While Trump’s and the Republican ascendency in power may be a disaster for American democracy, such as it is, a few tiny glimmers of financial sunlight peek through the darkness.
For the purposes of this post, we’ll ignore the astounding parallels between Trump and Hitler while focusing on the few near-term benefits.
Here are a few excerpts from an article in USA TODAY:
Stocks soared on news of Trump’s election. Bonds sank. Here’s why. Story by Daniel de Visé, As Donald Trump emerged victorious in the presidential election Wednesday, stock prices soared. As the stock market rose, the bond market fell. Stocks roared to record highs Wednesday in the wake of news of Trump’s triumph, signaling an end to the uncertainty of the election cycle and, perhaps, a vote of confidence in his plans for the national economy, some economists said. On the same day, the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds rose to 4.479%, a four-month high. A higher bond yield means a declining bond market: Bond prices fall as yields rise. While stock traders rejoiced, bond traders voiced unease with Trump’s fiscal plans. Trump campaigned on a promise to keep taxes low.
It will be great news for the economy if he keeps that promise. Federal taxes are recessive. They remove dollars from the private sector and transfer them to the federal government, where they are destroyed.
Taxes are paid with dollars from the M2 money supply measure. When they reach the Treasury, they cease to be part of any money supply measure. Effectively, they are destroyed. Destroying M2 dollars is recessive.
Because the federal government can infinitely create dollars at the touch of a computer key, a money supply measure of federal dollars would make no sense.
No matter how many tax dollars you send to the federal government, the federal money supply measure will always be the same: infinite. That is because the U.S. government, unlike state and local governments, is Monetarily Sovereign.
It is 100% impossible for the federal government to unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollars it created from thin air in the early 1800s.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”
He also proposed sweeping tariffs on imported goods.
This will be bad news for the economy. Import tariffs are federal taxes. Like all other federal taxes, they are paid with M2 dollars that are destroyed when they reach the Treasury. Destroying dollars is recessive.
Economic growth is measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP=Federal Spending + Non-Federal Spending – Net Imports. GDP growth requires money supply growth.
Worse, tariffs increase consumer prices, which means they add to inflation.
Even worse, tariffs invite retaliatory tariffs. They also reduce exports, which are part of the Gross Domestic Product.
Economists predict a widening deficit in Trump presidency Economists warn that Trump’s plans to preserve and extend tax cuts will widen the federal budget deficit,which stands at $1.8 trillion.
Contrary to popular wisdom, widening the federal budget deficit is good news for the economy. It means the government is pouring more growth dollars into the economy than it is taking out.
Deficits are the net amount of growth dollars the federal government adds to the economy. The federal debt is the net total of all previous deficits, i.e. the net total of all growth dollars the federal government has added to the economy.
Tariffs, meanwhile, could reignite inflation, which the Federal Reserve has battled to cool.
To summarize, import tariffs have two bad outcomes: They increase inflation and remove growth dollars from the economy.
Their ostensible purpose is to protect U.S. industry. A far wiser approach would be to cut federal taxes on businesses and support designated businesses with federal cash and favorable laws.
One example is federal farm subsidies, which boost farm profits without increasing consumer costs.
For bond investors, those worries translate to rising yields. The yield is the interest rate, the amount investors expect to receive in exchange for lending money: in this case, to the federal government.
Technical point: Because the federal government has the infinite ability to create dollars, it never borrows dollars. Though corporate bonds do represent corporate borrowing, federal bonds do not represent federal borrowing. The same word has two different meanings.
These bonds represent dollars deposited into T-bond accounts for safekeeping. The government never touches the money; it remains the property of the depositor. The purpose is to provide a save place for money holders to keep unused dollars.
The Chinese, for example, would be loath to store their billions of unused dollars in private banks.
In the current economic cycle, bond investors “might perceive there to be more risk of holding U.S. debt if there’s not an eye on a plan for reducing spending.
False. There is no spending-related risk for storing dollars in T-security accounts. The dollars always are 100% safe. This is diametrically the opposite with private sector bonds, which do suffer repayment risk.
The 10-year Treasury bond is considered a benchmark in the bond market. The yield on those bonds “began to climb weeks ago, as investors anticipated a Trump win,” The New York Times reported, “and on Wednesday, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes jumped as much 0.2 percentage points, a huge move in that market.”
This all was mere speculation, having nothing to do with real risk. Bond traders anticipated that other bond traders would think there was more risk, so they acted accordingly. It was a lemming-like approach to trading — trying to do what everyone else was going to do, before they did it.
When deficit growth decreases, we have recessions (vertical gray bars) which are cured by deficit growth increases. The reason: A growing economy requires a growing supply of money.Long-term bond yields are rising because “many investors expect that the federal government under Trump will maintain high deficit spending,” according to Bankrate, the personal finance site.
The federal government could double or triple its spending without accepting one additional dollar in deposits. Federal spending is not contingent on non-existent federal “borrowing.”
In a broader sense, bond investors worry that “we’re living beyond our means in the United States, and we have been for a very long time,” said Todd Jablonski, global head of multi-asset investing for Principal Asset Management.
This is utter nonsense. The U.S. federal government has infinite “means.” It cannot run short of dollars.
Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”
Over the long term, Jablonski said, investors “fear that the United States’s creditworthiness is not as impeccable as it was once considered to be.” As the federal deficit grows, investors take on greater risk, and they expect to be paid a higher interest rate for loaning money to the government.
That is absolutely untrue. In 1940, when the federal debt (deposits) totaled only $400 Billion, pundits called it a “ticking time bomb.”
Exactly the same language has been used every year since. Today, after 84 years of hand-wringing, the pundits still make the same claim about our $30 Trillion debt, and we are no closer to insolvency than we were then.
This is part of the Big Lie in economics, where even respected economists continue to make the same “Earth-is-flat.” statements.
Perhaps it is taught in high schools or discussed over drinks. I can’t say, but it seldom is questioned. Strange.
If you would like to watch economists stutter, ask them:
“If federal deficits are bad, why do we run deficits to cure recessions?”
Neither Trump nor Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris offered a convincing plan to reduce the deficit on the campaign trail, economists said.
Politicians don’t reduce the deficit because it involves two steps—both economically bad: tax increases and/or spending reduction. Both are recessionary.
Harris promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations as a source of new revenue.
Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans has some value, but not for revenue generation. The beneficial purpose would be to narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
Trump, by contrast, pledged to extend and even deepen his previous tax cuts. Trump has made a case that economic growth and job creation would naturally boost revenue.
Trump is correct on both counts. Deepening tax cuts benefits the economy, though he probably would again deepen them for the rich, thereby widening the income/wealth/power Gap, a terrible outcome.
Depending on the details, revenue might be boosted, but that would be bad for the economy.
The bond market may not be convinced. “If there’s a Republican sweep of House, Senate and the presidency, I expect the bond market to be wobbly,” said Jeremy Siegel, finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, speaking to CNBC on Election Day.
Yes, the bond market might be “wobbly” (whatever that means), not for functional reasons, ut rather because the Jeremy Siegels of the world predict wobbliness.
In Summary:
The federal government is uniquely Monetarily Sovereign over the U.S. dollar. It cannot unintentionally run short of dollars.
The federal government does not borrow dollars or owe so-called “debt.” The dollars deposited in T-security accounts are wholly owned by depositors, whom the government pays merely by returning their dollars.
The purpose of federal bonds is not to provide the government with spending money. The purpose is to provide a safe place for dollar holders to store unused dollars. This stabilized the value of the dollar.
Federal deficit spending and “debt” are not a burden on the government or taxpayers, nor are they a risk to depositors.
Economic growth requires federal deficit spending, which adds growth dollars. When deficits are too low, we have recessions, which are cured by increased deficits.
The following outlines what may be typical of Republican healthcare:
Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced Florida would be the first state to recommend against COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children. Ladapo has made it clear he believes the science behind COVID-19 recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions is lacking.
Studies show how big a difference theCOVID vaccines can make.
Those who are unvaccinated are 11 times more likely to diefrom COVID-19 compared to those are vaccinated, according to recent data from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention.
Unvaccinated people are also about four and a half times more likely to get COVID and over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized.
He also appeared with and praised America’s Frontline Doctors, a group of pro-Trump health care workers that has spreadmisinformation about the pandemic.
———————————————-
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children. Here are some key points:
Safety: Large-scale studies and continuous monitoring have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for children. Serious adverse events are rare, and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
Efficacy: Vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes in children. For example, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was found to be 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 in children aged 12-15.
While there are rare cases of adverse events, such as myocarditis, the overall risk remains very low compared to the benefits of vaccination. The CDC and other health organizations continue to recommend vaccination for children to protect their health and prevent the spread of COVID-19.
NIH Study: A study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimated that COVID-19 vaccinations prevented up to 140,000 deaths in the U.S. by May 2021. The study highlighted the vital role of vaccines in saving lives and controlling the pandemic1.
Oxford Study: Researchers at the University of Oxford found that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the severity of illness in vaccinated individuals. The study showed a reduction in harmful inflammatory responses to the virus, which are associated with severe disease.
BMJ Study: A countrywide study in Scotland found that vaccination was 90% effective in preventing deaths caused by the Delta variant of COVID-19. This study analyzed over 114,000 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Long COVID Study: A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that COVID-19 vaccinations played a key role in reducing the risk of Long COVID. The study showed that the risk of developing Long COVID dropped significantly among vaccinated individuals.
Embalmers and funeral home workers say they are noticing an increase in unusual blood clots among the deceased.
Some of them, without evidence, are attributing it to the COVID-19 vaccines.
One of the claims comes from an article titled “Embalmers finding ‘strange clots’ in jabbed people” and published by NewsWars, a website run by Alex Jones that has a history of spreading fake news and conspiracy theories.
“I actually pulled this long, fibrous-looking clot out prior to embalming … . At the front end of it, it looks like a normal blood clot, but that white fibrous-looking stuff just isn’t normal,” Alabama embalmer Richard Hirschman was quoted in the article as saying.
Hirschman added that “my gut is telling me” it’s caused by the vaccine.
Hirschman shared similar claims on the “Dr. Jane Ruby Show,” and with PolitiFact when we contacted him.
John O’Looney of Milton Keynes Family Funeral Services based in the United Kingdom made similar claims to InfoWars, another conspiracy-oriented website run by Jones, suggesting that “the experimental shot” could be to blame.