Gods

Gods

An inegalitarian rally for an inegalitarian nation. That encapsulates a theme I've employed frequently in the wake of the pandemic. The social and economic realities of the post-COVID world transformed existing trends favoring America's tech titans into fixtures of human existence. To the extent human proclivities were becoming increasingly digital anyway, the pandemic made voluntary digitization necessary. Layered atop a market infrastructure which already served to funnel ever more money in
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

7 thoughts on “Gods

  1. It seems to me that we are really dealing with the long term consequences of the flattening of the tax code under Reagan. In order in reduce the gap, the government must step in the market never has and never will. Change the tax code back to 70% to anyone who makes over a million a year. Anyone making under 70k pays no taxes.

  2. The overvaluation of FAANG, and tech in general, can go on for a long time (as we’ve seen) — and longer than most rational analysts are willing to admit — but it can’t go on forever. Nothing does, and a true perpetual motion machine has yet to (and will not be) invented. Don’t know when the incredible run of FAANG will end, but when it does it is likely to be sudden and sharp. Until then, the game is to keep dancing, with an ear cocked, while the music’s playing.

  3. I agree just my opinion. Economic activity was more or less stable and predictable with the tax codes used prior to 1980 and the country as a whole was much betrer off, student loan debt credit card debt and car loan debt was either rarely used and or frowned upon. Families borrowed to buy a place to live and most everything else was bought with cash or people saved till they could afford to buy. Now we face a complete collapse with interest rates near zero the only way out of this mess is a complete reset of the economy and your support of rolling back the tax rates MUST HAPPEN

  4. The original idea that 70% discouraged some economic activity is not wrong. However this was then used as a way to aggressively give the wealthiest a less than 80% tax free income. Massive over-correction fueled by greed and neglect on the part of the victims.

  5. Ultimately FCF to the equity will be the barrier/limit. Growth has to continue while FCF yields have to make sense.

    A 5% grower is a 5% grower. It is not more special if it is tech vs health care etc.

    So a 2% FCF yield vs a 4% with the same growth offers opportunities.

    There are IBMs and GEs out there so be choosy.

    If they continue to show share growth, op leverage, and possibly pricing power then it can continue. If competition or consumer or biz failures limit some of that it gets challenging.

    Simple, huh?

    A lot of the above is priced in already for many.

  6. Oh how opinions evolve through time. Here we are admitting that FAGMAN + T are now Gods–and they are. You need something, you have question that needs answering you do not pray to a God and wait, you simply type it into the search engine. Gods take their bounty. We are in the mode to give up fighting it now. Acceptance stage of the Kubler-Ross model is now here. One parallel that I cannot help to revert to is 1998–going into that crisis tech led the way, it then led the way out into the Dotbomb top. History repeating. It may not be March 2000 yet, and there may yet be a day where NDX rises 30% or 50% in a month, who knows, but it would seem obvious that the clock is ticking. One wonders if post-Biden victory if there is a push towards an antitrust regime–its seems populists for sure but can you really see that populist urge overcoming the army of lobbyists that is dead set on stopping it.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints