If America became a Dictatorship, would that harm or grow the stock market ?

[Fantasticmrfox]

Regardless of political leaning, unpredictable governments are not typically the best for long term sustainable economic growth, or does removing all the pesky guardrails and watchdogs make way for exponential growth?

How are Mustachians feeling about the long term investment potential of America with the current... chaotic government actions? I'm not asking for a debate on politics, only the effect of politics on long term economic growth.

[corgiegirl]

Investment consists of 1) ownership and 2) the continuing ability to do business.

Dictatorship means that the ruler of a country does not follow the laws of the country.  That means that property can be appropriated by the dictator without paying compensation, and that business does not have a predictable and legally secure environment in which to enter into contracts for goods, services and employment.

The rule of law, meaning that the ruler of a country follows the laws of that country, is what is vital to successful business and so to successful investment.  The UK was arguably not a democracy by today's terms (the right to vote for all adult citizens without conditions) until women's right to vote was equal to that of men in 1930, but it went through major stages of economic expansion both in medieval times (based on sheep farming) and in the 18th/19th century (the industrial revolution) because it had the rule of law: the monarch and the monarch's government did not interfere with the rights of the citizens as established by Magna Carta in 2015: the right to own property, the right to the due process of law, plus not interfering with the already established rights of the common law and public law.  Those conditions over time produced an advantage that made it the richest country and biggest empire the world had ever seen, until those advantages started to spread to other countries (and until the UK spent a lot of its wealth defending and spreading those advantages).

The problem the US now has is that it has a ruler, Trump, who has no interest in following Constitutional/Federal law voluntarily and it has a politically and financially corrupted, self-limited and inefficient legal system that means that ordinary citizens and businesses are unable to force him to follow the law.  That means that both ownership rights and the conditions for doing business are put in doubt.

The secondary problem if a ruler does not follow the law and the legal system is ineffective is that it encourages corruption as an alternative to the due process of law.  Corruption is inefficient and destroys open markets, furthering the doubt over ownership and the conditions for doing business.

The best hope for investors is that the fundamentals of US business are strong enough to survive the next four years relatively intact and that the Constitution is strong enough that there is a return to the rule of law in four years' time.  It's the best hope for the citizens of the world too, because a new dark age is coming if they are not.

.

[Paper Chaser]

The billionaires influencing the situation are only wealthy because of stock market performance. If the market tanks, they lose big. So they at least have some incentive to see that the market performs well. But that's more of an oligarchy than a dictatorship.

[Scandium]

It would depend on the type of dictatorship. An agrarian communist despot? Probably not great for the stock market.
But (fortunately..? :|) our current/most likely dictator is some form of tech-oligarchy, maybe with a sprinkling of petroleum and financial industry influence, which on the face of it should be pretty good for us capital owners. So since the American people seems extremely hungry for dictatorship and intent on voting one in no matter the cost to themselves, I guess I'd consider this the best-case scenario. I'll enjoy my cushy desk job a few more years, sit on my pile of money, and laugh at the blue collar rubes who voted to be ground into dust by the corporate overlords. Hope getting the rainbow tshirts out of target was worth it. 

[GuitarStv]

Rule of law is the thing that keeps your money safe when invested.  If the government is headed by someone who doesn't follow the rule of law, then all investments in the market become riskier with zero increase in utility/benefit.  I strongly believe that going full on dictator would harm US stocks.

[ROF Expat]

At the moment, I'm less concerned about the possibility of full dictatorship than I am the erosion of checks, balances, and independent organizations.  In particular, I am worried about what would happen to the dollar and the US economy if the Fed loses its independence when Powell leaves.  This is already being floated by the administration. 

[dangbe]

There's another aspect to this which is that America will lose a lot of its influence around the world.  We've already seen the current president show disdain for the tools that give us such soft power.  Without that influence, fewer parties want to get involved in our economy and our economy will shrink. 
Although, I can see a scenario where they make it so lucrative and unregulated that businesses around the world cant help themselves but to get a slice of the pie.  Perhaps that will counter-act our loss of influence.
To conclude, I have no idea.

[Fantasticmrfox]

Thanks for the replies. I guess none of us really know at the moment. Seems like if barriers to business decrease, the stock market will grow, despite the situation of the non-asset owning population. Current President cares a lot about the stock market so maybe that'll actually as a buffer to more extreme policies and moves. Will be interesting to see what happens with the Federal Reserve. Lots of unknowns coming in the next 4 years, and possibly beyond.

[seattlecyclone]

Rule of law is the thing that keeps your money safe when invested.  If the government is headed by someone who doesn't follow the rule of law, then all investments in the market become riskier with zero increase in utility/benefit.  I strongly believe that going full on dictator would harm US stocks.

Agreed. Businesses do better when they understand the rules of the game they're playing, they can expect that those rules will generally be applied equally to all companies in the industry, and those rules don't change on a whim. We seem to be unable to count on that anymore.

[ChpBstrd]

@corgiegirl makes several excellent points about rule of law and business outcomes.

I'll add the stock market may perform separately than the country's real economic growth (e.g. real GDP). If the cost of capital rose high enough, for example, the present value of stocks' future cash flows would be much reduced. More importantly, a lot of countries are considered such basket cases that stock valuations are depressed, even though GDP growth is solid.

Take Egypt, for example. The elected government was overthrown years ago and a single party rules the land with an iron fist. Corruption is endemic and inflation is 24%. Despite this, GDP is growing at 3.8%. Their GDP growth has exceeded 3% for over a decade now. Their stock index has nearly tripled since 3Q2022, roughly keeping pace with inflation if you measure in US dollars using the EGPT fund as a proxy. So what does Egypt's situation as a corrupt non-democracy have to do with stock market returns? Maybe nothing. But of course the regular people are suffering, because the consequences of no competition in government, misaligned government incentives, and endemic corruption eventually catch up with a society.

[AuspiciousEight]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

[HenryDavid]

Did it help Spain from the 30s to the 70s? Portugal? Chile? Albania?
Germany in the 30s and 40s, reduced to rubble and humiliation.
Those legendary economic success stories.

Check the economic track record on dictatorships. Can be OK for a handful of insiders all nervously watching each other. Until they get disappeared.

There are way bigger reasons than economics to avoid dictatorship.
 But if you’re hoping the trains run on time and the factories boom for very long . .. nah.

[ChpBstrd]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

But will you have any wealth left to deal with those other things?

[classicrando]

I don't really have anything to add to what's already been said, but I wanted to comment on yet another thread before it gets shuffled off to Off-Topic and I can't participate in it any longer.

;P

[mistymoney]

this line of inquiry makes me ill.

who the fuck cares about stock market gains when free elections are planned to be phased out.

I really think these types of stupid thought processes are being planted all over the place to get the population numb to the idea of the coming coup - with - oh hey maybe you'd like this piece of candy after getting sucker punched. Sure, it hurt, but look at this sweet sweet lollipop.

spineless snivelling weasles scared of people voting. And then basic human rights are off the table.

[dangbe]

this line of inquiry makes me ill.

who the fuck cares about stock market gains when free elections are planned to be phased out.

I really think these types of stupid thought processes are being planted all over the place to get the population numb to the idea of the coming coup - with - oh hey maybe you'd like this piece of candy after getting sucker punched. Sure, it hurt, but look at this sweet sweet lollipop.

spineless snivelling weasles scared of people voting. And then basic human rights are off the table.

I don't disagree that there aren't bigger fish to fry, but that doesn't mean we should avoid other topics.

I feel like were all dealing with the current uncertainty by trying to figure out all the moving pieces.  The stock market is a big one that affects people on this forum quite a lot.  There are bigger issues, and those can be addressed in other threads.  This one is about the stock market and perhaps we will gain some insights to help us better plan and prepare for our own futures.

[AuspiciousEight]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

But will you have any wealth left to deal with those other things?

I don't need financial wealth.

I have skills, tools, property, relationships, and health.

ETA: Removed references to personal life. :) 

[SuperNintendo Chalmers]

I think stocks rise in the short term; plummet hard in the long term.  Here’s my (admittedly pessimistic) view of how this may play out:

1.   First few test cases of Trump ignoring lower Court orders.  (Happening now.)
2.   Trump continues “pump and dump”-like cycle of announcing potentially harmful things but then not implementing them due to “concessions,” thus proclaiming victory and further increasing his 50+% approval rating.
3.   Stock market keeps climbing due to “efficiency” of administration and removal of regulations and oversight. 
4.   Somewhat behind scenes, Trump continues purging opposition, election-integrity officials, free press; DOGE continues takeover of administrative state.
5.   Eventually SCOTUS affirms a lower-court ruling that one (or many) of Trump’s actions are unconstitutional.  (6-3, with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett joining because they think there’s a chance history will judge them for sanctioning the death of the US if they reversed.)   
6.   This is the first real constitutional-crisis moment.  Trump ignores the SCOTUS order, the R’s in Congress shrug, and there’s no groundswell in the streets (because tax cuts, deregulation, and no trans in bathrooms keeps enough people happy, or because they are scared). 
7.   Having confirmation that he can do anything he wants, Trump goes into full gear and explicitly targets opposition with arrests while rewarding cronies and loyalists with whatever they want from the federal coffers. 
8.   2026 midterms very surprisingly result in a red wave; anyone looking into election irregularities is targeted. 
9.   However, all of this and the protectionist economic policies and deportations eventually catch up with Trump and inflation starts taking off while capital investment drops and investors flee the US. 
10.   In response, Trump takes over Fed; pushes interest rates down in jackass move to say he gave people affordable mortgages again.
11.   This creates hyper-inflation and further crashes the economy. 
12.   Trump blames whoever makes the most sense at that moment—Dems, professional class, press, judiciary, etc. 
13.   Facing massive inflation and shitty economic prospects, people start taking it upon themselves to target those Trump blames, seizing their property or just killing for kicks.
14.   America is now in free-fall, and Trump keeps plugging the holes in the dam with rewards and protections (legislation, pardons) for those who support him.  Maybe launches a nuclear strike somewhere to boost lagging approval numbers.  This doesn’t help markets and those with means flee. 
15.   Trump dies of old age/health issues without seeing the eventual fall.

Like others have said, this is bigger than the stock market, but just focusing on that, I think long-term prospects are dim at this moment barring something surprising happening.

[rocketpj]

Thanks for the replies. I guess none of us really know at the moment. Seems like if barriers to business decrease, the stock market will grow, despite the situation of the non-asset owning population. Current President cares a lot about the stock market so maybe that'll actually as a buffer to more extreme policies and moves. Will be interesting to see what happens with the Federal Reserve. Lots of unknowns coming in the next 4 years, and possibly beyond.

If you don't know you aren't looking outside the US bubble.  Outside the US companies and governments are in full scramble mode to decouple from the US economy.  The damage is already well underway.

Look around the world at countries without the rule of law.  None of them are economically competitive.  It is a dead end.  Trump and his cronies might well be getting richer, but it is at the expense of their (not your) country.

[GilesMM]

Seems to be helping so far. Most businesses are happy with the reduced regulation and oversight.

[AuspiciousEight]

Honestly I think there is another reason this isn't going to happen in America that people are forgetting about.

At the end of the day, regardless of what happens in the government, our democracy is ultimately ensured and backed by civilians rights to own and possess firearms.

We live in a country with more guns than people. There are some areas of this country where there are more guns than blades of grass. Any adult citizen can simply go and buy a gun, at any time.

There have already been multiple assassination attempts on Trump's life, and the last elections were pretty free and fair.

If Trump were to actually try and instill himself as dictator, he's going to have a small problem on his hands that is bigger than the supreme court: The second amendment.

If he tries to repeal the second amendment, and strips people's rights to own guns away from them, the 80-90 million people who own guns in America might have an issue with this, and all it would take is one of them who knows how to aim their gun.

If he leaves the second amendment in place he has an even bigger problem, because then his power will still be limited because of he does anything too crazy / illegal to hurt people, the people he hurts might decide to simply go and buy firearms and take matters into their own hands.

I hate to think about this in these terms, but when I factor the second amendment into the equation,.Trump becoming a dictator in this country seems pretty impossible.

[HenryDavid]

2nd amendment talk is, in my foreign-based opinion, a big deceptive security blanket.
Dictatorship doesn’t happen with armed people arriving at your door.
It works through bureaucracy. Musk owns that now, or will in a few days.

When Musk cuts off the payments to social security, your local hospital, road and bridge repairs . . . when your family’s or your neighbour’s cancer treatments abruptly stop . . . guns won’t get that back. How would that work? Maybe I lack insight here! Probably. Someone can explain.

As for understanding the quality of life in a dictatorship, I suggest the German film The Loves of Others. Crushingly sad and insightful.

[Retire-Canada]

I'm not asking for a debate on politics, only the effect of politics on long term economic growth.

You can look at actual dictatorships/authoritarian regimes and see how they've been for capital markets.

You'll notice a trend where wealthy people in those countries do whatever they can to get their wealth into democratic rule of law countries. As soon as you have been in charge who do not have to follow the laws of the land they'll start to distort capital markets. If you happen to be BFFs with those people you could do very well until they don't like you and you fall to your death by "accident" from your penthouse balcony. OTOH if you are a normal person you are at the mercy of your overlords and just blind luck in terms of how you do.

[Cassie]

Trump is firing anyone in the fbi, cia, federal marshals, etc that are loyal to the constitution. The only people left will be loyal to him. Citizens owning guns can’t fight the military. It’s much too powerful.

[Scandium]

this line of inquiry makes me ill.

who the fuck cares about stock market gains when free elections are planned to be phased out.

First of all; who says I don't care about elections? Just because I also care about the stock market?

But more importantly; I can't do anything about election restrictions, dismantling of government etc! I did what I could and donated to Kamala, but she ran a shit campaign and American's are so horny for an autocrat they just had to elect one. All I can do now is make sure I do as well as I can in this dystopian future, which is in large part dependent on the stock market. And as a wealthy, white guy in a blue state I'm not that worried, or at least less worried than I could have been. And since the actual targets of the Maga wrath; minorities, women etc didn't care enough to not vote for him why should I? Something like 40-50%+ of hispanics, black men etc vote for trump? Especially in swing-states. In many states huge percent of pro-choice women voted for trump! I tried caring, for people other than my "group", but then nobody else did, so I'm done. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/

[obstinate]

Part of why America so vastly outperforms Europe on business outcomes is because of the stronger rule of law we have here compared to Europe. Here we tend to treat laws as the program for the economy. In Europe, they're often just guidelines and judges decide whatever random thing seems fair to them at any given moment. That makes the business environment over there much less stable.

[Ron Scott]

I think this list of the largest companies by market cap is mostly current. I would not expect an authoritarian government in any country, much less a right-leaning one like the US, would muck this up. If fact, they’d likely be bending over backwards to support it. The reason is these companies are creating the future and defining world power by their economic stature. The wealth they produce allows their domiciled country tremendous control in the world.

[Cranky]

I figure I’ll be in prison and my savings will not be a great worry. The state will surely confiscate them anyway.

[neo von retorch]

And since the actual targets of the Maga wrath; minorities, women etc didn't care enough to not vote for him why should I? Something like 40-50%+ of hispanics, black men etc vote for trump? Especially in swing-states.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/interactive-how-key-groups-of-americans-voted-in-2024-according-to-ap-votecast

Latino voted 55% / 43% Harris / Trump
Black voted 83% / 16% Harris / Trump
Black men voted 74% / 25% Harris / Trump

White men voted 38% / 60% Harris / Trump

Women of any age voted slightly more favorably towards Harris.
Latino men were nearly evenly split, while Latino women voted 59% / 39% Harris / Trump.

Ultimately there were too many white men (and white women) voting for the white man.

[Morning Glory]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

Yeah..I don't think it's even in my top ten thongs to worry about.

[jrhampt]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

Yeah..I don't think it's even in my top ten thongs to worry about.

Based on historical data, it would be bad for everything (except the dictator and his friends) including the stock market.

[Scandium]

And since the actual targets of the Maga wrath; minorities, women etc didn't care enough to not vote for him why should I? Something like 40-50%+ of hispanics, black men etc vote for trump? Especially in swing-states.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/interactive-how-key-groups-of-americans-voted-in-2024-according-to-ap-votecast

Latino voted 55% / 43% Harris / Trump
Black voted 83% / 16% Harris / Trump
Black men voted 74% / 25% Harris / Trump

White men voted 38% / 60% Harris / Trump

Women of any age voted slightly more favorably towards Harris.
Latino men were nearly evenly split, while Latino women voted 59% / 39% Harris / Trump.

Ultimately there were too many white men (and white women) voting for the white man.

That doesn't tell the whole story though. It's not about the absolute numbers, it's about the changes. Obviously, if everyone voted same as in 2020 Trump would have lost.

White people voted more or less how they usually do. The largest swings were among black (especially men) and latino (esp men). A 35 point swing for both! That's crazy. As this shows, white old people and white non-college (typically peak-racist groups) actually swung towards harris. So if anything misogyny was a much larger issue than racism. And considering trump is even more crazy and racist than last time, absolutely insane to me.

edit; The more I looks at this the wilder it think it is. She basically lost vs biden with every group except older people! After he tried a coup and said people are eating dogs!! Like wtf! Clearly a combination of things, but obvious that Biden being a stubborn idiot insisting on running, not getting out of the way, Kamala running an incompetent, cowardly campaign where she was too scared to say anything "wrong", and voters being degenerate morons all factored into it. I honestly don't understand how ~30% of the country are able to function in society with this level of stupidity
https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-racial-analysis-of-2024-election-results/

[dragoncar]

I think it’s a reasonable question.  Preserving wealth may make the difference between getting out alive and not.  (I’m not making a prediction here, but a lot more scary stuff is on the table than any other time in my life).   A cursory glance at Germany shows their stock market did fine for years after hitler took power.  However, there’s no guarantee any particular dictatorship would go the same way.  Probably depends a lot on the particular dictator.   

Has anybody made concrete changes in asset allocation or location?  I considered puts as a true short term hedge but if SHTF then counter party risk is probably large.  I do feel that we will know relatively quickly how the US political environment is going to evolve (although my crystal ball is terrible).

I personally have a path to residency/citizenship abroad but I’m not convinced that any particular country will be safer. 

[Ape86]

The billionaires influencing the situation are only wealthy because of stock market performance. If the market tanks, they lose big. So they at least have some incentive to see that the market performs well. But that's more of an oligarchy than a dictatorship.

If by billionaires you mean Trump and Musk, that's assuming they are doing this for the money. I don't know if they are. My best guess is they've elevated their need for attention + bullying to a global scale. I don't suspect they fear if the market tanks.

[ROF Expat]

Has anybody made concrete changes in asset allocation or location?  I considered puts as a true short term hedge but if SHTF then counter party risk is probably large.  I do feel that we will know relatively quickly how the US political environment is going to evolve (although my crystal ball is terrible).

No changes yet, but thinking about it.  We've made an appointment to have a talk with our financial advisor. 

I'm not in panic mode, but I worry about the effects of a global trade war and I am at a stage where it makes sense to consider capital preservation as well as long-term growth.  Taking this kind of action at a time when we've had a long bull run and the market seems (to me) to be at a value that is hard to justify makes it easier. 

Under normal circumstances, I would just reallocate some of my portfolio out of equities and into US bonds, but I don't think these are normal circumstances.  With current discussion of the Fed losing its independence, I am not sure that more Treasuries are the answer for me.  Maybe an increased allocation in European and/or East Asian markets (maybe not so much China) with the idea that it would provide a hedge against a weakening dollar.  I'm really not sure. 

One thing I will say is that although many of the arguments against the dollar's primacy are legitimate, the reality is that there isn't anything out there that is better that can be purchased in large quantities.  When times are bad globally, people buy dollars because for all the dollar's faults, there's no better alternative.  So, IMHO, if the global economy goes bad, there's a good chance that the dollar will still benefit. 

BTW, to be clear, I do not expect to make any money through my actions (if any).  The  idea is only to hedge my bets for capital preservation.  If things go wrong, I might lose less money, but this comes at a cost of missing out on potential growth.  I have always done pretty well by overweighting my investments toward the US. 

[Retire-Canada]

No plans to change anything with my portfolio. At this time Trump/Musk are just being goons not dictators. If there is a 3rd Trump term or something else of that magnitude happens I'll give it some thought. I have a passport in a stable European country further from the US than Canada for extraordinary contingencies.

If the US invades Canada I'll join the insurgency and probably won't have to fund a long retirement.

[ROF Expat]

No plans to change anything with my portfolio. At this time Trump/Musk are just being goons not dictators. If there is a 3rd Trump term or something else of that magnitude happens I'll give it some thought. I have a passport in a stable European country further from the US than Canada for extraordinary contingencies.

If the US invades Canada I'll join the insurgency and probably won't have to fund a long retirement.

Our previous invasions of Canada didn't go so well.  I'd like to think that would mitigate against another try, but I'm not sure that the people who make those decisions read history books. 

[Retire-Canada]

Our previous invasions of Canada didn't go so well.  I'd like to think that would mitigate against another try, but I'm not sure that the people who make those decisions read history books.

To be practical the current US military leadership wouldn't accept an order to invade Canada. The military could be purged and "yes" men/women put in place, but that would take time and make a lot of noise. The US can beat Canada in any specific battle, but the US does not have the military capacity to successfully occupy Canada hence where the insurgency comes in. Seems unlikely that the American public would accept a widespread draft for the purposes of annexing Canada or the casualties that would occur.

So I'm putting that idea in the very very unlikely, but not impossible category.

[ROF Expat]

Our previous invasions of Canada didn't go so well.  I'd like to think that would mitigate against another try, but I'm not sure that the people who make those decisions read history books.

To be practical the current US military leadership wouldn't accept an order to invade Canada. The military could be purged and "yes" men/women put in place, but that would take time and make a lot of noise. The US can beat Canada in any specific battle, but the US does not have the military capacity to successfully occupy Canada hence where the insurgency comes in. Seems unlikely that the American public would accept a widespread draft for the purposes of annexing Canada or the casualties that would occur.

So I'm putting that idea in the very very unlikely, but not impossible category.

We already got Neil Young, The Band, Joni Mitchell, and Wayne Gretzky, among others, from Canada.  Of course,  Canada also sent us Elon Musk (between the US and SA) and Justin Bieber and polar vortexes.  If you'd take back any two of the last three, I think that would go a long way to helping avoid a confrontation.  That said, I don't think the US can allow another nation, now matter how friendly, to control our supply of Labrador retrievers and Newfoundland dogs.

[GuitarStv]

Our previous invasions of Canada didn't go so well.  I'd like to think that would mitigate against another try, but I'm not sure that the people who make those decisions read history books.

To be practical the current US military leadership wouldn't accept an order to invade Canada. The military could be purged and "yes" men/women put in place, but that would take time and make a lot of noise. The US can beat Canada in any specific battle, but the US does not have the military capacity to successfully occupy Canada hence where the insurgency comes in. Seems unlikely that the American public would accept a widespread draft for the purposes of annexing Canada or the casualties that would occur.

So I'm putting that idea in the very very unlikely, but not impossible category.

We already got Neil Young, The Band, Joni Mitchell, and Wayne Gretzky, among others, from Canada.  Of course,  Canada also sent us Elon Musk (between the US and SA) and Justin Bieber and polar vortexes.  If you'd take back any two of the last three, I think that would go a long way to helping avoid a confrontation.  That said, I don't think the US can allow another nation, now matter how friendly, to control our supply of Labrador retrievers and Newfoundland dogs.

To be fair, we also attacked the US with our deadliest Crus missile . . . Ted Cruz.  The toxic fallout will be lingering behind for decades.

[GilesMM]

Our previous invasions of Canada didn't go so well.  I'd like to think that would mitigate against another try, but I'm not sure that the people who make those decisions read history books.

To be practical the current US military leadership wouldn't accept an order to invade Canada. The military could be purged and "yes" men/women put in place, but that would take time and make a lot of noise. The US can beat Canada in any specific battle, but the US does not have the military capacity to successfully occupy Canada hence where the insurgency comes in. Seems unlikely that the American public would accept a widespread draft for the purposes of annexing Canada or the casualties that would occur.

So I'm putting that idea in the very very unlikely, but not impossible category.

We already got Neil Young, The Band, Joni Mitchell, and Wayne Gretzky, among others, from Canada.  Of course,  Canada also sent us Elon Musk (between the US and SA) and Justin Bieber and polar vortexes.  If you'd take back any two of the last three, I think that would go a long way to helping avoid a confrontation.  That said, I don't think the US can allow another nation, now matter how friendly, to control our supply of Labrador retrievers and Newfoundland dogs.

No shortage of Canadian celebrities.  A radio station I used to listen to would occasionally do a call-in contest where they would name a quasi-celebrity and the caller had to guess if the person was Dead or Canadian. Haha.

[ROF Expat]

To be fair, we also attacked the US with our deadliest Crus missile . . . Ted Cruz.  The toxic fallout will be lingering behind for decades.

I may have to rethink every nice thing I ever thought about Canada...

[Morning Glory]

To be fair, we also attacked the US with our deadliest Crus missile . . . Ted Cruz.  The toxic fallout will be lingering behind for decades.

I may have to rethink every nice thing I ever thought about Canada...

Australia gave us Rupert Murdoch though, and then there's South Africa...

[Scandium]

To be fair, we also attacked the US with our deadliest Crus missile . . . Ted Cruz.  The toxic fallout will be lingering behind for decades.

I may have to rethink every nice thing I ever thought about Canada...

Australia gave us Rupert Murdoch though, and then there's South Africa...

Cruz, Murdoch, Musk.. When Tucker carslon said immigrants make america "dirtier and poorer" I'm starting to think he may have had a point. Just the thought of sharing a continent with these guys certainly makes me feel grossed out

[mathlete]

Erosion of trust is bad for commerce.

[rocketpj]

If you change the economic structure to a system where the path to wealth stops being 'provide a good product or service' and instead becomes 'proximity to power' you will inevitably end up with a weaker economy.  Good companies will fail or struggle because they will have to provide grift to the powerful or otherwise not gain access to contracts or supports.  When the success of a company is not dependent on market outcomes but rather on corruption and power games, the stock market will suffer along with the rest of the country.

How many people are confident investing in Russian stocks?  Chinese? 

The US has been moving this way for a long time, it looks like the slow slope has become a steep cliff.  I hope the US finds a way to arrest the decline, certainly there is nothing I can do about it from outside.

[AccidentialMustache]

I wouldn't worry about the market per-say. All the billionaire bros rely on that. I'd worry about the us dollar no longer being the world's reserve currency. And I'm not convinced they have all really thought this through and gotten to that point.

I mean, Musk wanted to run PayPal on Windows.

[Alfred J Quack]

Honestly I think if America becomes a dictatorship, I would be more worried about other things besides money and the stock market...

But will you have any wealth left to deal with those other things?

I doubt that numbers on a digital system will translate to wealth under a real dictactor.

As an outsider (from the EU), all I can see is Trump/Musk removing parties that have hindered them/their corporations as a way to balance market power. Appearently USAID was investigating Starlink for it's services to Russia in Ukraine and CFPB for regulating both Tesla and Twitter.

If that keeps going you won't have anyone curbing corporate ambitions. There was a book with such a scenario a long while back with the title Jennifer Government: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Max_Barry_Jennifer_Government?id=283FAwAAQBAJ
It's eerily similar in some respects what I see happening now.

[nighthalk]

from my relatively simple point of view. we have two major classifications of market direction:

1) havoc caused is strong enough to create waves in the market, but the system maintains a level of stability (population/world doesn't lose trust in the USD)
this is the best we can realistically hope for, and we just keep following our investment planning options, adjusting for risk.

2) monkeys in the system trigger an unworkable level of inflation or other severe monetary catastrophe. perhaps in relation to some US backed crypto coin getting hacked.
in this case we don't buy anything in particular, we are forced to sell currency. we in effect exit the market and enter anything that can retain equivalent value during and after a reserve currency crisis. My only question is what to buy. (another countries currency such as the yen is a possibility, an ignored but still first world countries index is also possible, wierdly etherium/bitcoin might be a good place to stash a % of it for a few years, commodities would probably already be overbought by the time this happened, land/rental units might work if you are diversified geographically)

[Laura33]

I think this list of the largest companies by market cap is mostly current. I would not expect an authoritarian government in any country, much less a right-leaning one like the US, would muck this up. If fact, they’d likely be bending over backwards to support it. The reason is these companies are creating the future and defining world power by their economic stature. The wealth they produce allows their domiciled country tremendous control in the world.

The problem is that much of what is going on right now is ideologically-driven.  They're not carefully carving away at agencies and personnel that interfere with rational business decisions; they are operating under the theory that Government = Bad, and so they are whacking at it indiscriminately, both to physically cut operations and to ensure that the focus is on the chaos instead of doing their actual jobs. 

Given that this ideology is very popular on the Right, I would assume that the short-term impact is going to be positive for the market.  The problem is that long-term, there are going to be much more serious impacts.  Like:  what happens when farmers can't get the subsidized loans they need to buy next year's seeds for planting?  What happens when the IRS can't process tax refunds?  What happens when the federal grants that support technical research at all of our R1 colleges and universities get held up or pulled, and the next generation of innovators are out of work (and we stop immigration, so we can't simply import all the engineers and mathemeticians and scientists we need to replace them)?  What happens when our infrastructure spending screeches to a halt and a major highway bridge shuts down and interrupts interstate commerce?  What happens when 8,000 of these individual things all start happening together?  And then what happens when all of the other nations that have been willing to lend us money at ridiculously low interest rates lose faith in us and decide that we're no longer the safest place to put their money, and we now have to borrow at higher rates in order to pay our bills, and the annual interest on the federal debt balloons? 

The earlier comment nailed it:  economies succeed over the long term because of the rule of law.  The US has been a safe haven for investments, both for our citizens and for individuals and countries all over the world, because everyone knows that their money is safe here -- it will not get confiscated by the government, it is invested in assets that are regulated to prevent (or at least minimize) fraud, it will not be subject to the whims of a shadow government that controls the market for its own ends, etc. etc. etc.  Even the fear that these basics are now in question begins to erode that trust, and thus wears away at the fundamental economic basis for our success for 200+ years.