Interesting article. Not sure how it went from bonds to #Trump, but certainly, Donald Trump had conversations with Russia and with key Russians banks. The author does not seriously contest that truth, does he? He may. Oh well.

As far as bonds are concerned, Wall Street will only lose to high interest rates if the bonds can't be sold. The author has not proven that the bonds in question are losing demand. The new normal sucks in many ways, but Trump is not the guy to make it go away unless maybe he blows up the world in wars. If that happens, Wall Street will profit another way, and maybe it will offset the loses on bond derivatives and maybe it won't.

That is just my two bits.

Interesting thought. I would say divided Republican leadership helps the poor and the elderly. It even helps all those who voted for Trump in opposition to their own self interest.

Yes, Author, it would seem that a divided Republican Party is divided government. Safer that way don't you think?

#Trump wants to tax dollar store customers to make the economy go. That is, on any level, simply ridiculous. The three trillion is pure speculation. People deserve to lose on that bet because there is simply no real guarantee that Trump's plan to bludgeon imports will work anyway.

I would say that #Blackrock continues to sow very little conviction regarding their position. It is a hard thing to advise against the new normal continuing.

So, the new normal could mean no real recovery. Labor share of #GDP shrinks, or grows slower than GDP. Loans and money supply seem to lag. #Bond hoarding (the new #gold) impacts bond demand. And I think the media may even get a little grease money from bond tantrum people. Now I can't prove that, but really do we have to? MSM heroes come on talking up yield, and somehow they are connected to people who seem to profit from a little bounce in yield. Again, this is just my opinion, but I don't think it is a one off strategy.

This is something worth watching, whether you believe in Austrian economics or not. Some Austrians would say the coming possible depression is no big deal. But most schools of thought would say bank lending being at the center of any crash makes it a bigger deal than a crash based on changes like war to peace. Also, if the Fed was more countercyclical in downturns, it could avoid some financial pain. The BOE helps small and medium business in downturns and the Fed does not.

I can see big pharma being affected by oil. I don't quite get big oil being affected by the healthcare plan. Maybe someone could explain that one.

This is a very balanced article. Balancing free trade with national sovereignty is important. As the authors say, we are not trying to forge a political union here. As long as that is not entertained, free trade is good. To the extent that the US considers itself an empire, it is only an empire in the realm of the UK financial dominance. The Anglo-American Empire is an empire, but it has often times used force when it should have sought cooperation. It could have shined to the world but often times war profits were more important. Eisenhower warned of this and had a different vision for America. It is a shame people did not listen to him. Now we have a product of the wasting away of America because war was more important then infrastructure. Trump could do damage to free trade, thinking it, not war was the problem.

Paying interest on the reserves contracts the money supply. Now with every raise, the money supply increase slows. So, it seems the reserves are more about bond demand at this point and bank solvency. I think you are right, author, about maybe switching just to treasuries if Trump decides to do a big fiscal spend, which is in question.