On Today’s Market Drop—Dizziness with Excess?
There’s often a mismatch between the money economy and what economists call the real economy. I’m not sufficiently well-trained to separate the two, especially when they may be combined as payment operators like banks and stock exchanges.
In my simple minded approach to investing, especially Tesla, most important is the “real world” matter of what the company plans to do, what it has actually done, and what it plans to do in light of perceptible physical trends in the economy. By the latter I mean something important like a shift in the way we use energy. At first glance, until the quantum-magicians got hold of it, energy is damn important because that is all there is, except empty space.
Re the money economy, consistent with a simple-minded approach one can hardly do better than the answer provided by a “The Wheeler Dealers” movie protagonist who is asked, what is the “value of money?” “It’s a way of keeping score.” Stock prices I assume must be considered a part of the money economy. Certainly they are reflected in it monetarily when the relatively “normal” jobs report spooks market fears of inflation.
As noted in my last post I am wary of single-factor explanations for any real world behavior, whether monetary or in the more productive “actual” undertakings of human beings. I don’t mean there is no validity to all conjectures about the meaning of the market, but just reiterate there may be multiple factors motivating investors.
The Nunes Bomb
Demonstrating again that politics is the struggle for control over people’s picture of reality is the rather blatant attempt to smear the FBI and Justice officials with release, first, of the Republican view and not the Democratic view, of the Nunes memo. Also prejudicial is its endorsement a few days ago by the President, reportedly, before he had even read it.
I’m always amused when commentators assert business does not like uncertainty. Almost no one likes uncertainty. But uncertainty is the price for innovation. It guides Elon Musk to better solutions as even he tries to reduce the danger of risk despite high personal cost. But a deliberate effort to disrupt with no clear purpose than tearing down institutions is dangerous. That should be a clearer concern for conservatives than almost any other priority so it is passing strange we see all this sound and fury about investigating Russian influence on our elections with no energy devoted to stopping it. Zip!
In addition to monetary concerns fellow risk takers may be disturbed by the inference government spying may be on us next. Alternatively, others may have concern that democracy is at risk because our trust is broken once again. Who shall guard the guardians of justice? Is that a control we are willing to relinquish? Does it really make our lives simpler, more predictable? Aren’t the enemies of the “Deep State” merely old deal anarchists at heart? That too will eventually be reflected in the real economy.
Is it really productive to impeach a FISA judge to protect a president from impeachment? Just to keep the historical score, we are 34 years beyond 1984.
Just a warning. Not an advice. The danger of the vacuum in space is matched or exceeded only by empty minds.
