- Date published:
7:51 am, October 29th, 2019 - 44 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, Economy, Environment, International, us politics, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:
It seems that Wall Street is getting worried. One of the Democratic nominees has been described by a Wall Street broker as an unapologetic populist.
Why you may ask.
For saying that the country is too PC?
For bene bashing for political gain?
For railing against criminals and suggesting that a court decision was evidence that the Government is trying to undermine law and order?
For opposing a bill that tightens up legal protection in dealing with possible ISIS supporters because it does not include 14 year olds as well?
From Vanity Fair:
In a note to his high-net-worth clients on October 8, Barrett Tabeek, a financial adviser at Matauro, LLC, an affiliate of AXA, the giant French insurance company, makes clear that [an Elizabeth Warren presidency] won’t be good for corporate earnings, which means she won’t be good for the stock market, which means she won’t be good for shareholders who have no doubt gotten quite used to the stock market highs unleashed by Donald Trump’s massive tax cut for corporate America. “Everyone has their hierarchy of what’s important,” Tabeek wrote, “and Warren is an unapologetic populist who, if in power, would enact policies designed to reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders.” In the group that stands to benefit from a Warren presidency, Tabeek puts “workers,” then the “environment” and “those with lower incomes,” and finally “women and minorities.”
While he’s adamant that he’s not being political in his four-page note, Tabeek evaluated 10 of Warren’s policy proposals—among them, “ban fracking,” “increased taxes on the wealthy,” “break up big tech,” and “reinstate Glass- Steagall”—and pretty much declares that they will reduce corporate profits, reduce incomes for the super-wealthy, and raise gasoline prices for consumers. “The bottom line is that from a market standpoint, all of these policies would be negative for stocks, with some being downright negative for the broad markets (by reducing corporate earnings broadly) while others would be material negatives for certain sectors (large-cap tech, prison stocks, defense stocks, etc.),” he wrote. “How negative would these policies be for stocks? No one knows exactly, but it’s safe to say they’d be negative.”
Wall Street’s best hope, Tabeek notes, is that most of the policies that Warren would like to enact would need congressional approval, “and as such they are unlikely to be approved, at least based on what we know now.” He wrote that polls suggest that Warren is “more liberal than most Democrats (and obviously Republicans) so even if Democrats were to sweep (controlling Congress and the presidency), it’s unclear how many of these policies would be enacted,” although he pointed out that some of her policies, such as having the EPA ban fracking, could be done by executive order.
Let’s parse this.
A Warren presidency would reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders. These include workers, the environment, those with lower incomes, and women and minorities.
She would ban fracking, increase taxes on the wealthy, break up big tech, and reinstate Glass- Steagall, US legislation that limited banking powers.
She would reduce corporate profits, oversee the reduction of super-wealthy incomes, and raise gasoline prices for consumers. The last proposal is more problematic politically but vital if our planet is to survive. The others should be no brainers if we want to improve equality.
Bernie Sanders is still hanging in there against Joe Biden who still thinks he is relevant.
But I think I might have a new personal preference for the next POTUS.