Personally, I think the greatest shorting opportunities will be pairs trading the long side of commodities and shorting the companies that are sensitive to them, where profit and growth fall significantly from the inflation of specific commodities they need to buy to make finished products or transport them, and more so for companies that are not subsidized by defense and other government spending, and are not protected from tariffs.
And then you have the demand destruction equation and the vulnerability of demand for non-essential goods. Natural resources and productivity are real money, and are becoming more recognized as such when yields are not permitted to reflect the rate of inflation by the decree of governments. This is a feedback loop that no amount of capital controls can break without also breaking the system.
Interesting point of view, I personally think that western global companies will suffer the most, since they won’t be global anymore. Ie Microsoft and Apple will be easily replaced in the east by local companies and lose 100% of those market shares they now control. Riveting days ahead of us
Roberto Gonzalez is a good researcher who has done some interesting work on the intersection of Tech, Business and MIC, but his field in Anthropology is qualitative field, not a quantitative one. His research is surface level at best.
I’ve been meaning to read Miriam Pemberton's recent book “Six Stops on the National Security Tour—Rethinking Warfare Economics” to learn a deeper analysis on war economy and digging into comparative ecosystems in China, Russia, etc.
We need analysts with quantitative backgrounds in Tech, Business, Law, Economics and Politics that can map out how STEM Innovation works in a much less regulated Military Defense space due to the limited pool of buyers and the massive impact that this asymmetry can potentially have, i.e. Mag 7, Nvidia for example is balls deep in the Defense R&D space. The anti-competitive measures in the Defense industry and changes in procurement regulation deserves deeper analysis and scrutiny when measuring the negative impact on efficacy given the fact that US manufacturing capacity and recruitment of specialized skills is very low.
These are military companies building out the digital grid. As long as the US has 1000 military bases abroad and dollar liquidity, these companies will receive billions in subsidies both privately and publicly. They just gave Elon $56B, and it's not for Mars, that's just space propaganda. He's building a troposcatter grid with Starlink/SpaceX so a new digital infrastructure of payment systems, IDs, bio-metrics, etc. can be integrated. There's a lot more we need to understanding quantitatively about military economy before we can speculate what might slow it down or at least threaten access to resources.
both sides of the call have been present for a long time already in most of the countries. US only benefits the most (but not exclusively) as the issuer of the reserve currency.
one side is the manipulation of the "inflation" which has been present for a long time already in probably every country in the world. it just became more egregious recently.
the another side is surpresion of yields, which has also been present quite some time (although shorter than inflation data manipulation) but predominantly in the US, EU, UK and Japan, as their currencies and bonds have been deemed "safe" and have had huge pools of buyers. I don't know why most market participants don't (want to) see that any bond buying buy Central banks (QE) etc manipulates yields lower. I do not buy their arguments that the FED cannot control the long term bonds.... Prices are determined at the margin and CB buying therefore significantly lowers yields. Large part of the yield surpresion is also done by forcing financial instututions to buy bonds, especially officialy through laws and regulations.
Given that both parts have been present already rather some time, we are in fact faced with financial represion quite some time, it is just becoming more and more noticeable.
Does Russell's view imply that stock market valuations are not important from here on? i/.e, by tryting to squeeze the Treasury market capitalisation into other asset classes, does this not imply that investors have to accept buying them at overvalued prices? And that leads to another question; who is going to want to buy government debt at artifcially low coupons? Please dont tell me the public will be forced to buy them! :-(
Personally, I think the greatest shorting opportunities will be pairs trading the long side of commodities and shorting the companies that are sensitive to them, where profit and growth fall significantly from the inflation of specific commodities they need to buy to make finished products or transport them, and more so for companies that are not subsidized by defense and other government spending, and are not protected from tariffs.
And then you have the demand destruction equation and the vulnerability of demand for non-essential goods. Natural resources and productivity are real money, and are becoming more recognized as such when yields are not permitted to reflect the rate of inflation by the decree of governments. This is a feedback loop that no amount of capital controls can break without also breaking the system.
Interesting point of view, I personally think that western global companies will suffer the most, since they won’t be global anymore. Ie Microsoft and Apple will be easily replaced in the east by local companies and lose 100% of those market shares they now control. Riveting days ahead of us
Roberto Gonzalez is a good researcher who has done some interesting work on the intersection of Tech, Business and MIC, but his field in Anthropology is qualitative field, not a quantitative one. His research is surface level at best.
I’ve been meaning to read Miriam Pemberton's recent book “Six Stops on the National Security Tour—Rethinking Warfare Economics” to learn a deeper analysis on war economy and digging into comparative ecosystems in China, Russia, etc.
We need analysts with quantitative backgrounds in Tech, Business, Law, Economics and Politics that can map out how STEM Innovation works in a much less regulated Military Defense space due to the limited pool of buyers and the massive impact that this asymmetry can potentially have, i.e. Mag 7, Nvidia for example is balls deep in the Defense R&D space. The anti-competitive measures in the Defense industry and changes in procurement regulation deserves deeper analysis and scrutiny when measuring the negative impact on efficacy given the fact that US manufacturing capacity and recruitment of specialized skills is very low.
These are military companies building out the digital grid. As long as the US has 1000 military bases abroad and dollar liquidity, these companies will receive billions in subsidies both privately and publicly. They just gave Elon $56B, and it's not for Mars, that's just space propaganda. He's building a troposcatter grid with Starlink/SpaceX so a new digital infrastructure of payment systems, IDs, bio-metrics, etc. can be integrated. There's a lot more we need to understanding quantitatively about military economy before we can speculate what might slow it down or at least threaten access to resources.
both sides of the call have been present for a long time already in most of the countries. US only benefits the most (but not exclusively) as the issuer of the reserve currency.
one side is the manipulation of the "inflation" which has been present for a long time already in probably every country in the world. it just became more egregious recently.
the another side is surpresion of yields, which has also been present quite some time (although shorter than inflation data manipulation) but predominantly in the US, EU, UK and Japan, as their currencies and bonds have been deemed "safe" and have had huge pools of buyers. I don't know why most market participants don't (want to) see that any bond buying buy Central banks (QE) etc manipulates yields lower. I do not buy their arguments that the FED cannot control the long term bonds.... Prices are determined at the margin and CB buying therefore significantly lowers yields. Large part of the yield surpresion is also done by forcing financial instututions to buy bonds, especially officialy through laws and regulations.
Given that both parts have been present already rather some time, we are in fact faced with financial represion quite some time, it is just becoming more and more noticeable.
Does Russell's view imply that stock market valuations are not important from here on? i/.e, by tryting to squeeze the Treasury market capitalisation into other asset classes, does this not imply that investors have to accept buying them at overvalued prices? And that leads to another question; who is going to want to buy government debt at artifcially low coupons? Please dont tell me the public will be forced to buy them! :-(
financial institutions will be forced to buy them, and trough them indirectly also a large part of the public