Discussion:
Is it all about messaging?
Add Reply
islander
2020-07-17 14:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?

I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.

Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"

Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”

This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?

If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.

Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
me
2020-07-17 19:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, yea! Everything is about perception. Here is one perspective: The problem (as with others) is in Dem voting cities. Minneapolis is blue! Dem voters are unaware they are finally rebelling against Dem gov they keep voting for. Why doesn’t someone explain that inconvenient truth? ‪👉http://endit.info/UrbanCommons.shtml
El Castor
2020-07-17 19:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
Post by islander
I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.
Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"
Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”
This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?
If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.
Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
islander
2020-07-18 14:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience a "V"
shaped recovery. The flawed response to the virus by the Trump
administration is now a primary cause of concern that the economy will
not recover quickly. Of special note is the rush to reopen the economy
before we reached a baseline infection rate. As was predicted and we
are now seeing, the states that reopened early are leading the nation in
infections, hospitalizations, and finally deaths. This was a colossal
mistake, beyond comprehension! So much damage has been done that the
improved economy after a record 10+ years bull market is now sinking to
depths not see since the Great Depression. The jobs are mostly gone
despite the motivation of the funds spent to attempt to keep people
employed and small businesses not only do not have the financial
reserves to keep operating, but they are faced with repaying the rescue
funds. Mergers among the larger corporations are a desperate attempt to
avoid bankruptcy. With interest rates at a low, refinance of mortgages
is peaking, but without jobs they cannot be repaid.

So, the attempts at messaging continue but the substance of any
underlying policy remains elusive. The market is reacting to the
messaging, but to what end when there is nothing solid to be optimistic
about!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.
Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"
Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”
This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?
If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.
Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
El Castor
2020-07-18 18:35:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience a "V"
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
Post by islander
The flawed response to the virus by the Trump
administration is now a primary cause of concern that the economy will
not recover quickly. Of special note is the rush to reopen the economy
before we reached a baseline infection rate. As was predicted and we
are now seeing, the states that reopened early are leading the nation in
infections, hospitalizations, and finally deaths. This was a colossal
mistake, beyond comprehension! So much damage has been done that the
improved economy after a record 10+ years bull market is now sinking to
depths not see since the Great Depression. The jobs are mostly gone
despite the motivation of the funds spent to attempt to keep people
employed and small businesses not only do not have the financial
reserves to keep operating, but they are faced with repaying the rescue
funds. Mergers among the larger corporations are a desperate attempt to
avoid bankruptcy. With interest rates at a low, refinance of mortgages
is peaking, but without jobs they cannot be repaid.
So, the attempts at messaging continue but the substance of any
underlying policy remains elusive. The market is reacting to the
messaging, but to what end when there is nothing solid to be optimistic
about!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.
Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"
Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”
This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?
If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.
Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
islander
2020-07-18 19:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience a "V"
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!

If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
The flawed response to the virus by the Trump
administration is now a primary cause of concern that the economy will
not recover quickly. Of special note is the rush to reopen the economy
before we reached a baseline infection rate. As was predicted and we
are now seeing, the states that reopened early are leading the nation in
infections, hospitalizations, and finally deaths. This was a colossal
mistake, beyond comprehension! So much damage has been done that the
improved economy after a record 10+ years bull market is now sinking to
depths not see since the Great Depression. The jobs are mostly gone
despite the motivation of the funds spent to attempt to keep people
employed and small businesses not only do not have the financial
reserves to keep operating, but they are faced with repaying the rescue
funds. Mergers among the larger corporations are a desperate attempt to
avoid bankruptcy. With interest rates at a low, refinance of mortgages
is peaking, but without jobs they cannot be repaid.
So, the attempts at messaging continue but the substance of any
underlying policy remains elusive. The market is reacting to the
messaging, but to what end when there is nothing solid to be optimistic
about!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.
Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"
Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”
This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?
If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.
Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
El Castor
2020-07-18 20:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience a "V"
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!
If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Trump treats his cabinet like a business enterprise -- produce or you
are out. I'm OK with that. Under Trump, until the arrival of the
Chinese virus, we had real movement on border control and the threat
China poses, low unemployment, including the lowest Black unemployment
since records have been kept, and a strong rapidly growing economy.
Biden promises NONE of that. Biden has signed a unity agreement with
Sanders, an admitted socialist. It is clear who will be running the
show behind the scenes. BTW -- If Biden is elected it is unlikely he
will be able to serve a full term. It will be interesting to see who
his VP nominee will be.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
The flawed response to the virus by the Trump
administration is now a primary cause of concern that the economy will
not recover quickly. Of special note is the rush to reopen the economy
before we reached a baseline infection rate. As was predicted and we
are now seeing, the states that reopened early are leading the nation in
infections, hospitalizations, and finally deaths. This was a colossal
mistake, beyond comprehension! So much damage has been done that the
improved economy after a record 10+ years bull market is now sinking to
depths not see since the Great Depression. The jobs are mostly gone
despite the motivation of the funds spent to attempt to keep people
employed and small businesses not only do not have the financial
reserves to keep operating, but they are faced with repaying the rescue
funds. Mergers among the larger corporations are a desperate attempt to
avoid bankruptcy. With interest rates at a low, refinance of mortgages
is peaking, but without jobs they cannot be repaid.
So, the attempts at messaging continue but the substance of any
underlying policy remains elusive. The market is reacting to the
messaging, but to what end when there is nothing solid to be optimistic
about!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I think that I may have found an answer in today's NYT DealBook.
Normally an optimistic publication, today's issue turned dark with a
report by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent to assess how the
Trump administration was managing its pandemic response, reelection
campaign and more.
Basically, she reports that Republicans and the White House increasingly
view the stock market as an alternative to declining popularity in
political polling. Increasingly, this worries politicians and business
leaders who do not want their names to be associated with Trump,
especially in the context of government response to the virus and racial
unrest. They are asking, "What if the market rally fizzles before the
vote?"
Her reporting concludes, "What could improve Mr. Trump’s odds of
re-election between now and Nov. 3?" Barring unforeseen events, what
Maggie hears from Republicans is pretty simple: “If only Donald Trump
would stop tweeting. If only Donald Trump would stop talking about
injecting bleach.”
This gives me a strong sense of deja-vu. Recall the Republican
"autopsy" following their losses in 2012? It was all about what they
needed to change in their messaging. Are Republicans making the same
mistake now? Is the weakening of the Republican Party a result of poor
messaging and not a commentary on the failure of their policies? It is
easy to blame Trump's undisciplined Tweets, but perhaps the erratic
behavior of the market is what is only a product of messaging as
investors search for any news that might be optimistic. What else could
explain the increases in volume at any hint of news coming out of the
administration? Where is the rationality of careful market analysis
based on actual performance?
If I am correct on this, we are in for an even bumpier ride in the
months ahead as the Republicans search for the right message and fail to
consider that their problems are much more fundamental.
Personally, other than attempting a little bottom fishing back in
mid-March, I'm staying out of the market, even avoiding the supposedly
safe bond market. As long as FDIC remains a safe harbor, at least my
principal is protected.
islander
2020-07-18 22:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6 months and
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism in the
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued warnings
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience a "V"
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!
If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Trump treats his cabinet like a business enterprise -- produce or you
are out. I'm OK with that. Under Trump, until the arrival of the
Chinese virus, we had real movement on border control and the threat
China poses, low unemployment, including the lowest Black unemployment
since records have been kept, and a strong rapidly growing economy.
Biden promises NONE of that. Biden has signed a unity agreement with
Sanders, an admitted socialist. It is clear who will be running the
show behind the scenes. BTW -- If Biden is elected it is unlikely he
will be able to serve a full term. It will be interesting to see who
his VP nominee will be.
Are you OK with the following?
Mike Pence
Mike Pompeo
Steve Mnuchin
Mark Esper
William Barr
David Bernhardt
Sonny Perdue
Wilbur Ross
Eugene Scalia
Alex Azar
Ben Carson
Elaine Chao
Dan Bruillette
Betsy DeVos
Robert Wilkie
Chad Wolf
Mark Meadows
Robert Lighthizer
Richard Grenell
Kelly Craft
Russell Vought
Gina Haspel
Andrew Wheeler
Jovita Carranza
Peter Navarro

Do you know what any of them do? What are their qualifications? Would
you have appointed them? Do you honestly believe that they are the best
qualified people for their positions?
El Castor
2020-07-18 23:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6
months and
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism
in the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued
warnings
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience
a "V"
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!
If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Trump treats his cabinet like a business enterprise -- produce or you
are out. I'm OK with that. Under Trump, until the arrival of the
Chinese virus, we had real movement on border control and the threat
China poses, low unemployment, including the lowest Black unemployment
since records have been kept, and a strong rapidly growing economy.
Biden promises NONE of that. Biden has signed a unity agreement with
Sanders, an admitted socialist. It is clear who will be running the
show behind the scenes. BTW -- If Biden is elected it is unlikely he
will be able to serve a full term. It will be interesting to see who
his VP nominee will be.
Are you OK with the following?
Mike Pence
Mike Pompeo
Steve Mnuchin
Mark Esper
William Barr
David Bernhardt
Sonny Perdue
Wilbur Ross
Eugene Scalia
Alex Azar
Ben Carson
Elaine Chao
Dan Bruillette
Betsy DeVos
Robert Wilkie
Chad Wolf
Mark Meadows
Robert Lighthizer
Richard Grenell
Kelly Craft
Russell Vought
Gina Haspel
Andrew Wheeler
Jovita Carranza
Peter Navarro
Do you know what any of them do? What are their qualifications? Would
you have appointed them? Do you honestly believe that they are the best
qualified people for their positions?
I would prefer them all to the sewer socialists that Biden would
dredge up.
islander
2020-07-19 15:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6
months and
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism
in the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued
warnings
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience
a "V"
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!
If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Trump treats his cabinet like a business enterprise -- produce or you
are out. I'm OK with that. Under Trump, until the arrival of the
Chinese virus, we had real movement on border control and the threat
China poses, low unemployment, including the lowest Black unemployment
since records have been kept, and a strong rapidly growing economy.
Biden promises NONE of that. Biden has signed a unity agreement with
Sanders, an admitted socialist. It is clear who will be running the
show behind the scenes. BTW -- If Biden is elected it is unlikely he
will be able to serve a full term. It will be interesting to see who
his VP nominee will be.
Are you OK with the following?
Mike Pence
Mike Pompeo
Steve Mnuchin
Mark Esper
William Barr
David Bernhardt
Sonny Perdue
Wilbur Ross
Eugene Scalia
Alex Azar
Ben Carson
Elaine Chao
Dan Bruillette
Betsy DeVos
Robert Wilkie
Chad Wolf
Mark Meadows
Robert Lighthizer
Richard Grenell
Kelly Craft
Russell Vought
Gina Haspel
Andrew Wheeler
Jovita Carranza
Peter Navarro
Do you know what any of them do? What are their qualifications? Would
you have appointed them? Do you honestly believe that they are the best
qualified people for their positions?
I would prefer them all to the sewer socialists that Biden would
dredge up.
So, you don't know, do you?

For example, in this morning's news, consider the role that Mark Meadows
played in the corona virus response:

"Each morning at 8 as the corona virus crisis was raging in April, Mark
Meadows, the White House chief of staff, convened a small group of aides
to steer the administration through what had become a public health,
economic and political disaster.

"Seated around Mr. Meadows’s conference table and on a couch in his
office down the hall from the Oval Office, they saw their immediate role
as practical problem solvers. Produce more ventilators. Find more
personal protective equipment. Provide more testing.

"But their ultimate goal was to shift responsibility for leading the
fight against the pandemic from the White House to the states. They
referred to this as “state authority hand-off,” and it was at the heart
of what would become at once a catastrophic policy blunder and an
attempt to escape blame for a crisis that had engulfed the country —
perhaps one of the greatest failures of presidential leadership in
generations.

"Over a critical period beginning in mid-April, President Trump and his
team convinced themselves that the outbreak was fading, that they had
given state governments all the resources they needed to contain its
remaining “embers” and that it was time to ease up on the lock-down."
https://tinyurl.com/y4w8fdfp

This was the critical beginning of the effort by the White House to
replace the health experts' public influence and it was to lead to the
current explosion of cases across the nation, especially in the South
where states chose to ignore the CDC's guidelines setting criteria for
reopening.

So, what are Mark Meadows' qualifications for the job? One year of
college in liberal arts and a mediocre career in real estate in North
Carolina. Otherwise, he is a politician who was elected to the House
with support from the Tea Party where he became a member of the House
Freedom Caucus. It is doubtful that Meadows would have even been
confirmed by the Republican Senate had that position been subject to
confirmation. Just another unqualified member of the Trump clown show.
El Castor
2020-07-19 19:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I've been following the market pretty closely over the past 6
months and
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
have been puzzled by its behavior. What explains the optimism
in the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
recovery since mid March, especially in the face of continued
warnings
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
about an imminent crisis driven by a surge of bankruptcies, layoffs,
expenditures of reserves, and even a new peak in mortgage defaults?
Optimism is based on the strength of the economy before this
unfortunate event. Once a turning point (vaccine) is reached,
investors anticipate that the strength will return. One thing I have
learned about the market is that selling at the bottom is seldom a
wise policy.
I think you are engaging in confirmation bias. What optimism exists,
and there is not much, is based on belief that we will experience
a "V"
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
shaped recovery.
Did I mention "V". No. My only use of the letter "v" was in vaccine.
When the crisis ends, and it will with an effective vaccine, the trend
will be up. My greatest concern, and one that I share with a lot of
investors, is the possible election of Joe Biden. If Biden sticks with
his traditional support of US industry and the working man, so much
the better, but in what appears to be the early stages of senility he
has aligned himself with the socialist far left of your Party -- his
potential "handlers". If that means a Green New Deal and an end of US
carbon production, open borders, sharply increased corporate taxation,
wealth taxes, and a return to a dependence on Chinese manufacturing,
and all the usual paraphenalia of a drastic shift to the Left, then
our economic future will be dark indeed.
My position has been and continues to be that we are mistaken to place
too much faith (or blame) on the person who happens to occupy the oval
office. Yes, leadership is important, but the true measure of the
leader is found in who he or she chooses to surround him or her and I
have written about this for GW Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump
in this forum. This was the first warning that Trump was going to be a
disaster. Look at who he surrounded himself with and look at the
revolving door that characterizes his cabinet. That would not improve
in a next administration and it would be likely to get worse, IMV.
Biden, on the other hand has deep experience in administration in high
government office and I will be carefully examining who he surrounds
himself with. I have high expectations and they do not include the
people who you use as stalking horses. But, we shall see. On the other
hand, we know what to expect from Trump, even if he could find someone
of talent who would work for him! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
think that finding the right message will save them. Not likely!
If you were president, who would you select for your cabinet?
Trump treats his cabinet like a business enterprise -- produce or you
are out. I'm OK with that. Under Trump, until the arrival of the
Chinese virus, we had real movement on border control and the threat
China poses, low unemployment, including the lowest Black unemployment
since records have been kept, and a strong rapidly growing economy.
Biden promises NONE of that. Biden has signed a unity agreement with
Sanders, an admitted socialist. It is clear who will be running the
show behind the scenes. BTW -- If Biden is elected it is unlikely he
will be able to serve a full term. It will be interesting to see who
his VP nominee will be.
Are you OK with the following?
Mike Pence
Mike Pompeo
Steve Mnuchin
Mark Esper
William Barr
David Bernhardt
Sonny Perdue
Wilbur Ross
Eugene Scalia
Alex Azar
Ben Carson
Elaine Chao
Dan Bruillette
Betsy DeVos
Robert Wilkie
Chad Wolf
Mark Meadows
Robert Lighthizer
Richard Grenell
Kelly Craft
Russell Vought
Gina Haspel
Andrew Wheeler
Jovita Carranza
Peter Navarro
Do you know what any of them do? What are their qualifications? Would
you have appointed them? Do you honestly believe that they are the best
qualified people for their positions?
I would prefer them all to the sewer socialists that Biden would
dredge up.
So, you don't know, do you?
For example, in this morning's news, consider the role that Mark Meadows
"Each morning at 8 as the corona virus crisis was raging in April, Mark
Meadows, the White House chief of staff, convened a small group of aides
to steer the administration through what had become a public health,
economic and political disaster.
"Seated around Mr. Meadows’s conference table and on a couch in his
office down the hall from the Oval Office, they saw their immediate role
as practical problem solvers. Produce more ventilators. Find more
personal protective equipment. Provide more testing.
"But their ultimate goal was to shift responsibility for leading the
fight against the pandemic from the White House to the states. They
referred to this as “state authority hand-off,” and it was at the heart
of what would become at once a catastrophic policy blunder and an
attempt to escape blame for a crisis that had engulfed the country —
perhaps one of the greatest failures of presidential leadership in
generations.
"Over a critical period beginning in mid-April, President Trump and his
team convinced themselves that the outbreak was fading, that they had
given state governments all the resources they needed to contain its
remaining “embers” and that it was time to ease up on the lock-down."
https://tinyurl.com/y4w8fdfp
This was the critical beginning of the effort by the White House to
replace the health experts' public influence and it was to lead to the
current explosion of cases across the nation, especially in the South
where states chose to ignore the CDC's guidelines setting criteria for
reopening.
So, what are Mark Meadows' qualifications for the job? One year of
college in liberal arts and a mediocre career in real estate in North
Carolina. Otherwise, he is a politician who was elected to the House
with support from the Tea Party where he became a member of the House
Freedom Caucus. It is doubtful that Meadows would have even been
confirmed by the Republican Senate had that position been subject to
confirmation. Just another unqualified member of the Trump clown show.
Blah, blah, blah. Bottom line, Biden verges on senility, if he isn't
already there, and his "handlers" are clearly from the extreme left,
socialist wing of your party. A vote for Biden is a vote for Sanders,
Warren, and the Squad. Do we really want the mindless rioters of
Portland and Seattle running the government?? No thanks! Under any
circumstances, NO THANKS!!

This election is not about the Secretary of this or that, it is about
the future of the United States, and people who would crush the
economy, and after packing the Court, crush the Constitution. That may
be what you want, and I suspect it is, but count me out.

From 2019 ...
"How Close Is the U.S. to Civil War? About Two-Thirds of the Way,
Americans Say
A majority of Americans, no matter where they live, or the party they
typically vote for, think the country is growing apart. On political,
racial, and class lines, Americans think divisions are widening,
according to a new Georgetown University poll."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/americans-say-u-s-is-two-thirds-of-the-way-to-civil-war.html
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-18 20:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think I would ask Bill Gates to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
islander
2020-07-19 15:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think I would ask Bill Gates to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
An interesting choice given his demonstrated experience in the Gates
Foundation. Unfortunately, Gates would probably decline. He is doing
more good in the private sector than he would be able to do in
government and he is smart enough to know that.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-19 22:11:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How about Elon Musk for Secretary of Energy? He estimates our power needs can come from a 100 mile square solar system. That's a lot of solar cells. I have a 10 foot square panel that produces 17 watts which is all I need to charge my radio batteries.
islander
2020-07-20 14:13:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
How about Elon Musk for Secretary of Energy? He estimates our power needs can come from a 100 mile square solar system. That's a lot of solar cells. I have a 10 foot square panel that produces 17 watts which is all I need to charge my radio batteries.
Frankly, I think that Jay Inslee, governor of Washington State would be
a better choice. He has better experience in administration of a large
government organization and I like what he has done on energy policy in
Washington state. No question that Elon Musk is talented and exhibits
creative genius, but it is not enough to think of great ideas. The hard
work is in turning those ideas into reality. I'm afraid that Musk would
quickly become frustrated with the national bureaucracy, especially in
the DoE. He is of more value where he is, IMV.

b***@gmail.com
2020-07-17 23:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think it's the stay at home economy that boosts the larger companies while putting the mom and pop's out of business. Small companies are not on the stock exchange. Amazon gets a boost with new customers. Eventually, everything will be done online. I really love my new cell phone my Niece bought me. It's the only internet connection I have.
Loading...