At this point, you will have read numerous takes, predictions and analyses of what four more years of Mr. Trump in the White House means. I promise that I will make this short. I think Sam Harris’ “The Reckoning” offers a good explanation of what went wrong for the Democrats and the liberals. I also enjoyed the discussion between Glenn Loury and Daniel Bessner, even if I strongly disagree with Mr. Bessner on a number of key areas. If you want a longer explanation of the ills that have befallen US Democrats, unrelated to the diagnosis of excessive wokeness and identity politics, you should read Thomas Franks’ “Listen, Liberal”, published on the eve of the Democrat’s first loss to Mr. Trump in 2016. It’s all there, with a straight line back to Frank’s earlier identification of the problem when he asked “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Apart from that, we should also add that Mr. Trump simply ran a superior campaign to Kamala Harris. After all, you don’t win all the swing states through luck or due to bad opposition alone.
Read MoreThere’s been a lot of talk about the political center* in Europe in the past few weeks, in the wake of the French parliamentary elections and the landslide victory for Labour in the UK. Is it reinvigorated, complacent, or perhaps just lucky? I offer two thoughts on this.
Firstly, sometimes a long-in-the-tooth incumbent is sacrificed on the altar of change no matter how reasonable or uncontroversial he or she is. In the context the most recent elections in Europe, this applies mostly to France, where the people has a tendency to throw their leaders under the bus, for no other reason that they’ve been in power for a bit too long. But I think it applies to England too, to an extent. Rishi Sunak and his cabinet weren’t that bad, or more specifically, the Sunak government was a lot of less controversial and risk-seeking than its Tory predecessors. But in the end, the weight of dissatisfaction and disillusion with previous iterations of Conservative cabinets were too much to bear. The Tories received the drubbing they deserved, having put their faith in a toxic mix of volatility and incompetence under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The doomed political and economic project of Brexit looms large in this story too. Whatever Labour decides to do with this smelling carcass of a political legacy, it brought the destruction of the Conservative party, and the right in UK politics, as we know it. Perhaps for that reason, Starmer will be inclined to leave it smelling for a bit longer, to remind people of what they’ll get should they consider jumping back into the Tory fold.
Read MoreJudging by the latest virus numbers in Europe, and government announcements to contain it, markets may soon have to read up on the math of lockdown economics. Before we get to that, though, investors have been locked in deep thought over the impact of the U.S. presidential elections, which seems to converge on trying to price in the consequences of a Biden victory and a “blue wave”. As I explained last week, investors seem to have concluded that this is good outcome for risk assets, though as I argued at the time, this isn’t entirely clear to me. To illuminate this further, it’s useful to consider how markets perceive a Blue wave in the context of the dollar and the U.S. bond market. As it turns out, the consensus position isn’t entirely clear, which is a hint. If markets can’t figure out how a Democratic sweep will impact the dollar and bonds, it’s difficult to have any view on how it would impact equities. The dollar is particularly interesting. It seems to me that analysts initially pinned recent weakness—effectively since April—on the inherent political risks associated with a Biden presidency, though it has since morphed into a bullish catalyst in the context of the expectation of surge in fiscal stimulus, funded by a benevolent and compliant Fed. Why this latter should necessarily be bearish for the dollar isn’t clear to me, especially not if it led to stronger growth in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. By contrast, the idea, voiced in some corners of the market, that the U.S. is on its way to print away its exorbitant privilege—in effect losing its reserve currency status—seems even more ludicrous to me, even in world where China is now emerging as a potential adversary.
Read MoreIt’s fair to say that markets are now starting to pay some attention to the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, and its potential implications for the price of key asset classes. As far the result goes, the incumbent Mr. Trump looks like a sitting duck. Mind you, that wouldn’t have been my position a month ago. I have been prejudiced towards the idea that a hapless Joe Biden and a “silent majority” in favor of Trump—or in opposition to the Democrats—would carry the president to a second term. Mr. Biden still seems hapless to me, and I suspect the silent voter is still on the president’s side. But neither of these tailwinds are likely to be enough to protect the incumbent from what is an increasingly disastrous performance in the face of the pandemic. Sure, we can argue that Trump has been dealt an unfortunate hand this year, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. My predictions notwithstanding, the simple reason a Biden presidency is worth contemplating is because it is the outcome that markets are now entertaining. Recently, this view has been augmented with the taster in the form of the idea of a Democratic sweep of the Senate and the House. To the extent that it is possible to summarise markets’ assumptions about what a triumph for the Democrats will look like, it seems to be a relatively positive story, for now. Once Republicans have been put out to pasture, the counterproductive wrangling over the next stimulus bill will make way for a huge fiscal push in Q1, and the Fed will welcome such action with unlimited and soothing QE. As analysts from BoFA put it succinctly on Friday:
Read More