0?mod=wknd_pos1

Why are you surprised?  Do you remember Michael Bloomberg trying to run in 2020?  He is much wealthier than Jamie, built an incredible business from scratch, was a very good mayor of NYC, and yet, he could not even come close to getting a nomination.  

[Dinar]

3 hours ago, Parsad said:

The major political threads have been merged into this one "Political Posts" thread.  If you have anything remotely political to discuss...use this thread.

 

If you do not like the idea of a "Political" thread, too bad, because the alternative is a site run amok.

 

Anyone posting political posts outside of this thread will get an automatic 48 hour ban.  With each ban, the time banned will double.

 

Anyone posting targeted posts that attack another individual will also get automatic bans with the same durations.  Ok to reply to another individual, but any denigration of another poster...or COBF for that matter...automatic ban.

 

I would advise posters to think about what they are saying before pressing "Submit Reply".  I suspect there will be many bans in the first couple of months as people get used to this...on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Keep it civil...no problems!  I won't be wasting time considering the contributions of members before banning.  You break the rules, you get a ban.  Cheers!

Parsad, the problem is that investing is ultimately political.  Essentially all firms anywhere are impacted by political decisions somewhere, so you can't really avoid it in your analysis.  I have never bought Russian or Chinese stocks (I always felt them to be options, not shares) due to politics.  Argentina, until recently was also not something that I would touch due to macro.  

[John Hjorth]

2 hours ago, Sweet said:

A good idea I think.

 

A couple of point of clarification, if you talk about damage to Disney’s IP, or Tesla’s brand being damaged by Musk, is that political?  If yes, should it instead be discussed here instead of the investing threads?

The threads merged, tariffs, Ukraine-Russia, but China and Israel war too?  Can we talk about tariffs in macro?

 

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

Welcome to the arena.

 

Yes, like Blake [ @Blake Hampton ] posted,

 

A new arena set up, much wider, more bloaty than before, however I certainly have an understanding of Sanjeev [ @Parsad ] from time to time getting really tired of us.

 

Tariffs are an integral part US politics by now, I would say, and so also the reactions from other parties to it.

 

- - - o 0 o - - - -

 

As a consequence of this CofB&F intiative, I'll personally take it as a welcomed opportunity to limit my own activity in this merged topic to one post per week per political topic, where I so far primarily has posted in the predecessor topics about the Ukrainian-Russian war and stuff about US Politics related to Greenland, mostly for information sharing purposes without the intent to get into heated discussions.

 

If I get hit by an urge to add something, I'll edit and add to already existing post for the week.

 

My weeks starts on Mondays, so from tomorrow.

[John Hjorth]

8 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

After checking up on the status on this, this morning, it turns out it was in reality all hot air and spin by Putin, without any real content, nor intent, and the hostilities never really came to a stop yesterday.

 

Total *BS* Oh well.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Edit :

 

 

 

And then about seven hours before the end of the socalled ceasefire :

 

Retuters - World - Europe [April 20^th 2025] : Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of breaking one-day Easter ceasefire.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

All *BS*, likely from both parties. Just let the show continue now, and let's see what then happens. I suppose we'll soon see US peace delegation packing its stuff and going home.

[Viking]

I found this video helpful. It appeared from the start that what Trump/the US was doing was nuts. As more time goes by, this thesis is getting proved right. The question is:Wwhere do we go from here? The longer this science experiment runs the worse things are going to get for American’s. Perhaps the real question is how much pain can American’s endure? It looks to me like we are going to find out. 
 

What does this mean for stocks? How is anything going on right now good for stocks? The question is: How bad does it get from here? 
 

We also know that Trump is a survivor. So there is also a good chance that he changes his mind. if this happens, stocks would rocket higher. 
 

Yes, what a crazy set-up.
 

 

Edited April 20, 2025 by Viking

[SharperDingaan]

We're all for limiting the political stuff to one thread.

 

Sadly, the reality is that with the present state of the US, most North American investment decisions will implicitly have a political dimension to them; whether it be to capitalise on an opportunity, or defensively position. 

 

The other reality is that in the current circumstances, a great many have already begun to be negatively impacted. It's likely to get a  lot worse before it gets better, not everyone is as flexible, and there will inevitably be a range of responses. The race to the bottom is human nature.

 

The US is a proud nation, they are implementing change, and the view inside the US is very different from that outside the fortress. While nobody likes getting pissed on, and implementation does not appear to be going well, negative reactions should  be expected. And the worse things get, the more negative.

 

Give folks a place to vent, clamp down tightly, but also recognise that it is a part of the times, and inherent to decisions. Thereafter, may COBF continue for a great many years yet.

 

SD

 

   

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[no_free_lunch]

He is a globalist.  What is his solution?  Buy our rare earth minerals and tech from China?  We need to move away from these impalances and abuses.  We need to find a way to complete with China and really all countries but we cannot let them play the long game because that leads to oligopolies from Chinese (it is not just China but they are the biggest and most capable).  Ultimately those oligopolies, as we know, can set their price when they feel like it, or they can keep the price low, subsidize, keep their people poor but crowd us out until they feel like standing up their monopolies.

12 minutes ago, Viking said:

I found this video helpful. It appeared from the start that what Trump/the US was doing was nuts. As more time goes by, this thesis is getting proved right. The question is where do we go from here? The longer this science experiment runs the worse things are going to get for American’s. Perhaps the real question is how much pain can American’s endure? It looks to me like we are going to find out. 
 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2025 by no_free_lunch

[Blake Hampton]

 

We're cutting off aid to Sudan, possibly leading to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions, only to have the budget deficit keep growing because we refuse to touch entitlement spending. And at the same time, we're cutting even more taxes.

 

What the actual fuck.

 

This is the fiscal folly Buffett was talking about in his shareholder letter.

 

Edited April 20, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[whiskybravo]

5 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

We're cutting off aid to Sudan, possibly leading to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions, only to have the budget deficit keep growing because we refuse to touch entitlement spending. And at the same time, we're cutting even more taxes.

 

What the actual fuck.

 

This is the fiscal folly Buffett was referring to in his shareholder letter. Expect inflation.

Just a quick google search showed US giving $2 billion to Sudan since 2023 and China giving $1.3 million in 2023.  I think Cobf could easily out donate China.

[mcliu]

Imagine if you’re one of the tens of millions of people in the US facing food insecurity and you find out your government is giving billions to foreign countries to help solve their hunger and other issues..

[Parsad]

8 hours ago, Sweet said:

A good idea I think.

 

A couple of point of clarification, if you talk about damage to Disney’s IP, or Tesla’s brand being damaged by Musk, is that political?  If yes, should it instead be discussed here instead of the investing threads?

The threads merged, tariffs, Ukraine-Russia, but China and Israel war too?  Can we talk about tariffs in macro?

 

You can talk about damage to Disney's IP without using inflammatory words like "woke", "liberalism", etc.  I think people know what is inflammatory and what is not.

 

I think because tariffs is highly political at the moment, it should be kept to the Political Posts thread.

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

6 hours ago, Dinar said:

Parsad, the problem is that investing is ultimately political.  Essentially all firms anywhere are impacted by political decisions somewhere, so you can't really avoid it in your analysis.  I have never bought Russian or Chinese stocks (I always felt them to be options, not shares) due to politics.  Argentina, until recently was also not something that I would touch due to macro.  

 

Yes, they are intertwined, so keep posts that discuss politics or political policy to this thread.  It might be difficult, but I think it is best for everyone.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

18 minutes ago, mcliu said:

Imagine if you’re one of the tens of millions of people in the US facing food insecurity and you find out your government is giving billions to foreign countries to help solve their hunger and other issues..

 

As long as that money is then used to fund food insecurity in the U.S. and not for cutting taxes or spending in any other area...defense, education, government, etc.  Cheers!

[Sweet]

20 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

You can talk about damage to Disney's IP without using inflammatory words like "woke", "liberalism", etc.  I think people know what is inflammatory and what is not.

 

I think because tariffs is highly political at the moment, it should be kept to the Political Posts thread.

 

Cheers!

no prob

[cubsfan]

4 hours ago, Viking said:

I found this video helpful. It appeared from the start that what Trump/the US was doing was nuts. As more time goes by, this thesis is getting proved right. The question is:Wwhere do we go from here? The longer this science experiment runs the worse things are going to get for American’s. Perhaps the real question is how much pain can American’s endure? It looks to me like we are going to find out. 
 

What does this mean for stocks? How is anything going on right now good for stocks? The question is: How bad does it get from here? 
 

We also know that Trump is a survivor. So there is also a good chance that he changes his mind. if this happens, stocks would rocket higher. 
 

Yes, what a crazy set-up.
 

 

 

Sorry, this guy is an idiot globalist, with no regard for the Citizens of the US.

 

1- Not a word about the 30 years of job destruction in US manufacturing. He could care less.

2- Nothing about other countries tariffs or barriers at all. Not a peep.

3- Nothing about China, and any trade protection needed against China - the worst offender of all.

4- Good thing the President has "emergency powers", as he immediately solved the #1 problem the  United States had - which was a dangerous, wide open Southern Border. All in 60 days.

 

Couldn't be more disingenuous , while leaving all the relevant facts out.

[Red Lion]

39 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

As long as that money is then used to fund food insecurity in the U.S. and not for cutting taxes or spending in any other area...defense, education, government, etc.  Cheers!

Is food insecurity in the US really an issue of not enough money being spent? SNAP benefits are widespread at income levels well above the poverty line. Yet apparently sugary soft drinks are the #1 most purchased item. 

[dwy000]

Every time he thinks he's out....they pull him back in.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/politics/hegseth-yemen-attack-second-signal-chat.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

[Parsad]

51 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

Is food insecurity in the US really an issue of not enough money being spent? SNAP benefits are widespread at income levels well above the poverty line. Yet apparently sugary soft drinks are the #1 most purchased item. 

 

Add a tax to processed foods, where the tax revenue is only used to offset medical care due to obesity, etc.  You have a tax on gambling that is supposed to be used for addiction treatment.  You have higher insurance premiums on poor drivers.  You have smoking class action settlements for healthcare treatment of lung cancer patients.  Should be no different.  

 

And yes, food insecurity in the U.S. and Canada is higher than it was in the 70's and 80's.  50M people in the U.S. used food banks last year...14M were children. 

 

Cheers! 

[Viking]

4 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Sorry, this guy is an idiot globalist, with no regard for the Citizens of the US.

 

1- Not a word about the 30 years of job destruction in US manufacturing. He could care less.

2- Nothing about other countries tariffs or barriers at all. Not a peep.

3- Nothing about China, and any trade protection needed against China - the worst offender of all.

4- Good thing the President has "emergency powers", as he immediately solved the #1 problem the  United States had - which was a dangerous, wide open Southern Border. All in 60 days.

 

Couldn't be more disingenuous , while leaving all the relevant facts out.

@cubsfan , I think most people agree that the US has some legitimate trade issues that need to be addressed. People are disagreeing with Trump’s logic/methods being used (to solve the issues). 

1.) His policies completely lack credibility - what little Trump has put into writing makes no sense (I refer you to Trump’s reciprocal tarriff chart).  

2.) He changes his mind almost daily - so his objectives/aims aren’t coherent (slogans aren’t enough).
 

When the Japanese recently met with US negotiators, the US negotiators asked the Japanese what concessions they were going to offer. The Japanese asked the US negotiators what they wanted. The US negotiators could not answer that simple question. 

Further, Trump’s methods are bizarre - he is playing the victim card. He is shredding trust. Why would you sign an agreement with a counterparty you no longer trust? 

Edited April 21, 2025 by Viking

[cubsfan]

28 minutes ago, Viking said:

@cubsfan , I think most people agree that the US has some legitimate trade issues that need to be addressed. People are disagreeing with Trump’s logic/methods being used (to solve the issues). 

1.) His policies completely lack credibility - what little Trump has put into writing makes no sense (I refer you to Trump’s reciprocal tarriff chart).  

2.) He changes his mind almost daily - so his objectives/aims aren’t coherent (slogans aren’t enough).
 

When the Japanese recently met with US negotiators, the US negotiators asked the Japanese what concessions they were going to offer. The Japanese asked the US negotiators what they wanted. The US negotiators could not answer that simple question. 

Further, Trump’s methods are bizarre - he is playing the victim card. He is shredding trust. Why would you sign an agreement with a counterparty you no longer trust? 

 

It's called negotiation, and that is simply your opinion. You fail to address the silly one-sided opinion piece you posted. The professor clearly hates Trump, and his rhetoric of "The US political system is falling apart" and "Trump couldn't pass his second course in economics" is just ridiculous hyperbole.

 

If that's what you want to post as your "proof" - go right ahead @Viking

[Spekulatius]

I think one big consequence of the political turmoil will be the end of the US exceptionalism in terms of equity valuations, USD getting weaker (already happening and partly intended), resulting in lower purchasing power and wealth for the mean citizen.

 

The above is needed to balance the trade balance. Nothing else will do in my opinion.

 

As an investor, I think it’s time to diversify out of US stocks and the USD. It’s similar to 70’s when Nixon abandoned the gold standard which created economic turmoil and the  winner and looser were very different than in the decades before.

Edited April 21, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Red Lion]

4 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Add a tax to processed foods, where the tax revenue is only used to offset medical care due to obesity, etc.  You have a tax on gambling that is supposed to be used for addiction treatment.  You have higher insurance premiums on poor drivers.  You have smoking class action settlements for healthcare treatment of lung cancer patients.  Should be no different.  

 

And yes, food insecurity in the U.S. and Canada is higher than it was in the 70's and 80's.  50M people in the U.S. used food banks last year...14M were children. 

 

Cheers! 

Sounds like a great plan to me. Bizarre that there couldn’t be bipartisan support for this idea, except I’m sure KO/PEP/WMT and their ilk are lobbying both sides heavily to prevent something like this happening. If they imposed a cigarette type tax and feed the money into Medicaid that would make sense. 
 

I still don’t think SNAP benefits should be used for soda or candy (just like they can’t be used for cigarettes or alcohol).