Implications of a Hillary Presidency: Non-Traditional & Hard Assets?

[OROBTC]

...

The audio of Trump's lewd locker-room comments is likely to bury Trump IMO.  Yes, Hillary has done worse (defending the rapist of the 12-year old, bullying of sexual assault victims by Bill, etc.), but the purpose of this thread to explore what we can do in a Hillary presidency.

My early thinking is that quiet (and hard to steal) assets that retain their value through time are a clear winner.

Bitcoin and gold come to mind.

What else?  Pluses and minuses discussion of assets for defense in a hostile investment climate are most welcome.....

[1715157188]

1715157188

[1715157188]

1715157188

[pitham1]

Would it be a positive for emerging market assets?
Given Bitcoin's transferability, it should benefit from any demand for offshore assets.

[yayayo]

If Hillary becomes president, you can expect more of the same dovish Fed-policy. Quantitative easing will be maintained and eventually expanded. At the same time individual taxation and regulation will also grow. Hillary will be making love with bankers instead of sending them before courts. There will be no deviation from the fiat money regime.

What will be the results? It's pretty clear: More inflation of fiat money. Therefore, if you have any savings you should definitely look for safe havens. Hard assets like precious metals are definitely a good choice. Real estate is too risky in my view (unless you buy your own place to live in and don't need a loan), because it is registered and can be taxed easily. Stocks of quality companies might be also worth considering. But there is one investment that starts with a 'B' you should not forget about... 

ya.ya.yo!

[tee-rex]

...

The audio of Trump's lewd locker-room comments is likely to bury Trump IMO.  Yes, Hillary has done worse (defending the rapist of the 12-year old, bullying of sexual assault victims by Bill, etc.), but the purpose of this thread to explore what we can do in a Hillary presidency.

My early thinking is that quiet (and hard to steal) assets that retain their value through time are a clear winner.

Bitcoin and gold come to mind.

What else?  Pluses and minuses discussion of assets for defense in a hostile investment climate are most welcome.....

It is more interesting to estimate who could potentially outright ban the possession of those "quiet assets" which are hard to steal otherwise. So who is more likely to become the next Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton or Trump? My bet is on Hillary, somehow I wouldn't get surprised at all if she banned Bitcoin without much ado. But banning Bitcoin is not a far cry from banning gold soon thereafter. Hillary is a real deal in this regard, unlike Trump who is all piss and wind.

[Hazir]

It is more interesting to estimate who could potentially outright ban the possession of those "quiet assets" which are hard to steal otherwise. So who is more likely to become the next Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton or Trump? My bet is on Hillary, somehow I wouldn't get surprised at all if she banned Bitcoin without much ado. But banning Bitcoin is not a far cry from banning gold soon thereafter. Hillary is a real deal in this regard, unlike Trump who is all piss and wind.

Hillary is a puppet of establishment. She will do anything to maintain current status quo both economically and politically.

I doubt that she (or Trump) will ban bitcoin, definitely not now - when it is still rather insignificant compared to standard assets.

But in the end she will do whatever she is asked to do by banking lobbyists.

[tee-rex]

It is more interesting to estimate who could potentially outright ban the possession of those "quiet assets" which are hard to steal otherwise. So who is more likely to become the next Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton or Trump? My bet is on Hillary, somehow I wouldn't get surprised at all if she banned Bitcoin without much ado. But banning Bitcoin is not a far cry from banning gold soon thereafter. Hillary is a real deal in this regard, unlike Trump who is all piss and wind.

Hillary is a puppet of establishment. She will do anything to maintain current status quo both economically and politically

But that can be said about any POTUS since John Kennedy

I doubt that she (or Trump) will ban bitcoin, definitely not now - when it is still rather insignificant compared to standard assets.

But in the end she will do whatever she is asked to do by banking lobbyists.

I agree that banning Bitcoin is very unlikely because its influence so far has been almost negligible on the banking sector or economy at large. But gold is a decidedly different story. Could Hillary try to ban physical gold if things start to get out of hand completely? Not that they are good right now, but going from bad to worse shouldn't be discounted either.

[OROBTC]

...

OK, my best *guess* is that not even Hillary would ban gold, and since I am very much a PGA (Physical Gold Advocate), I'll briefly discuss that.  (I'll get to other non-traditional and hard assets in the near future.)

Gold is no longer "money" (as in 1933) in one important sense: it does not circulate as money (gold coins).  The USA claims NO backing of the US$ with gold, and in fact is somewhat anti-gold.  And, in the USA, only some 1% (!) actually OWN any non-jewelry gold. 

Therefore, there is no imperative that I see where Hillary would try to confiscate it (house to-house for example).  She may try to tax it (say a 80% Capital Gains Tax -- which is already punitive in the case of gold -- gold profits are taxed (at a higher rate) as "collectibles").  It must be noted as well that gold owners are almost 100% correlated with gun owners...  So a direct seizure of gold is unlikely IMO.

Gold will protect (maintain its value) better -- given time -- than almost any other investment.  Gold is portable (except getting large amounts onto the plane quietly, I still haven't figured out to do that).  There is always "someone around" who will accept your gold in payment.  Gold will protect to a great degree, its value in a DEFLATION and HYPERINFLATION.

Silver and platinum share to a degree the above investment properties of gold.

*   *   *

Other investments, some lively ideas coming soon... 

[tee-rex]

Therefore, there is no imperative that I see where Hillary would try to confiscate it (house to-house for example).  She may try to tax it (say a 80% Capital Gains Tax -- which is already punitive in the case of gold -- gold profits are taxed (at a higher rate) as "collectibles").  It must be noted as well that gold owners are almost 100% correlated with gun owners...  So a direct seizure of gold is unlikely IMO

You hit the nail on the head! But what if people massively start to look for safe havens? Gold seems to be the first in line, but this is surely not what authorities might want. I mean people running for gold after they hear about aeroplane money. Let's call it gold rush. Should we thus conclude that any such asset would be taxed to the limit or otherwise made prohibitively expensive to own in order to make people stick to paper money, a new Hillary dollar?

[MingLee]

It is more interesting to estimate who could potentially outright ban the possession of those "quiet assets" which are hard to steal otherwise. So who is more likely to become the next Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton or Trump? My bet is on Hillary, somehow I wouldn't get surprised at all if she banned Bitcoin without much ado. But banning Bitcoin is not a far cry from banning gold soon thereafter. Hillary is a real deal in this regard, unlike Trump who is all piss and wind.

Hillary is a puppet of establishment. She will do anything to maintain current status quo both economically and politically.

I doubt that she (or Trump) will ban bitcoin, definitely not now - when it is still rather insignificant compared to standard assets.

But in the end she will do whatever she is asked to do by banking lobbyists.

Hillary is by all means a puppet, and as such, like what has already been said, expect for expanded welfare programs (and similar), an increase in taxes, likely more joblessness (I'll expand in a bit on this) and likely you'll see an extreme downturn in the American personal financial statistics.

Welfare programs: Well, everything is planned to be expanded (metaphorically and literally).

Taxes: Check the policies. Everyone but those under $20,000-ish receive an increase. Of course guess who'll be able to bypass those...

Unemployment: Wants to start a "National Reserve Service" where millennials and other citizens are used to go and """voluntarily""" rebuild infrastructure, work on other projects and so, etc. while giving employers "incentives" to hire people who put more hours towards these projects. Couple this with illegal immigrants being given amnesty and citizenship (and being able to want to work for less than minimum wage) and more ""refugees"" who will eventually find their way into the work-world, AND automation becoming increasingly common, AND a $15 minimum wage means that the low-wage employment sectors would be absolutely destroyed for  American citizens. Coupled with slipping wages for the rest of the economy and a divide occurring between wages and productivity, and we're looking at more unemployment sooner rather than later.

Hillary has a higher chance to ban Bitcoin (or heavily tax it), Trump will likely ignore it. If he did care, he would more than likely give it caveats so it didn't have many taxes placed on it, similar to the rest of his economic plan.

[panju1]

It is more interesting to estimate who could potentially outright ban the possession of those "quiet assets" which are hard to steal otherwise. So who is more likely to become the next Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton or Trump? My bet is on Hillary, somehow I wouldn't get surprised at all if she banned Bitcoin without much ado. But banning Bitcoin is not a far cry from banning gold soon thereafter. Hillary is a real deal in this regard, unlike Trump who is all piss and wind.

Hillary is a puppet of establishment. She will do anything to maintain current status quo both economically and politically.
I doubt that she (or Trump) will ban bitcoin, definitely not now - when it is still rather insignificant compared to standard assets.
But in the end she will do whatever she is asked to do by banking lobbyists.

If Bitcoin succeeds, they will use it as an excuse to cover up their failures.
Just like Trump is railing about how globalization is the cause of American problems now.

[Wind_FURY]

What about investing in acres of land? There is a saying "God created land once and he will not create any more of them."

If there was a scarce resource in this world then it would be land. Land with a clean water source would be most valuable especially in these times that climate change is threatening the world with famine and drought. I would not mind having my own piece of land and try to live off the land.

Did some of you see the "Big Short" movie? Remember the weird character portrayed by Christian Bale? He was the guy who first knew that the financial crisis was coming but he was off in his timing. He believes water is the next big investment to enter.

[OROBTC]

...

Wind_FURY

The only problem I have with land (including farmland) is that it is easy to tax -- hard to hide and even harder to move.

Otherwise, yes, it might be a good investment, especially if it can produce (crops, woodlands).  Last I read, cropland is expensive though (and so a low rate of return on your investment).

Commercial real estate now?  Not a buy IMO.  Same with housing in most of the USA.

*   *   *

I have seen water (related) investments as an interesting investment for the future.  I don't know enough to comment though.

[Yakamoto]

What about investing in acres of land? There is a saying "God created land once and he will not create any more of them."

If there was a scarce resource in this world then it would be land. Land with a clean water source would be most valuable especially in these times that climate change is threatening the world with famine and drought. I would not mind having my own piece of land and try to live off the land.

Did some of you see the "Big Short" movie? Remember the weird character portrayed by Christian Bale? He was the guy who first knew that the financial crisis was coming but he was off in his timing. He believes water is the next big investment to enter.

Land with access to water would be incredibly valuable. Even more valuable if it is connected to a glacier or some constant and easily replenishable source and not an aquifer or similar. The only issue? The land is stuck, and likely won't be moved. Having your own land allows for you to effectively be self-sufficient at any time, as long as yu know how to grow stuff.

Water being the next big investment? Possibly. It likely will be a hot-topic issue in 20-30 years, and countries like Canada and northern European countries will become far more valuable due to natural snow and glacier deposits.

As for cropland or commercial land (or houses), we're bound to see a correction with the market soon, I'd avoid buying for right now to be honest.

[Kakmakr]

We will see more senseless wars for Oil under the blanket of terrorism and increased Police state governance and continued debt spiraling out of control. Then you will see riots, like we have seen with other countries and this will have a global economic impact on the innocent people in other countries. ^hmmmm^

You cannot go on anything these politicians are saying now, they are concentrating on gathering votes. Empty promises will be made and the opposite will be done, when they achieve their goal. 

[yayayo]

[...]

You cannot go on anything these politicians are saying now, they are concentrating on gathering votes. Empty promises will be made and the opposite will be done, when they achieve their goal.  

You're right. But the vast majority of the press and potential voters is ignoring this quite obvious aspect. In my opinion, Hillary is a wolf in sheep's clothing while Trump in comparison might actually be a sheep in wolfs clothing. Trump is not as dumb as he is perceived by large parts of the (media) establishment. His campaign is tailored at gathering votes from the vast number of frustrated Americans, who feel betrayed by the establishment.

What Trump says today to become president might be an entirely different thing than what he actually does once he is president.

I'm not a fan of any candidate, because neither Hillary nor Trump is libertarian. But to me, Trump clearly is the lesser evil, because the Clinton clan is highly corrupt and heavily interconnected with the fiat banking elites.

ya.ya.yo!

[OROBTC]

...

OK, time for a really non-traditional asset...

Again, based upon a Hillary Presidency, I propose discussion of high-end guns.  At a bare minimum Hillary is anti-gun and will do "whatever it takes" to slap on more restrictions on gun ownership (and related issues of buying, registration, ammo).  How far she would try to go is unknown.

I'll concede that she will NOT try a mass confiscation, which would be ignored anyway.

But, certain firearms would seem to be possible "investments":

1)  Semi-automatic rifles (AR-15, AK-47).  I bought one for $1100 a few years ago which (used) I sold for $1200.  Semi-autos are already under a microscope, any restrictions on their imports/sales/etc. will almost surely drive prices way up.  Right now in most states the rules of buying a plain old .308 or an AK are the same.  This may change, maybe even by Executive Order.

2)  Similar comments for handguns, especially those with high capacity magazines.  And/or "hollow point" ammunition.

3)  I would think specialty items like .338 Lapua and Winchester .300 Magnum.  Sniping rifles.  Reach out and touch someone a mile away.

4)  Scarce and/or antique firearms that would be collectible for other than firepower...

*   *   *

I look forward to thoughts on this non-traditional investment.

After some discussion, I have more ideas...   

[tee-rex]

...

OK, time for a really non-traditional asset...

Again, based upon a Hillary Presidency, I propose discussion of high-end guns.  At a bare minimum Hillary is anti-gun and will do "whatever it takes" to slap on more restrictions on gun ownership (and related issues of buying, registration, ammo).  How far she would try to go is unknown.

I'll concede that she will NOT try a mass confiscation, which would be ignored anyway.

But, certain firearms would seem to be possible "investments":

1)  Semi-automatic rifles (AR-15, AK-47).  I bought one for $1100 a few years ago which (used) I sold for $1200.  Semi-autos are already under a microscope, any restrictions on their imports/sales/etc. will almost surely drive prices way up.  Right now in most states the rules of buying a plain old .308 or an AK are the same.  This may change, maybe even by Executive Order.

2)  Similar comments for handguns, especially those with high capacity magazines.  And/or "hollow point" ammunition.

3)  I would think specialty items like .338 Lapua and Winchester .300 Magnum.  Sniping rifles.  Reach out and touch someone a mile away.

4)  Scarce and/or antique firearms that would be collectible for other than firepower...

*   *   *

I look forward to thoughts on this non-traditional investment.

After some discussion, I have more ideas...   

I like the train of your thoughts! Regarding reaching out and touching someone, it is interesting to guesstimate how long she would last herself if she wouldn't listen to your prayers and still decided on mass confiscation of guns. Rumors have surfaced that her days are numbered anyway, so why the establishment would not want to sacrifice her for their own nefarious purposes? In my view, martyrdom would become her better than slowly rotting away in the White House for the next four (eight) years.

[Backside walkaround]

Agreed, should be the death knell for him.  But never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter.  Evidence for that is that Trump has gotten this far in the race, which absolutely blows my mind.

I'm loving hard assets and bitcoin right now.  We are in trouble if Trump gets elected, but I do think he's a good businessman.  Scumbag, but good with money.

[irritant]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PqbKiLp0s

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne on Gary Johnson, Trump vs. Clinton, and Blockchain for the Stock Market

[OROBTC]

...

Also interested in the investment value of specialty guns (as I described above).  That AK I bought (a joint-venture version made by the original plant in Izhevsk ("Saiga" brand) and Arsenal of NV (some US parts)) for $1100 (bought six years ago) some three years ago retailed at $2995!  Wow!  Almost a triple!  That would have been about the best investment possible from 6 years ago til then.  And it was a nice gun, I almost regret selling it.

*   *   *

Imagine what these would go for should Hillary try to seize these guns...:

http://onlylongrange.com/bad-news-338-lapua-magnum/

I visited those guys (Montana) once long ago, wrote 'em up at my blog.

That .338 Lapua is a $6000 gun.  Imagine what a piece like that would cost 3 years into a Hillary administration...  The rounds cost some $5.00 each (Hornady NOT recommended by Noreen), FYI lots of ammo of all calibers found here:

http://gunbot.net/ammo/rifle/338lapua/

gunbot.net is a fun little site.