You need a PLUS account to view this content. Try one month of PLUS for FREE.
Already have an account? log in
Tariffs, Taxes And Fiscal Policy
I think I've made it abundantly clear by now what I think of US election analysis that doesn't deal directly with the high likelihood of a disputed vote, the distinct possibility that a loss for Donald Trump could result in violence and the tail risk of autocracy in a Trump win: Analysis that doesn't address those issues is worse than useless, as the late Charlie Munger might put it.
Ignoring those issues would be excusable were it not for the fact that the last election was disputed, led to vi
I was delighted to see Caspar Milquetoast’s name evoked. A childhood hero of fine. I am lucky enough to own a couple of books of H.T. Webster’s work.
Goldman also appears to have conveniently skirted the economic impact of Trump’s promise of “the largest mass deportations in history” starting on day one. Maybe that’s another political third rail they’d prefer not to mention.
Today’s FT has a column looking at just that:
https://www.ft.com/content/08a857cd-a44a-4407-a54d-004467f300c4?accessToken=zwAGGa1Tt6mwkc8IqFfNpEpEB9OlTQBEZ_MAxA.MEUCIEGH22cuQYfdoUgKfNNl1X8KxKwYU8UCysCqSWOvUBXbAiEAjxEaKExX6T1EqX8UpcHub9X9eL8O0WvagQAwdUJMDdA&sharetype=gift&token=9165d553-4b0f-434f-ac3f-c2763b4300ed
The most common way that projects and companies fail catastrophically is to ignore the big risks. In this case they are definitely ignoring the big risks whilst peddling their missive as a risk analysis. Worse that useless analysis for sure.
What is particularly short sighted is that the big risks are exceptionally cheap to insure against. I wonder if someone is not selling insurance that pays in the event of insurrection?
Sorry Goldman, but I am filing this under worse than useless. Maybe if they teased out their estimates another decimal point or two, things would be clearer …
This must be the sellside equivalent of “publish or perish”.