Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion

[DragonWatch]

Macroeconomics of politics ~ going to the. . .Washington’s portable toilet industry is flush, thanks to Trump

Have a good day

 

[neroden]

Well said. I'm currently in the throes of trying to model and predict macro shocks of this magnitude and allocate portfolio assets to somehow hedge this kind of risk

It's basically impossible to hedge with traditional "investments".

Land is usually reliable. It gets confiscated *very* occasionally, and usually only if you owned a *great deal* of it. And it rarely gets confiscated everywhere at once -- the French nobles fled to their non-French estates, until Napoleon's army swept across Europe.

The loyalty of your community is much, much more reliable even than land. Be liked by the locals where you live.
The loyalty of others is also more valuable than anything else -- have someone to flee to.

Yet, we are living in a world with a "new normal" that is so emphatically outside the realm of what many leaders and fund managers thought possible in their lifetimes, that lack of ability to comprehend and fit this into their worldview often results in outright denial as a standard position.

On the other hand, there are quasi-revolutions where the carefully-positioned did even *better*. They don't get talked about as much. But during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, becoming one of the provincial governors or well-connected with them (and staying well away from Rome!) made your family into *feudal lords* by the time it was all over. While going through the US Civil War, investing in railroads was the way to fantastic riches. There have been some similar roads to riches when Mao gave way to Deng Xiaoping in China. It is possible that our current transition wil mean that aligning with Tesla (or Google, or Amazon) will be a path to stability and wealth even if the US government falls apart. Amazon is already substantially supporting the Postal Service -- paying for Saturday and twice-a-day delivery to happen -- and will continue to do so, probably even if the government goes away. England's had an unusually large number of these revolutions: while there was no safety anywhere during Cromwell's revolution, the "Glorious Revolution" changed the constitution without disrupting everyday life, and Atlee's massive nationalizations -- well, you got paid for your nationalized stock, and you had high tax rates, but you were healthy and still had a home and food.

 

[neroden]

Too much of 'he said' 'she said' drama, nothing verifiable..
Here is the Washington Post link: House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

From the article:
"
When initially asked to comment on the exchange, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Ryan, said: “That never happened,” and Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy, said: “The idea that McCarthy would assert this is absurd and false.”

So, the people who alleged to have made those comments have refuted those claims.

McCarthy said it on tape, verified by the Washington Post reporters. I'm not surprised that McCarthy denies saying it, though. Politicians say a lot of things which it is convenient to deny later.

 

[neroden]

I realize this wont be popular, but you guys are out of your mind if you believe Trump is going to step down. I think your bigger concern is weather he goes for 8 years. The reason is that the democrats have no one to run against him

Oh come on. Sure they do. They just managed to nominate someone else, who was a really bad candidate, due to extraordinary internal dysfunction. You DO remember the Democratic Primary? The polls all said Bernie would beat Trump in the electoral college, and that Clinton probably wouldn't. (And in previous years, the Democrats didn't nominate Dean, and they didn't nominate Clark, and, well, you get the idea. They *have* people to run, they've just been knocking them out in the primaries. They're not going to engage in self-sabotage like the Hillary Clinton nomination forever.)

Meanwhile, the Republicans have bigger problems: THEY have nobody plausible to run against Trump in their primary. They ran their entire field and all of them lost by yuuuuge margins. And Trump wasn't even a Republican until recently (party of convenience...)

I'm not impressed by the internal dynamics in either major party, but the Democrats have an easier and more obvious path to recovery.

 

[Reciprocity]

Oh come on. Sure they do. They just managed to nominate someone else, who was a really bad candidate, due to extraordinary internal dysfunction. You DO remember the Democratic Primary? The polls all said Bernie would beat Trump in the electoral college, and that Clinton probably wouldn't. (And in previous years, the Democrats didn't nominate Dean, and they didn't nominate Clark, and, well, you get the idea. They *have* people to run, they've just been knocking them out in the primaries. They're not going to engage in self-sabotage like the Hillary Clinton nomination forever.)

Meanwhile, the Republicans have bigger problems: THEY have nobody plausible to run against Trump in their primary. They ran their entire field and all of them lost by yuuuuge margins. And Trump wasn't even a Republican until recently (party of convenience...)

I'm not impressed by the internal dynamics in either major party, but the Democrats have an easier and more obvious path to recovery.

You only quoted part of my post. The other part read something like..

And Dems have to run on something other then calling everyone a racist and come to with actual good ideas of how to improve the country.

If they continue to do nothing but call everyone who disagrees with them bigots, racists and homophobes, then they will lose even more seats in upcoming elections as if 1000 wasnt enough enough in the last 8 years between governers, state legislators, the house and Senate and finally the presidency.

 

[neroden]

You only quoted part of my post. The other part read something like..

And Dems have to run on something other then calling everyone a racist and come to with actual good ideas of how to improve the country.

If they continue to do nothing but call everyone who disagrees with them bigots, racists and homophobes, then they will lose even more seats in upcoming elections as if 1000 wasnt enough enough in the last 8 years between governers, state legislators, the house and Senate and finally the presidency.

OK, I didn't want to address this directly, which is why I didn't quote it, but Democrats absolutely have never been behaving the way you allege them to have been behaving. I don't know what sort of fake news you've been reading, but Democratic politicians have been campaigning on lots and lots of issues (does universal health care ring a bell?) and I can't remember any of them calling "everyone who disagrees with them" any names at all. Ever. (I do remember a few Republican politicians calling everyone who disagreed with them for any reason on any issue communists.)

So in short, you're wrong. Go look for credible citations for your sweeping statements. You won't find any.

Democrats have been presenting actual good ideas for how to improve the country -- have you even *read* the party platform? Let alone Bernie's platform? Betting you haven't.

What Democrats have actually been doing for the most part is running either corporate stooges, or milquetoast loser candidates who are unable to make their message heard, or candidates who are both at once, so they get drowned out by screaming lunatics who are slandering them. Apparently the slanders worked on you. And that's the Democratic Party's fault, for running candidates who suck at campaigning.

 

[Reciprocity]

OK, I didn't want to address this directly, which is why I didn't quote it, but Democrats absolutely have never been behaving the way you allege them to have been behaving. I don't know what sort of fake news you've been reading, but Democratic politicians have been campaigning on lots and lots of issues (does universal health care ring a bell?) and I can't remember any of them calling "everyone who disagrees with them" any names at all. Ever. (I do remember a few Republican politicians calling everyone who disagreed with them for any reason on any issue communists.)

So in short, you're wrong. Go look for credible citations for your sweeping statements. You won't find any.

Democrats have been presenting actual good ideas for how to improve the country -- have you even *read* the party platform? Let alone Bernie's platform? Betting you haven't.

What Democrats have actually been doing for the most part is running either corporate stooges, or milquetoast loser candidates who are unable to make their message heard, or candidates who are both at once, so they get drowned out by screaming lunatics who are slandering them. Apparently the slanders worked on you. And that's the Democratic Party's fault, for running candidates who suck at campaigning.

I really don't care if you agree or acknowledge anything I stated as reality or fake. What matters is that failed Dem policies is why you have Trump today and why Dems have lost an insurmountable amount of power over the last 8 years. I some have to cite anything but the score board.

I don't read fake news, I get my info right from Clinton's mouth calling everyone who doesn't support her deplorable, Nancy pilosi, Obama pretty much call Trump supporters racists. Failed policies and insulting half the country is a good way to lose more power. Keep denying it, I'm fine with that, it's working so well for yah.

 

[FluxCap]

Good discussion but let's steer it back away from pure partisan politics if possible, and cite sources where we can for contentious points. I know it's impossible to separate political risk from current macroeconomic discussions (and we shouldn't), but let's focus on the risk and hypotheticals rather than absolutes if possible.

We are still processing the risks, possibilities and effects of this historic election. In the last election cycle, there were definitely some people who were/are elitist, derisive, out of touch and snobby about the plight of the working class and rural Americans (I know some of them), but there were definitely some who legitimately want to help all of their fellow Americans regardless of background or religion or point of view (I know some of them). There are definitely some who exploited the vast new propaganda potential of social media for their own benefit and did their best to manipulate public opinion in a false and deceptive manner by making people distrust all media (which benefits those with capital/power), and there were definitely some who would not stoop so low as to use this destructive tactic (I know some of both). There was definitely a foreign power that waged an unprecedented, hostile information war on the American public, the scope of which is still being uncovered.

The technologist and student of business in me wants to go all-in times infinity on Tesla as possibly the single most important company of this century. The historian and student of politics, policy and economics in me wants to position defensively given the track record of humanity when tensions rise this high in advanced civilizations.

So in summary, land in neutral and low-volatility localities, cash and TSLA stock sound good?

 

[Reciprocity]

Good discussion but let's steer it back away from pure partisan politics if possible, and cite sources where we can for contentious points. I know it's impossible to separate political risk from current macroeconomic discussions (and we shouldn't), but let's focus on the risk and hypotheticals rather than absolutes if possible.

We are still processing the risks, possibilities and effects of this historic election. In the last election cycle, there were definitely some people who were/are elitist, derisive, out of touch and snobby about the plight of the working class and rural Americans (I know some of them), but there were definitely some who legitimately want to help all of their fellow Americans regardless of background or religion or point of view (I know some of them). There are definitely some who exploited the vast new propaganda potential of social media for their own benefit and did their best to manipulate public opinion in a false and deceptive manner by making people distrust all media (which benefits those with capital/power), and there were definitely some who would not stoop so low as to use this destructive tactic (I know some of both). There was definitely a foreign power that waged an unprecedented, hostile information war on the American public, the scope of which is still being uncovered.

The technologist and student of business in me wants to go all-in times infinity on Tesla as possibly the single most important company of this century. The historian and student of politics, policy and economics in me wants to position defensively given the track record of humanity when tensions rise this high in advanced civilizations.

So in summary, land in neutral and low-volatility localities, cash and TSLA stock sound good?

Great points. I think Tesla is the type of company that can bridge the gap between skeptics and believers where both sides can and should agree that EV and renewables are not just better for the environment but finally better then existing alternatives like ICE and Coal. I mean actually better for once, even considering the loss of government funding over the new few years. I always thought that you would require something like Fusion to be able to have a cost effective and simple solution, but solar + battery and EVs are making the need for Fusion to provide virtually free electricity not as much of "need" and more of a nice to have. The economies of scale are finally catching up to costs and in the next couple of years with increases in capacities for Batteries, EVs and other renewables I think you will see growth that will even shock the biggest believers. As far as how it relates to the Macro economics, it pretty much does not matter who is President at this point, unless you think they will outlaw renewable energy through an executive order? Not even climate accords have the power of the markets. At this point its in the markets hands and the competitiveness is what will allow it to thrive and as the market grows, more investment will come in and it will start to multiply very quickly.

 

[kenliles]

Many on the board rightfully source Business News networks for their investment data inputs.
Given the macro risk we find ourselves in- the Bianco Research below may provide a perspective for evaluation of sourcing - I'm certainly not going to advise on particular sourcing ; But this research may provide a reason to at least evaluate your own matrix of macro-risk sources. We all have limited time and the selection of sources can effect individual assessment of actual risk against historical norms

Here's a showing for example, of what happens to VIX (and by association, market volatility) when Business News sources become focused on Political Risk

 

[ggr]

What just happened? Can't see any news justifying the sudden jump.

 

[FluxCap]

Unclear on the spike, but it seems there was chatter after other automaker stocks took a tumble after a Morgan Stanley report was released, and it was reported that Ford and GM may be cheating on emissions as well:
GM dips after reported suit alleges diesel pickups are rigged to pass emissions tests

On a related note, here is a superb paper by IEEE on "bad actors" in the automotive industry using deliberate and sophisticated means to cheat on emissions tests:
How They Did It: An Analysis of Emission Defeat Devices in Modern Automobiles [PDF]

I'm still particularly interested in the scope of the recent Russian intelligence penetration of US civilian and military targets, and it's current and future effects on markets and society. As the US investigation is ongoing and we still do not know what level of compromise exists, it's hard to predict what the effects will be for Tesla and the markets when investigations conclude. If anyone has further deep analysis on this, please point me to it.

Here's a report just released by an interdisciplinary team at the University of Toronto with some startling findings:

Tainted Leaks: Disinformation and Phishing With a Russian Nexus - The Citizen Lab

 

[The Blue Owl]

Here's a report just released by an interdisciplinary team at the University of Toronto with some startling findings:

Tainted Leaks: Disinformation and Phishing With a Russian Nexus - The Citizen Lab

Extremely interesting (and worrying). Thanks for the link.

 

[steve3]

We are still processing the risks, possibilities and effects of this historic election.
[snip...]
The technologist and student of business in me wants to go all-in times infinity on Tesla as possibly the single most important company of this century. The historian and student of politics, policy and economics in me wants to position defensively given the track record of humanity when tensions rise this high in advanced civilizations.

Given the macro risk we find ourselves in- the Bianco Research below may provide a perspective for evaluation of sourcing -

For me at this time, this thread is really important. Special thanks Adam & Ken for your perspectives.

 

[kenliles]

Multiple sources and independently confirmed by both NBC and W-Post (earlier un-named party of interest)

Jared Kushner now under FBI scrutiny in Russia probe, say officials: NBC
Jared Kushner now under FBI scrutiny in Russia probe, say officials: NBC
"
The FBI's scrutiny of Kushner places the bureau's sprawling counterintelligence and criminal investigation not only on the doorstep of the White House, but on the cusp of the Trump family circle. The Washington Post first reported last week that a senior White House official close to Trump was a "person of interest," but did not name the person. The term "person of interest" has no legal meaning.
"

More detail from The Post
Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation (The Washington Post)

He is NOT described as a target by the sources currently, but a key source of investigation information; regarding previous Russian communications dating back to Spring 2016



Also, Wired has a new report on Russian techniques used- by reshaping news reports to create fake news and hacked emails (i.e. the Clinton-Wiener email example)
This report expands on the report linked by FluxCap above- well written with some specific examples
Russian Hackers Are Using ‘Tainted’ Leaks to Sow Disinformation (WIRED)

 

[FluxCap]

I kind of can't believe I'm seriously considering this, but I find myself dealing in a lot of unpleasant hypotheticals today even as TSLA, Bitcoin, the FANGs and the NASDAQ brush up against all time highs.

There's a lot of celebration of violence against journalists and liberal heads of state happening in the ranks of Trump supporters. Violence without consequence. I assume most people have seen the video of Trump forcefully shoving the President of Montenegro, newest member of NATO (opposed by Putin), trying to yank Macron around several times, and probably have seen the newly-elected Republican representative from Montana get voted into office and cheered by the crowd after assaulting a reporter and being handed a minor slap on the wrist by a Sherriff that donated to his campaign. Then, to cap things off yesterday, Trump exclaimed:

"The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump reportedly complained in the meeting, attendees told German newspaper Der Spiegel. "Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S. We'll stop that."​

So now - assuming for a moment that the current FBI investigation somehow does not result in any convictions or punishment for any administration officials and/or the removal of Trump, what might happen if Trump is able to back up his words with actions?

If the US becomes formally or tacitly allied with Russia and other world dictators in a unilateral Trump/Republican effort unable to be stopped by the US system of checks and balances, what would the market and social consequences be? Would either the US or EU member states leave NATO to reform a new coalition? Would we make economic, cultural and social enemies of the Western European allies we have stood beside for seven decades since the end of WWII? Is there even remotely a possibility that a trade war with a united Europe would resolve to our benefit? Would the dollar itself be challenged in this scenario?

I legitimately am trying to find contrarian views here that my concerns are overblown.

Do others here believe that:
A) These actions do not have consequences that would disrupt markets / lead to violent or nonviolent social instability (perhaps because the oligopolies in the US are untouchable now, economic indicators like employment are stronger, and risk capital is cheap and plentiful?)
B) Trump will be removed before he is "allowed" to do market-moving damage
C) We'll all just cash out before a market-moving crisis occurs
D) Something else entirely?

Thoughts most appreciated.

Edited for a Moderator-corrected quotation.

 

[SwTslaGrl]

I think Europe and the other countries are prepared diplomatically and will do the best of the situation. It's just talk so far. In another four years the situation could be different.

 

[MikeC]

I kind of can't believe I'm seriously considering this, but I find myself dealing in a lot of unpleasant hypotheticals today even as TSLA, Bitcoin, the FANGs and the NASDAQ brush up against all time highs.

There's a lot of celebration of violence against journalists and liberal heads of state happening in the ranks of Trump supporters. Violence without consequence. I assume most people have seen the video of Trump forcefully shoving the President of Montenegro, newest member of NATO (opposed by Putin), trying to yank Macron around several times, and probably have seen the newly-elected Republican representative from Montana get voted into office and cheered by the crowd after assaulting a reporter and being handed a minor slap on the wrist by a Sherriff that donated to his campaign. Then, to cap things off yesterday, Trump exclaimed:

"The Germans are evil, very evil," Trump reportedly complained in the meeting, attendees told German newspaper Der Spiegel. "Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S. We'll stop that."​

So now - assuming for a moment that the current FBI investigation somehow does not result in any convictions or punishment for any administration officials and/or the removal of Trump, what might happen if Trump is able to back up his words with actions?

If the US becomes formally or tacitly allied with Russia and other world dictators in a unilateral Trump/Republican effort unable to be stopped by the US system of checks and balances, what would the market and social consequences be? Would either the US or EU member states leave NATO to reform a new coalition? Would we make economic, cultural and social enemies of the Western European allies we have stood beside for seven decades since the end of WWII? Is there even remotely a possibility that a trade war with a united Europe would resolve to our benefit? Would the dollar itself be challenged in this scenario?

I legitimately am trying to find contrarian views here that my concerns are overblown.

Do others here believe that:
A) These actions do not have consequences that would disrupt markets / lead to violent or nonviolent social instability (perhaps because the oligopolies in the US are untouchable now, economic indicators like employment are stronger, and risk capital is cheap and plentiful?)
B) Trump will be removed before he is "allowed" to do market-moving damage
C) We'll all just cash out before a market-moving crisis occurs
D) Something else entirely?

Thoughts most appreciated.

I'm reeeeally hoping for B. I think most nations probably recognize that Trump is a historically unpopular leader elected by a minority of US citizens only with the assistance of an adversarial foreign power, and they know they can just wait for his term to end or for his impeachment.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I kind of can't believe I'm seriously considering this, but I find myself dealing in a lot of unpleasant hypotheticals today even as TSLA, Bitcoin, the FANGs and the NASDAQ brush up against all time highs.

There's a lot of celebration of violence against journalists and liberal heads of state happening in the ranks of Trump supporters. Violence without consequence. I assume most people have seen the video of Trump forcefully shoving the President of Montenegro, newest member of NATO (opposed by Putin), trying to yank Macron around several times, and probably have seen the newly-elected Republican representative from Montana get voted into office and cheered by the crowd after assaulting a reporter and being handed a minor slap on the wrist by a Sherriff that donated to his campaign. Then, to cap things off yesterday, Trump exclaimed:

"The Germans are evil, very evil," Trump reportedly complained in the meeting, attendees told German newspaper Der Spiegel. "Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S. We'll stop that."​

So now - assuming for a moment that the current FBI investigation somehow does not result in any convictions or punishment for any administration officials and/or the removal of Trump, what might happen if Trump is able to back up his words with actions?

If the US becomes formally or tacitly allied with Russia and other world dictators in a unilateral Trump/Republican effort unable to be stopped by the US system of checks and balances, what would the market and social consequences be? Would either the US or EU member states leave NATO to reform a new coalition? Would we make economic, cultural and social enemies of the Western European allies we have stood beside for seven decades since the end of WWII? Is there even remotely a possibility that a trade war with a united Europe would resolve to our benefit? Would the dollar itself be challenged in this scenario?

I legitimately am trying to find contrarian views here that my concerns are overblown.

Do others here believe that:
A) These actions do not have consequences that would disrupt markets / lead to violent or nonviolent social instability (perhaps because the oligopolies in the US are untouchable now, economic indicators like employment are stronger, and risk capital is cheap and plentiful?)
B) Trump will be removed before he is "allowed" to do market-moving damage
C) We'll all just cash out before a market-moving crisis occurs
D) Something else entirely?

Thoughts most appreciated.

Assuming he will serve his full term (definitely not a given), I find comfort in the thought that Trump doesn't have any deeply-held principles, save for the idea that he can do no wrong and his pathological need for constant validation. If some of the things you mentioned come to pass, things will get worse (as they will, for instance, with Trumpcare) and, because he is unprincipled, I think he will have no qualms changing course once his base starts to lose that lovin' feeling. Also, there still are sane individuals in government who can help keep the ship on course.

Feeble comfort, I know. It's just as likely his wild gyrations trigger a sudden flood of unscheduled, highly non-linear responses (also known as 'disaster'). That's why I am half in cash and try to stay on top of the news and keep my finger on the sell button (although I know full well I might not get a chance to push it in time).

 

[geneclean55]

Just for clarity, the supposed phrase was "Germans are bad, really bad" and not "evil, really evil"