Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Kim has everything to lose with firing a missile at Guam. He has everything to gain by SAYING he will. IMHO, his rhetoric is entirely for domestic consumption. He's the new dictator. He had to purge all of the old guard and install his cadre. Now he has to build his reputation and win the support of his people (or actually his military, the people don't really matter). His bellicosity is needed for him to galvanize and solidify his military behind HIM, and Trump's responses is what he needs to coalesce his forces around him--always better to have a significant outside threat to unite the forces.

.

Actually this works just as well the other way around:
Trump has everything to lose with firing a missile from Guam. He has everything to gain by SAYING he will. IMHO, his rhetoric is entirely for domestic consumption. He's the new dictator. He had to purge all of the old guard and install his cadre. Now he has to build his reputation and win the support of his people (or actually his military, the people don't really matter). His bellicosity is needed for him to galvanize and solidify his military behind HIM, and Kim's responses is what he needs to coalesce his forces around him--always better to have a significant outside threat to unite the forces.
 
You may be right that we'll have to wait for Mueller. And members of Congress likely have to at least wait until their recess ends after Labor Day before they can effectively meet to develop any plans for ejecting Trump.

Trump may already be talking with Pence to insure a pardon like Ford gave to Nixon. Of course like with Ford, that may guarantee defeat for Pence if he attempts to run for the presidency in 2020.

As I have been quoted here once before, you could take a white board eraser and wipe clean the executive branch. It would change nothing, except bring the level of noise (tweets) down. The statues (I'll use it symbolically) will not fade off into the sunset. Trump removed his parties mask and the scares they represent will take years to stuff back into the box or finally resolve the anger. Pandora is out and about:-(
 
Actually this works just as well the other way around:
Trump has everything to lose with firing a missile from Guam. He has everything to gain by SAYING he will. IMHO, his rhetoric is entirely for domestic consumption. He's the new dictator. He had to purge all of the old guard and install his cadre. Now he has to build his reputation and win the support of his people (or actually his military, the people don't really matter). His bellicosity is needed for him to galvanize and solidify his military behind HIM, and Kim's responses is what he needs to coalesce his forces around him--always better to have a significant outside threat to unite the forces.

Heh, heh, nice pick up! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Did you mean not meet it with more violence?

Recently read this which seems applicable, and exceptionally graceful, said by a minority ER doctor that occasionally (but regularly) has patients request another doctor because of discrimination "You know what gives me hope?" she wrote. "A few get uncomfortable and apologize in the same breath they refuse to let me treat them. You see, it's a hell of a hard thing to maintain that level of hate face-to-face. I used to cycle through disbelief, shame, anger. Now I just show compassion and move on. I figure the best thing I can do is make sure their hate finds no purchase here."Portland doctor Esther Choo responds to racism in the emergency room (Column)

Yes, sorry I didn't finish that sentence completely -- I meant we should meet the violence and pain of these disaffected minds with a healing and repairing strategy that includes "de-brainwashing," information security, and counter-propaganda efforts rather than pure force. Part of that starts with a legitimate understanding of some of the main reasons why and how these extremists have grown in number in our country, including by direct, sustained influence campaigns by Russia, Koch Industries, and other right-wing oligarch interests that believe they stand to gain from a divided, destabilized America.

We certainly need to shield peaceful and vulnerable people from harm, and prosecute and condemn violence and hatred wherever it lies. But I don't think the public yet understands the ease with which people's minds can be targeted and manipulated, and how simply meeting their violence with more violence as a first resort only confirms their delusions and causes more harm.

As LBJ said: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Anyway, I don't know what this means for markets, but assuming we don't descend further into domestic instability, most standard economic health indicators seem fairly strong right now and in this seemingly permanent low rate environment, risk capital is still heavily incentivized to invest in equities and growth rather than savings/bonds/fixed income, which would seem to continue to put upward pressure on stock prices.

Or the market could decide that a sell-off is warranted given perceptions of a possibly decreased likelihood of tax reform passing that would in theory benefit corporate bottom lines.

I am currently positioned to take advantage of a continued bull market, but still have a more defensive posture than 2016.

We are deep into this recovery/expansion. There is no "rule" for how long expansions last before ""by the book" recessions happen so I don't give much credence to the theory that we are "overdue" for a "crash," but this chart is interesting nonetheless:

KKR Expansion Length Chart.png

wOS1S
 
Last edited:
We are deep into this recovery/expansion. There is no "rule" for how long expansions last before ""by the book" recessions happen so I don't give much credence to the theory that we are "overdue" for a "crash," but this chart is interesting nonetheless:

View attachment 242452
wOS1S

Thanks for the chart! Couldn't help to notice that the primary transition seems to have been in the 1980s (we'll conveniently ignore the 1960's).

Wonder if these factors have anything to do with the more recent market expansions, and length.

What Happened to Private Sector Pensions?

(Article is biased but has a good link and a good timeline)

Here's some info on what took over pensions... 401k's--when did they start? In the 1980s...

Your 401(k): When It Was Invented—and Why

Wonder how much of our persistent lengthening expansions in the markets are directly related to the knowledge by the Fed that much of the US working population are reliant on 401k's for retirement?
 
Last edited:
Trump may already be talking with Pence to insure a pardon like Ford gave to Nixon. Of course like with Ford, that may guarantee defeat for Pence if he attempts to run for the presidency in 2020.

Wait to see if Trump furthers his denigration of Pence. "The man" has a truly suicidal nature. Unfortunately (or fortunately--I can't decide), it is contagious. Watch for the end of white uber-racism, or at least a trend downward.
 
This is such a wise, humane, and informative analysis. Thanks. A comment, not a quibble:

Or the market could decide that a sell-off is warranted given perceptions of a possibly decreased likelihood of tax reform passing that would in theory benefit corporate bottom lines.

I hope the quoted alternative does not materialize, as I'm sure you do as well. Given his current behaviorI think it unlikely that Trump has sufficient clout to overcome what I hope is significant and growing opposition in Congress. From a progressive standpoint if the Dems win in 2018 and try tax reform by closing loopholes, then the market will react. The overall tax rate is not what matters most to corporations. Repatriation of profits, tax free, does, and the Dems might buy into this as well demanding profits should be reinvested in the U.S., not just paid to shareholders.
 
I wasted a lot of time trying to correlate your chart @FluxCap, post: 2261912 with presidents since 1900 based on memory of articles doing so more systematically. A quick Google search revealed this and more.

For Higher Stock Returns, Vote Republican Or Democrat?

Don't know about reliability of investopedia but the studies sourced seem authoritative enough.

I do not credit Trump for the economy he inherited which is finally approaching its potential despite all efforts by Republicans and, of course, some Obama mistakes--like only 1/3 of stimulus needed at the beginning.

Edit: The Republicans in the Senate have a golden opportunity to return to bipartisanship if they move through regular order to fix Obamacare. That is my hope, and I'm sure it is shared on this forum. Then they could do some real good through tax reform, but that would have to start in the House, I believe, where the result would be similar as it was before with health care.

It would really be nice to get a carbon tax, say to cover losses due to foreign recovery of profits. There's a lot of room for fiddling around with taxes to do some good. In bipartisan-mode, at least some of us get half a baby.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
I wasted a lot of time trying to correlate your chart @FluxCap, post: 2261912 with presidents since 1900 based on memory of articles doing so more systematically. A quick Google search revealed this and more.

For Higher Stock Returns, Vote Republican Or Democrat?

Don't know about reliability of investopedia but the studies sourced seem authoritative enough.

I do not credit Trump for the economy he inherited which is finally approaching its potential despite all efforts by Republicans and, of course, some Obama mistakes--like only 1/3 of stimulus needed at the beginning.

I don't think the correlation of the economy doing better is related to the president or party but to the Fed's monetary policy at the time.
 
As I have been quoted here once before, you could take a white board eraser and wipe clean the executive branch. It would change nothing, except bring the level of noise (tweets) down. The statues (I'll use it symbolically) will not fade off into the sunset. Trump removed his parties mask and the scares they represent will take years to stuff back into the box or finally resolve the anger. Pandora is out and about:-(
That's a big misunderstanding. His administration is gutting the EPA etc., etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Intl Professor
That's a big misunderstanding. His administration is gutting the EPA etc., etc.

The big misunderstanding is how deep the mask uncovered. The spiral to the bottom is glaring us in the face. We can grab the controls and pull us out of the dive down or we can throw up our hands and kiss our buttox good day.

During my time as an army officer I kept hearing from the "good 'ol boys" that the south would rise again. I foolishly assumed that with all the good being done to integrate people of color, women, and gays ~ not to mention a war, that the south would never rise again. Two weeks ago a young woman died, and I pray to my god that that was the bottom of our addiction to hate. I say to "my god" because my god is not an ass.

This administration did to the EPA what the party wanted. Not what I wanted. Did the party come out and take charge of the house, the senate? Did the Supreme Court yell foul? No, no and no.

The reason there is such a headwind against the Russia investigation is because they did what the party has been trying to do for years by removing people from the voting rolls without a paper trail back to them.

Have you asked yourself about the navy? What about bribery convictions, two ships rammed by other bigger than life ships. Was it faulty radar or the lookout asleep in the crows nest or dereliction of duty?

Why is it so important to hate the poor and the sick, or the elderly? The administrations party has absolutely no loyalty to the people that have worked or tried to work to make this nation what used to be.

I am doing my damnedest not to do what I was taught in elementary school so long ago and crawl under my desk and curial into a ball hoping we live to see tomorrow. I am trying not to sound like I am yelling that the sky is falling. I am trying my darnedest to fade away like the good soldier that I tried to be. But damn it my people and Mother Earth are loosing. My footprint is all we (my wife and I) have to show for ourselves ~ we are giving it our all.

So yes, simply put, if you take an eraser to the whiteboard of this administration nothing will change! Bad rant, bad:)

Can we see some green today, please:) I do not get to drink anymore:-(
 
Thanks for the chart! Couldn't help to notice that the primary transition seems to have been in the 1980s (we'll conveniently ignore the 1960's).

Wonder if these factors have anything to do with the more recent market expansions, and length.

What Happened to Private Sector Pensions?

(Article is biased but has a good link and a good timeline)

Here's some info on what took over pensions... 401k's--when did they start? In the 1980s...

Your 401(k): When It Was Invented—and Why

Wonder how much of our persistent lengthening expansions in the markets are directly related to the knowledge by the Fed that much of the US working population are reliant on 401k's for retirement?

Yes, it is interesting how conveniently the truth is hidden ~ bias.

I was a young lieutenant (commissioned in 1978) in the army when the effects of crashing the nation took hold. My father, mother, and brother came to visit (around 1980) our family, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I had originally enlisted in May 1969. They were seeing our daughter for the first time and our son for the second time and he was about five. We went to visit them at their hotel. My father was on the phone talking when my son ran over to him to say hi or something to that effect. My father shoved him away with force that almost knocked him over and he yelled at him to get away.

I did not confront my father for his behavior until he was around 87 years old or close to 2010. He was falling in the rabbit hole of dementia at the time. While I know the general information around what had happened to him, it was only at this confrontation did I talk to him about why we had thought ill of him for mistreating our son. My father was in extreme pain having lost his promotion and retirement and he was fighting for his livelihood at the time. I think I broke his heart when I told him our perspective.

It was about this time frame that the President conned congress into eliminating the "Double Dipping Law" as you may have heard of it. What that law did away with was pension reduction of senior military officers if they retired and went to work for the private sector. The law was aimed at preventing retirees from not only receiving their full retirement, but going to work for industrial military complex on the cheap since they already had a guaranteed monthly income with full medical benefits. What profiteering corporation would not love that employee pool ~ right?

Two things happen, first my father was denied his promotion to VP in Saudi operations within the corporation that builds airplanes like the B-2. My father had lived through WW II, schooled himself through a community college, worked his way up through management and they paid for his bachelor's degree at USC about the time I graduated from high school. That was a painful enough event for most fathers (losing a promotion), but the HR slug canned him hoping to prevent him from receiving his pension. That anger was the force behind my son Joshua being pushed and yelled at that morning.

My father's role in WW II was to assist in training the actual B-29 crew that eventually dropped the first atomic bomb. While my father was an NCO, he was frequently asked to train/retrain navigators.

That sad morning phone call was to his lawyer, a Saudi lawyer, that eventually won the case for my father based on his copious notes/documents that said he could retire after "X' number of years based on military service, you know back when our service was appreciated. Since the HR person or his boss jumped the retirement game, my father got a nice settlement. The downside was that his actual retirement checks only included one minor COLA adjustment over twenty years. Incase you do not understand inflation, that was a lot of money conned from him.

My father was not the only one to hit this glass ceiling, maybe your father did too. Women have since moved up so maybe today it is your mother being bumped by some military long term career soldier. Colonels and General retire with full pay, benefits and health care with an income north of 150K per year (plus inflation/COLA) for the rest of their life. The original thinking behind the full retirement was in the event of a war, our President wanted to pull these guys back quickly to rebuild the force, and not line their pockets with cash.

Oh, and under this same President, people receiving Social Security began being taxed on that income. Before that date Social Security was a non-taxable income.

Incase you want to attack me, I pay more in taxes than I receive in my military retirement. And, despite all that happened to my father on behalf of the private sector, my father never turned to white hate.

Now you know the rest of the story ~ biased:)
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm...
now why would Tillerson shun the lithium asset.
Hmmmmm..
it's all so very confusing--

How Trump swallowed a bitter Afghanistan pill
"<
Trump was also intrigued, in two discussions with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, by Ghani’s mention of the Afghanistan’s huge mineral reserves — which, he told Trump, the Afghans themselves lacked the technology and the resources to exploit. By some assessments, more than $1 trillion in mineral wealth, much of it in the form of lithium, could lay in the rock and soil of Afghanistan. But many analysts say that, given conditions in the country, it could be many years before it can be tapped at a significant profit.

After Trump raised the question of mineral wealth one Cabinet meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — a former ExxonMobil CEO who oversaw projects in several dangerous nations — warned him about the risk of investing in politically unstable regions.
>"
 
Billionaire Carl Icahn Resigns as Trump Adviser After Reaping Millions From His Time in White House | Democracy Now!

It's n Friday billionaire investor Carl Icahn left his role as regulatory adviser to Donald Trump, just before the New Yorkerpublished an article entitled "Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington." The article detailed Carl Icahn’s potential conflicts of interest, including his heavy lobbying for a rule change about blending ethanol into gasoline, a rule which affects the profits of Icahn’s Texas-based petroleum refining company, CVR. According to the New Yorker, in the months after Trump’s election, the stock price of CVR nearly doubled, which meant Icahn’s own wealth surged, at least on paper, by a half a billion dollars. For more we speak with Tyson Slocum, director of Public
Citizen’s Energy Program. In March Public Citizen asked lawmakers to investigate Carl Icahn’s actions.
<Snip>
 
This Bloomberg article warns about several leading indicators that can be interpreted as ominous for the macro picture. I'm not qualified to comment on it, but hopefully Ken, Flux, and other knowledgeable posters can share additional insight.

Thanks for the link - I will try to chime in a bit more on this later.

For now, enjoy this absolutely moronic article from the once-proud HBR, which reads like a joint press release from Koch Dinosaur Mining and Generally (Boring Old) Motors, Inc. Goes to show that just because it says "Harvard" on it does not mean it's worth a "hill of beans," as my wife likes to say.
Is Tesla Really a Disruptor? (And Why the Answer Matters)
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
Thanks for the link - I will try to chime in a bit more on this later.

For now, enjoy this absolutely moronic article from the once-proud HBR, which reads like a joint press release from Koch Dinosaur Mining and Generally (Boring Old) Motors, Inc. Goes to show that just because it says "Harvard" on it does not mean it's worth a "hill of beans," as my wife likes to say.
Is Tesla Really a Disruptor? (And Why the Answer Matters)

This particular idea expressed in the article drives me up the wall every time I see it:

Tesla clearly doesn’t qualify under the traditional definition of a disruptive innovation. In the model described by Clayton Christensen, a new entrant offers substitute products using technology that is cheaper but initially inferior to products offered by mature incumbents. Then the disruptor improves its performance over time, eventually catching the industry either unaware or unable to adapt.
I have news for Clayton Christensen, the guy who came up with the very concept of the Innovator's Dilemma: he doesn't understand his own discovery.

The key question is: are the incumbents able to respond to the new entrant in such a way that 1) it prevents the new entrant from gaining share in the markets the incumbents are currently dominating and 2) can they do that without sacrificing their existing cash cows?

It is utterly irrelevant if the new entrant comes in at the bottom of the market, price-wise and marketing-wise, or at the top. The only thing that is relevant is that the new product does not, at the beginning, serve the needs of the majority of the customers in that particular market. It may be unsuitable because the product is initially inferior, or because it is too expensive. Either way, the incumbents will not feel the pressure right away. But if the new entrant relentlessly improves suitability (either makes the product more performant when coming from the bottom, or it makes it more affordable when coming from the top), the incumbents will have to respond. The fundamental dilemma materializes when the incumbents cannot respond without abandoning their current technological base. That is exactly what happens today in the car industry, and what happened with the introduction of the wildly superior, but very expensive, iPhone.

Hell, we currently have an example in the same field that Christensen studied in his book, namely, the storage industry. SSD's were superior to HDD's pretty much from the beginning in practically all performance characteristics, except for cost. (Before you mention wear capability, remember it can be re-phrased as a question of cost by increasing redundancy.) Their costs have rapidly decreased to the point where the spinning drives are being chased out of the market.

I'm available for seminars. I only travel first class.