MONEY THOUGHTS: Should intelligent investors embrace or abandon America?
THE late great novelist John Updike once wrote: "Adversity in immunological doses has its uses; more than that crushes."
Updike was born in 1932 and died in 2009, which spared him having to live through Donald Trump's first presidency, and of course, Trump's much worse second stab at the most important job in the world.
The terrifying capital market implosions in early April in the immediate aftermath of Trump's asininely miscalculated "Liberation Day" tariff announcements made relatively few prepared people wealthier, and many more much poorer.
Although Updike was referring to general forms of adversity, as I look at our world today through an intentionally chosen financial lens, it seems to me that those of us who have experienced multiple up-and-down-and-up-again market cycles, AND who have extracted the correct investment lessons from those oscillating graphs, will have gained a vaccine-like resistance against bear-market-triggered despair.
That's in contrast to the far more widespread panicked selling that less "vaccinated" market participants succumbed to recently.
We should always remember: "When emotions run high, intelligence is low."
So, do your best to stay smart, stay calm and stay optimistic. However, that doesn't mean being naive and abandoning an honest assessment of the world as it is.
You see, regardless of which side of the political or ideological divide you stand, you should recognise the recent Trump Tariff Tantrum (TTT) has destabilised global trade. And despite Trump's subsequent panicked backtracking on the worst of those tariffs for most countries — the notable exception being China which, as I write this, is facing 125 per cent tariffs on most of its imports into the United States — extreme harm has been inflicted by Trump on regular folks who rely on dependable global supply chains humming along steadily.
In case you're wondering, those "folks" I am referring to comprise most of Earth's 8.2 billion living humans. Please join me now on a brief journey back in time...
THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT
Almost two centuries ago, a savvy, super-smart French aristocrat Count Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) toured America in the early 1830s with his friend Gustave de Beaumont to research the US' early prison reforms.
Beaumont and Tocqueville dove deep into their subject. Their efforts culminated in their co-authored, two-volume French language work which translates to: On the Penitentiary System in the United States, and its Application in France.
Tocqueville was also fascinated by other things he observed about the US throughout his extensive travels there and in Canada. So much so, he later wrote a solo book, coincidentally also in two volumes (published in 1835 and 1840), entitled Democracy in America.
To his credit, Tocqueville detested the slavery he observed in the US at that time. However, he also acknowledged many American positives. In his groundbreaking book he wrote:
"Americans believe their freedom to be the best instrument and surest safeguard… to secure for themselves a government which will allow them to acquire the things they covet and which will not debar them from the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions."
Today, we look upon such expectations as basic human rights for everyone worldwide. Yet in the early 19th century, that wasn't how most of the world lived. The American experiment was just beginning back then, and it has been an overwhelming success.
Back in the 1830s, Tocqueville identified the reason for the then unparalleled vigour of the American nation. It boiled down to a widespread conviction shared by its pioneer generations that what mattered most were personal responsibility, honesty and diligence.
In other words, meritocracy.
Note: Tocqueville wasn't merely looking at early 19th century America through rose-tinted glasses. He looked squarely at its shortcomings, too. Nonetheless he observed a fascinating truth about the then young democracy:
"The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."
ROAD AHEAD
For us, here in 2025, despite the intense dislocations the world is facing because of appalling economic policies emanating from the White House, we would be unwise, as global investors, to write off America.
Understand that despite Trump's disruptions to world trade and economic harmony, our global economy will keep growing — most years. And, predictably, that growth will generate portfolio profits and precious passive income for well diversified global investors.
Our road ahead will undoubtedly be bumpy, perhaps for most of the next 3 ½ years — for obvious reasons. However, in due course, the US will sort out its sub-par leadership issues. Till then, stay courageously invested, ideally, globally. Also stay highly liquid.
In closing, do pay heed to this fascinating statement, which is often attributed to Tocqueville even though it's precise wording is not found verbatim in any of his writings: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
I'm certain America will regain its footing in due course. Till then, as the world's greatest investor Warren Buffett once explained: "It's never paid to bet against America. We come through things, but it's not always a smooth ride."
So, dear reader, be wise: Buckle up!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump told a news network Sunday the United States could become involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, and that he would be "open" to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin being a mediator. The Republican president, according to ABC News, also said talks over Iran's nuclear programme were continuing and that Tehran would "like to make a deal," perhaps more quickly now that the Islamic republic is trading massive strikes with Israel. "It's possible we could get involved" in the ongoing battle between the Middle East arch-foes, Trump said in an off-camera interview with ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that was not previously publicised. He stressed that the United States is "not at this moment" involved in the military action. As for Putin being a potential mediator in the conflict, "he is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it," Trump said. Israel and Iran traded heavy aerial assaults for a third straight day Sunday, with casualties mounting following Israel's large-scale attacks aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Oman, which has acted as a mediator on the nuclear issue, has said a sixth round of talks between Iran and the United States planned for this weekend had been cancelled. But Trump said the two sides were continuing discussions. "No, there's no deadline" on negotiations, he told ABC when asked whether there was a time limit for Tehran to come to the table. "But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," Trump said, according to Scott. Trump suggested that something like the clash between Israel and Iran "had" to happen to spur talks on a nuclear agreement. It "may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually," Trump said.--AFP
