Jim Boswell Blog | Just How Screwed Up Obama's Thinking Is or Was | Talkmarkets
Executive Director, Quanta Analytics

I have nearly fifty years of professional experience in the development of management information and analytical business decision support systems. Broadly disciplined with exceptional experience. Education includes an MBA from the Wharton School-University of Pennsylvania, an MPA in public ... more

Just How Screwed Up Obama's Thinking Is or Was

Date: Saturday, April 3, 2021 6:07 AM EDT

I am still hacking away at Obama's book and i think it is time to make a couple of comments.  Like I said before, The Promised Land, is a good book and a good read with all kinds of interesting insights gained.

However, since Obama just wrote or published his book, i assume it is still his current way of thinking.  So I think it is time that I explain to him where he got things wrong or misinterpreted.  The first has to deal with "environmental" policy and the second has to do with the "2008 financial crisis."

We'll deal with the environmental issue first.  Obama says that he had to crash a party of BRIC nation leaders (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, and China) in order to convince them to endorse his thinking on the environment.  Now i see nothing wrong in Obama's approach to the problem, but i do have a problem with BRIC itself.  Who the f--- is BRIC when it comes to economic power anyway?  Brazil?  Russia?  India?  China?   

Really?  Have you looked at the market value of BRIC's companies recently?  I have and here is what i found out.

In 2020, the market value of BRIC's companies in terms of the Global 2000 came to $8.6 Trillion.  Compare that to the U.S.'s market value of $25.9 and the other non-BRIC and non-U.S. companies of $19.8.  BRIC accounts for less than one-third of that of U.S. companies and less than half of that of the non-U.S. non-BRIC companies.  Now I ask you this.  Who the f--- do you think should be setting environmental policy?  BRIC, the U.S., or the rest of the world?  Shit, in my way of thinking, Obama's move wasn't necessarily bold in breaking in on BRIC's party at the environmental summit in Copenhagen.  It's what he should have done.  Why should anyone be surprised with Obama's boldness.  It some ways reading his book, it seems Obama even thought he was being bold.

1 2 3
View single page >> |
Disclaimer: This and other personal blog posts are not reviewed, monitored or endorsed by TalkMarkets. The content is solely the view of the author and TalkMarkets is not responsible for the content of this post in any way. Our curated content which is handpicked by our editorial team may be viewed here.

Comments

Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Susan Johnson 2 months ago Member's comment

I don't think much politics gets published here. It's just too polarizing and too many of the authors are biased one way or the other. It's also doesn't have much to do with investing and this is an investing site. Why not send it to one of the many politics sites. Seems like there are more and more of those every day.

Jim Boswell 2 months ago Author's comment

In that case invest in the United States and buy an index fund for the S&P 500. You also might want to get a smaller index fund of the Russell 2000 to go along with your S&P 500 one. When globanomics gets to be the norm, buy an index fund of the Global 500 or Global 2000. These are the best and safest investments that you can make. If you want, i will tell you what investments funds i invest in. Last year my investments went up nearly 40% and that was from a fund geared mostly towards the NASDAQ. This year i split my investments up into two different big company U.S. funds and i am doing well again, beating both the DOW and the S&P averages--again.

Politics and investing--i am learning the two should never meet. I find it curious that on a business, economic, and investment front that one cannot critic the policies used by either a democrat or a republican. As a financial conservative democrat (did you know that one even existed) i reserve the right to continue to criticize so-called "investment" decisions that i think are counter to the betterment of the United States (e.g. TARP, infrastructure without balancing the budget).

Go ahead and erase me from those who you read if you think i am too political. I am sure you will find other "blogs" on TalkMarkets who will tell you Gamestop is a good investment--and they won't mention political policy at all. I doubt if you will hear anyone talking about "balancing the budget" because that has only been done about three times in the last fifty-years.

I have been accused as a "niche" blogger and that might be true. After all, globanomics is really what i am all about. And globanomics as the word implies is a "global economic and financial" concept that will bring a smarter way for the totality of global investments to be made. It is good for the world. It is good for the United States, China, Europe, etc. It is also good for investors. Globanomics even claims business is superior to economics.

I am sorry, but for the time being, i think i will stay with my TalkMarkets blog. If the editors of TalkMarkets and the readers of my "blogs" think i am just too political to touch, then so be it My readership will drop off to nothing and i will just be ranting to myself, which btw, is not a bad way to go.

Respectfully.