Naturally, the GOP would have you believe that if Joe Biden’s reelected, or if Democrats win more sway on Capitol Hill, inflation will worsen anew and America’s fiscal credibility will suffer further.
Maybe that’s true maybe it isn’t, but when you think about the Republican agenda — which at this point’s synonymous with Donald Trump’s agenda — it looks pretty inflationary to me. And there’s exactly nothing in it to suggest the GOP intends to put forward a serious, credible plan to address what the party insists is ruinous fiscal profligacy.
You’re reminded that the historical record shows Republicans to be no better than Democrats when it comes to fiscal rectitude. Arguably, the GOP’s worse, supply-side economics being a meritless cult of charlatans and such.
Trump wants to raise tariffs, cut taxes, curtail immigration and, one assumes, rekindle his “maximum pressure” campaign targeting the Iranian oil sector. All of that’s inflationary. There’s also every reason to believe he’d attempt to insert himself into the monetary policy decision making process, Erdogan style. Some banks are beginning to discuss those risks.
There are “larger risks to inflation and bond returns under a Republican sweep,” Goldman’s Daan Struyven and Lina Thomas wrote this week, in a note called “Your (Golden) Inflation Hedge for US Elections.” I imagine this is obvious from the title, but the bank suspects there are worse ideas than buying gold ahead of the US election.
The figure above gives you a sense of how different commodities can help hedge different sorts of inflation risks.
“We see significant value in long gold positions as a hedge against the risk of inflationary US policies after the elections from geopolitical shocks including tariffs, Fed subordination risk and debt fears,” Goldman said, adding that “higher tariffs, slower immigration, and tighter sanctions on Iranian oil on the supply side, and lower taxes, and stronger attempts to influence Fed policy on the demand side,” all point to larger upside inflation risks in a Republican sweep scenario than any other potential election outcome.
That analysis isn’t likely to play well with the gold crowd, which tends to skew ineluctably right on the political spectrum. Alas, it is what it is: Populism’s inflationary, regardless of where a given party or politician claims to reside on the left-right continuum. And the MAGA movement’s unapologetically populist.
Goldman’s base case for gold is $2,700 by year-end predicated on “solid demand” from EM monetary sovereigns and households in Asia, but Struyven and Thomas flagged an additional 15% upside in the event of new financial sanctions and similar upside potential “in a context of potential rising concerns about US debt.”
The bank also mentioned tension between Jerome Powell and the man who put him charge. “With the expiration of Chair Powell’s term in May 2026 and the previous Trump Administration more vocal than its predecessors about the Fed stance, there may be greater market concern about the potential for Fed subordination, ” Struyven and Thomas went on. Any evidence of Fed subordination could “strongly support gold prices,” they said.
Given Trump’s affinity for shiny yellow metal, I suppose he’s well-hedged against his own worst impulses and foibles.
I bought a sailboat capable of sailing across oceans to hedge the possibility of Trump winning the election.
Did you already register it as a US vessel? If you want to be “anonymous”, you might consider registration in Bikini, Marshall Islands (they have offices in the US).
great suggestion.
Sailboats are great, but in the last pandemic many were unable to enter the lovely ports otherwise accessible in them. Who knows what might happen with a worldwide outbreak of the virulent Trump magavirus…?
Trump’s proposals are Stagflationary. Tariffs are a consumption tax. Trump is not a true populist unless you think schwartzman, dimon, ackman are regular voters..a better characterization of his proposals are bad policy and regressive. Except for the blatant nativism it is hard to say Trump is a populist.
+1
I spoke with some British politicians once about Trump Populism after 2016. I said to them I do not know what you mean by populism, but he did not win a majority of the vote. They said the word populism implied winning a majority of the vote. What we had then is he won a majority of the electoral college, not the people. Therefore he always was and always will be a minority candidate not a populist.
Honestly, is that not a No True Scotsman fallacy?
Without saying that Trump is as bad as Hitler or whatever, this program is pure 1930s fascism, except for the lack of a clear industrial component. Like, Trump seems to think that closing the borders to foreign goods will be enough to stimulate US substitution by magic. Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were a bit more forceful there.
And, for the record, the top industrialists of the 30s were usually able to come to terms with the fascists so nothing new there.
I expect we are very likely to end up with a split government: House and presidency to the Dems, Senate to the Reps. Given that, I expect no stimulus (tax cuts or spending) and bonds to outperform as the Fed is the only game in town as the economy slows.
If Trump does pull off another coup and has the House and Senate at his disposal, I’d still expect bonds to outperform as he’ll go full Erdogan and install puppets in the Fed who are tasked with cutting interest rates, inflation be damned.
+1
It is heartening that some rational minds are laying out reasonable risks of the upcoming election. This is focused on the peaceful transition event. The Roger Stone version of power assumption will throw us further for a loop.
I’m thinking sell the gold and hope Trump doesn’t find a way to default on Treasuries. We’d likely be in for a 1930s style deflation, as followed https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp
I’m surprised how unperturbed and nonchalant everyone here is.
Either you are the smart ones or this is a replay of Germany in the 1930s.
Really what can a person do? We have one vote and one mouth. We might convince a few others but really the best way to convince is quiet and firm resistance.
I am in a borderline area and I think I am most effective when helping others realize there is great economic potential in the future, optimism crushes the burn it all down mentality. I also tell the people talking of civil war that never in the history of man has the privileged class revolted against the tyranny of the poor, thereby dismissing the tough talk of 80 year olds who talk of civil war but could not dig their own fox hole. Now if the homeless poor in the cities were talking of civil war then we would have a problem.
Getting angry will not convince another person. Only by seeing a rock of sense and optimism do people waver in their radicalism.
Wall street and CEO’s have a much bigger megaphone and pulpit from which to command respect than I ever will have. So all I feel I can do is to support efforts to recognize and rationalize risks.
We can also hope the Dolly Parton’s and Taylor Swifts of the world help us out. Certainly there is only so much they can do, but supporting them is job one.
Biden by leaving law enforcement to do what they do, is quietly gathering every word, keystroke and angry statement. Even Roger Stone and Alito are being recorded in person. With modern surveillance techniques like sensing window vibrations we can listen in without a microphone. So no I do not think the risk is like Hitler’s Germany, there are wanna be Himmlers like Steven Miller and Bannon, but they are going to find their support ranks to be filled with undercover types. Even the orange one is by this time fully surrounded by undercover types. If they dare mobilize there will be arrests and these ‘good’ people will be in prison just like Jan. 6 participants. Win at the ballot box is however an imperative.
I’d like to disagree on your assessment of the roots of civil wars. Plenty of times the upper classes have rebelled to preserve their privileges. More often than not, they lost coz there is a lot less of them (“quantity has a quality all of its own”, as Clausewitz puts it) but they are eternally optimistic that superior breeding will translate into superior battlefield performance…
I like this counterpoint. My resource on this is from successful revolutions, so indeed I could be misplaced in my rhetoric. Accuracy is important to me.
Thanks and you’re welcome.
Love the image for this article!