Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: cherzeca on September 19, 2020, 10:06:19 PM

Title: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cherzeca on September 19, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I have been trying to get a handle on just how uncertain the POTUS electoral process this year may become due to a significant increase in mailed/absentee ballots.  My interest is not political but rather investment oriented, because I believe the market will react very badly to a confused and contentious election.

This article has certainly not assuaged my concern:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/terrifying-inadequacy-american-election-law/616072/

forget about whether you are a R or a D, a Biden voter or a Trump voter.  it seems to me that there will be a high likelihood that i) battleground states will have trouble authenticating and counting with dispatch and accuracy a massive amount of paper ballots, 2) those battleground states that report results will have those results contested through litigtion by both parties, 3) because there is a short time window between the election date, the date states must certify results to the electoral college and the inauguration date, there is a significant possibility that no certainty will be achieved as to who POTUS is by inauguration date, and 4) most troubling, the constitutional provisions and statutes that address this situation (as set forth in The Atlantic article) appear to be woefully inadequate.  and of course, whatever you think about the 2000 election, you can't help but respect Gore for calling an end to the litigation...there will be no statesmanship from Pelosi/Trump when push comes to shove this time around.

so, isn't it time, like about now, to get conservative (pun intended) with respect to our investments? (I am).
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Gregmal on September 19, 2020, 11:09:22 PM
All I will mention is that Joe Biden spent much of his career as an establishment politician, warning and screaming about voter fraud. Now he has amnesia. And is banking on it.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 19, 2020, 11:59:51 PM
All I will mention is that Joe Biden spent much of his career as an establishment politician, warning and screaming about voter fraud. Now he has amnesia. And is banking on it.

It will be great if you can share a source.

Also, I feel with the utmost power comes utmost responsibility.  When a sitting president says they don't know whether they will accept the results of the election, and says that they don't know what they will do if they lose as they are a bad loser, that undermines the legitimacy of our elections and our democracy.  Now, that democracy is at bigger risk with Ruth Bader gone. 

Let us please all agree that democracy is sacrosanct, and that we don't want to risk losing it for ourselves and our kids.   Without democracy, we have nothing as investors as there is no rule of law we can rely on for our investments.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Gregmal on September 20, 2020, 12:15:12 AM
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 20, 2020, 12:44:03 AM
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

Thanks Gregmal.  I looked at your source.

(1) It is one thing for someone to work over the years with others on taking steps to prevent/reduce voter fraud, e.g. by supporting laws that have stiff penalties for voter fraud.

(2) It is another thing for a sitting president to say that he doesn't know whether he will honor the results of the election, and that he doesn't know what he will do do if he loses the election and that he is a bad loser.

#1 can help build the legitimacy of our elections and create a stronger democracy, while #2 delegitimizes our elections and creates a risk to our democracy.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cubsfan on September 20, 2020, 09:38:24 AM
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

Thanks Gregmal.  I looked at your source.

(1) It is one thing for someone to work over the years with others on taking steps to prevent/reduce voter fraud, e.g. by supporting laws that have stiff penalties for voter fraud.

(2) It is another thing for a sitting president to say that he doesn't know whether he will honor the results of the election, and that he doesn't know what he will do do if he loses the election and that he is a bad loser.

#1 can help build the legitimacy of our elections and create a stronger democracy, while #2 delegitimizes our elections and creates a risk to our democracy.

What is this nonsense about Trump not honoring the election results?

Where is your anger for Hillary Clinton advising Joe Biden to NOT CONCEDE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES??

Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Rod on September 20, 2020, 09:55:16 AM
It seems reasonable to take some risk off the table given the possibilities. The few stocks I own are Canadian and all seem very cheap to me, so I’m staying fully invested. I might think differently if I owned highly priced US stocks. I think your concerns are very valid at least in the short term.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 20, 2020, 10:28:48 AM
What is this nonsense about Trump not honoring the election results?

Where is your anger for Hillary Clinton advising Joe Biden to NOT CONCEDE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES??

I'd like to request that we model respectful behavior for each other and not let ourselves be influenced by leaders not modeling such behavior.

You can watch Fox News interview of Trump here, starting at 37:13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6XdpDOH1JA.

It is (1) one thing for a sitting president to be saying these words, and (2) another thing for someone who is not a sitting president recommending that in response.

#1 undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cubsfan on September 20, 2020, 11:11:12 AM
What is this nonsense about Trump not honoring the election results?

Where is your anger for Hillary Clinton advising Joe Biden to NOT CONCEDE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES??

I'd like to request that we model respectful behavior for each other and not let ourselves be influenced by leaders not modeling such behavior.

You can watch Fox News interview of Trump here, starting at 37:13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6XdpDOH1JA.

It is (1) one thing for a sitting president to be saying these words, and (2) another thing for someone who is not a sitting president recommending that in response.

#1 undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 20, 2020, 11:26:03 AM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of the underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know if they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

The risk amplifies when that sitting President starts using his power to do things that might make it easier to do that also.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Gregmal on September 20, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
If I remember correctly, Hillary was one of the only candidates in history, to not concede on election night. And it is not like the results were close. This, after she hooted up a storm of conspiracy about Trump "not accepting the election results"...
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cubsfan on September 20, 2020, 11:30:27 AM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know what they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

^ I have no idea what you just said - but it appears to be another pathetic attempt to not condemn the Democrats for "undermining our democracy"
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: wabuffo on September 20, 2020, 11:30:45 AM
Please move this thread to the politics section, please...

wabuffo
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Viking on September 20, 2020, 11:49:25 AM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know what they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

^ I have no idea what you just said - but it appears to be another pathetic attempt to not condemn the Democrats for "undermining our democracy"

Learningmachine, thank you for your comments. Rational, factual, balanced. No name calling. Refreshing :-)
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cherzeca on September 20, 2020, 12:02:10 PM
Please move this thread to the politics section, please...

wabuffo

this is an investment thread...at least it was supposed to be.

unfortunately, the typical CoBF board poster is a nerdy, model-using, pocket protector geek who watches [CNN][Fox] incessantly and eats popcorn while studying specious covid community spread models and 538 polls.  I think I will go back and hide in the GSE thread...
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: writser on September 20, 2020, 12:36:51 PM
Please move this thread to the politics section, please...

wabuffo

Yes please. I’m sure that those who want to make enormous amounts of money by participating in this valuable discussion can continue doing so in the politics section. They should be happy that an astute investor like Bill will not continue reading this thread: the fewer people know about the inefficiencies discussed here, the more you can earn. Don’t share the spoils with those too ignorant to listen.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cubsfan on September 20, 2020, 03:00:48 PM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know what they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

^ I have no idea what you just said - but it appears to be another pathetic attempt to not condemn the Democrats for "undermining our democracy"

Learningmachine, thank you for your comments. Rational, factual, balanced. No name calling. Refreshing :-)

Yeah, makes total sense. Continue the fear mongering/hysteria of the current President, while ignoring the same behavior of the candidate that wanted to be President. Very rational...and balanced...
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Gregmal on September 20, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know what they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

^ I have no idea what you just said - but it appears to be another pathetic attempt to not condemn the Democrats for "undermining our democracy"

Learningmachine, thank you for your comments. Rational, factual, balanced. No name calling. Refreshing :-)

Yeah, makes total sense. Continue the fear mongering/hysteria of the current President, while ignoring the same behavior of the candidate that wanted to be President. Very rational...and balanced...

Let them. Its really only to their own detriment. I have a German investor(senior partner at top 5 global law firm, so obviously not some total retard) who's been bitching about how Trump is going to ruin America since early 2018. He's literally the guy MSM writes articles for. Totally wrapped up in the hysteria. He's insisted on being in CDs with a small exposure to a DAX based ETF to "ride it out". In hind site of course he still thinks he was/is right and that the US based managed account he has with me is just "luck". Idiots will be idiots but fear/hysteria can often throw average to even capable folks into the same results barrel. Look at Howard Marks and his March-June commentary. Pure tail chasing. As some say, "ignore the crowds". Every administration brings with it a new trade theme. Some just more than others. Embrace it and exploit it. Let the media cultivate/groom the people who will take the other side of the trade for you.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Castanza on September 20, 2020, 04:12:12 PM
Besides my position in TPL; I think avoiding fossil fuels may be wise. A Biden presidency will not be kind to this industry. Even if the fear turns out to be unwarranted, I think there could be further pullback.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 20, 2020, 04:42:38 PM
Total nonsense, Hillary Clinton ran for President of the United States, she is a Democratic icon and leader.

Excusing her behavior is pathetic.

Using words like nonsense and pathetic distracts from the logic of underlying argument, unless that is what you're going for.  So does trying to argue that someone else did the same thing, and trying to shift the argument to saying that someone else was in the same position as the president.

I'm not trying to justify what Hillary Clinton said.  I agree with you that saying such words undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections.

When someone who is not just running for President, but is a President, says stronger words that they are a bad loser and that they don't know what they will accept the results of the election, it undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of our elections lot more, because it brings images of that person not leaving office, and introduces risk of that person turning into a dictator.

^ I have no idea what you just said - but it appears to be another pathetic attempt to not condemn the Democrats for "undermining our democracy"

Learningmachine, thank you for your comments. Rational, factual, balanced. No name calling. Refreshing :-)

Yeah, makes total sense. Continue the fear mongering/hysteria of the current President, while ignoring the same behavior of the candidate that wanted to be President. Very rational...and balanced...

Let them. Its really only to their own detriment. I have a German investor(senior partner at top 5 global law firm, so obviously not some total retard) who's been bitching about how Trump is going to ruin America since early 2018. He's literally the guy MSM writes articles for. Totally wrapped up in the hysteria. He's insisted on being in CDs with a small exposure to a DAX based ETF to "ride it out". In hind site of course he still thinks he was/is right and that the US based managed account he has with me is just "luck". Idiots will be idiots but fear/hysteria can often throw average to even capable folks into the same results barrel. Look at Howard Marks and his March-June commentary. Pure tail chasing. As some say, "ignore the crowds". Every administration brings with it a new trade theme. Some just more than others. Embrace it and exploit it. Let the media cultivate/groom the people who will take the other side of the trade for you.

No reason to use words like idiots.  They distract from rational thinking.

For the record, I'm not suggesting to be in CDs.  Because of our democratic institutions, and because our judiciary is still somewhat independent, in my mind, I've risk of Trump turning into a dictator to be around 5% despite his tendencies to worship dictators and be like dictators.  Low enough probability for me to be ready to invest if the market drops during all the turmoil.

In my mind, the risk of Biden turning into a dictator is orders of magnitude lower, less than 0.1%.  Even though the risk of Trump turning into a dictator is only about 5% in my mind, because of the severity of that probability, I'd unfortunately pick higher taxes over that risk.  The risk of destabilization from Trump trying to divide us makes the choice clearer.  By not being a good role model for citizens, choice becomes clearer.  You can see in this thread alone that people are using similar language to Trump's.  I wonder if these folks were like this 10 years ago in public also.  I'd rather have a better role model for my kids and citizens around me.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Gregmal on September 20, 2020, 05:09:41 PM
I just want to clarify, I was not calling you or anyone else an idiot. I was trying to convey that getting wrapped up in hysteria/fear driven narratives can propel average or even highly capable people into the same categories as idiots on a results oriented basis.

As for role models for our kids, well I guess I do have something in common ideologically with the BLM folks. The way they look at all cops, is the way I look at all politicians. Worthless scum. And I will, if the time ever comes, convey to my kids that there are certainly more fulfilling and less scumbag leech ways to make a living. Doesnt matter who is in office. I dont think anyone should aspire to be like these people. Do we really think Biden is a role model? He hides in his basement, gets cosmetic surgery to look more "likable", hires people to tell him what to say, changes course(like with voting fraud and many other things) on a dime depending upon where the wind is blowing, and makes a living off you, me, and the rest of taxpaying citizens....the number one thing I hope to instill in my kids is self worth and confidence. Dont be a spineless coward who relies on others to feel valuable...the antithesis of a politician.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: LearningMachine on September 20, 2020, 05:20:42 PM
I just want to clarify, I was not calling you or anyone else an idiot. I was trying to convey that getting wrapped up in hysteria/fear driven narratives can propel average or even highly capable people into the same categories as idiots on a results oriented basis.

As for role models for our kids, well I guess I do have something in common ideologically with the BLM folks. The way they look at all cops, is the way I look at all politicians. Worthless scum. And I will, if the time ever comes, convey to my kids that there are certainly more fulfilling and less scumbag leech ways to make a living. Doesnt matter who is in office. I dont think anyone should aspire to be like these people. Do we really think Biden is a role model? He hides in his basement, gets cosmetic surgery to look more "likable", hires people to tell him what to say, changes course(like with voting fraud and many other things) on a dime depending upon where the wind is blowing, and makes a living off you, me, and the rest of taxpaying citizens....the number one thing I hope to instill in my kids is self worth and confidence. Dont be a spineless coward who relies on others to feel valuable...the antithesis of a politician.

Thanks Gregmal for clarifying.

I agree with you that I wouldn't explicitly point out any politician to be a role model to our kids.

That said, our leaders end up becoming defacto role models for the public at large.  So, I think we do have to consider who our leaders are from the perspective of what kind of people we want around us because some of the people around will start acting like our leaders over time.  Sometimes, the influence may not be that strong.  However, because Trump is very vocal and extreme with his offensive language and non-empathetic way of thinking, it does rub off on people. 

At my company, I've been leading folks for a long time, and have come to realize that folks follow what I do, what I say, what I wear, etc.  Our company also puts all leaders through leadership training regularly, which reminds us the same thing, that whether we want it or not, folks get influenced by how leaders talk, think, etc.

Beyond language, role modeling also helps with getting folks to take the right action.  For example, in Canada, Trudeau wore a mask and that influenced more Canadians to follow him as well, helping them contain it better than here.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Rod on September 21, 2020, 03:58:00 AM
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

Thanks Gregmal.  I looked at your source.

(1) It is one thing for someone to work over the years with others on taking steps to prevent/reduce voter fraud, e.g. by supporting laws that have stiff penalties for voter fraud.

(2) It is another thing for a sitting president to say that he doesn't know whether he will honor the results of the election, and that he doesn't know what he will do do if he loses the election and that he is a bad loser.

#1 can help build the legitimacy of our elections and create a stronger democracy, while #2 delegitimizes our elections and creates a risk to our democracy.

What is this nonsense about Trump not honoring the election results?

Where is your anger for Hillary Clinton advising Joe Biden to NOT CONCEDE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES??

I don’t know what you are referring to but the story I read from Reuters about Clinton was that Biden should not concede on election night due to the large number of provisional/mail in ballots expected to be cast. Why should anyone be angry about that?
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: cubsfan on September 21, 2020, 09:03:01 AM
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

Thanks Gregmal.  I looked at your source.

(1) It is one thing for someone to work over the years with others on taking steps to prevent/reduce voter fraud, e.g. by supporting laws that have stiff penalties for voter fraud.

(2) It is another thing for a sitting president to say that he doesn't know whether he will honor the results of the election, and that he doesn't know what he will do do if he loses the election and that he is a bad loser.

#1 can help build the legitimacy of our elections and create a stronger democracy, while #2 delegitimizes our elections and creates a risk to our democracy.

What is this nonsense about Trump not honoring the election results?

Where is your anger for Hillary Clinton advising Joe Biden to NOT CONCEDE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES??

I don’t know what you are referring to but the story I read from Reuters about Clinton was that Biden should not concede on election night due to the large number of provisional/mail in ballots expected to be cast. Why should anyone be angry about that?

Like the quote said "under any circumstances" -for example, a landslide Trump victory - Biden should not concede. No qualifications. No excuses.
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: wabuffo on September 21, 2020, 09:48:41 AM
I've seen many good boards ruined because of political discussions slowly polluting investment discussion and then overwhelming it.  It's Gresham's Law for investment boards and none of us can resist it, unfortunately.

The moderator of this board made a wise decision to create a Politics sub-board where folks can get to argue all they want.  And others are free to ignore the sub-board entirely.

I know everyone argues that they're simply trying to understand the "investment implications" of .... "is so-and-so politician X an asshole? (and, oh, how will it affect my stocks?)" - but this thread is a good example of how even the most altruistic of intentions degenerates quickly.

Let's not continue this topic here under the General Investment Discussion and move it to the Politics Board (or start it over under that sub-board).  Y'all have done a great job of maintaining a high quality of investment discussion so far.  I worry that the next few months and beyond are going to be difficult to not have the political posts carrying over across all topics, so let's try hard to resist the impulse to post political threads outside the politics sub-board.

wabuffo
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Cigarbutt on September 21, 2020, 04:14:19 PM
I've seen many good boards ruined because of political discussions slowly polluting investment discussion and then overwhelming it.  It's Gresham's Law for investment boards and none of us can resist it, unfortunately.
...

...even the most altruistic of intentions degenerates quickly.

...the next few months and beyond are going to be difficult to not have the political posts carrying over across all topics, so let's try hard to resist the impulse to post political threads outside the politics sub-board.
wabuffo
Some resistance and then surrender.
You likely know that Gresham's Law's meaning has changed over time (generalizability vs validity), that it may not really 'belong' to Gresham and that conditions are required for the Law to apply. Somebody you like has reflected on that.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/greshams-law/
Some attribute the bad money driving out the good one to Gresham but there are other candidates such as Oresme (medieval treaty on money) and even Copernicus. However the origin likely comes from Aristophanes in his play The Frogs, which is eerily relevant for this thread and your post:

"This city, it often seems to me treats our best and worthiest citizens the way it does our old silver coins, our new gold ones, as well. This money was never counterfeit — no, these coins appeared to be the finest coins of all, the only ones which bore the proper stamp. Everywhere among barbarians and Greeks they stood the test. But these we do not use. Instead we have our debased coins of bronze, poorly struck some days ago or yesterday. That’s how we treat our finest citizens, the nobly born, our righteous men, our best and brightest, the ones well trained in music and the dance at the palaestra. Instead we use foreign bronze for everything — useless men from useless fathers, red heads, men who’ve come here very recently — the sort the city at its most negligent would never use in earlier days, not even as a scapegoat. But now, you silly fools, it’s time to change your ways. Use worthy people once again. You’ll see — if you’re successful, then you’ll merit praise. And if you fail, well, you’ll be a fine match for the tree you’re hanging from. At any rate, should you slip up, that’s what the wise will say."

The message in the play obviously is not economical or financial. This was the fifth century and Aristophanes (like this humble poster) witnessed the degradation of politics and called for some kind of renewal. His real point was that bad politicians tend to drive out good ones. One can argue that this was the last masterpiece of classical art and decaying politics was a presage for decaying democracy and conquest by the Macedonia, signaling the end of the Athenian adventure. It was meant to be a comical play but the second part is less funny and the outcome, sad.

i'm in the process of fighting these trends with the tools i have but i've come to agree that this anonymous investment forum is not the place to do it.

----)
Back to name-calling, insults, ad hominems etc
Title: Re: The Terrible Inadequacy of US Election Law-Market Implications
Post by: Mephistopheles on September 24, 2020, 08:51:22 AM
Back to the topic at hand. What is the best way to bet on chaos this November and in the lame duck period? Currently I am about 40% cash, but am looking to invest that in some high quality dividend payers hedged with portfolio margin. I think it is a guarantee this election season will be chaotic and uncertain and we will probably see huge swings. How are you all preparing? Long VIX? Long S&P puts? Some of this stuff is priced in, but surprisingly not as much as I thought it would be. The VIX is at 29, but nowhere near the high during March. I've never shorted or hedged but feel it would be a good thing to bet on a tail scenario.