Are We Returning to the Law of the Jungle?

Are we returning to the law of the jungle. This guy seems to think so.

It's an interesting read that begins with the obvious: things are changing on the political and the geopolitical front.

The markets have, it seems taken little notice - especially the stock market - if it is indeed true that markets dislike uncertainty. You've heard this before, right? It's used to explain severe gyrations (usually downdrafts). When things are dusted up, market don't like it.

So if that's true, what to make of what seems to have been and remains a resilient stock market? 

Could it be that the current relative calm (despite occasional downdrafts) is that famous calm before the storm?

Could it be that the "Trump effect" is so powerful that market participants anticipate a happy burst of economic activity, one that will ignore all the economy's troubles (higher than reported unemployment, inflation, possible stagflation, humongous debt continually fed by huge deficit spending by the federal government, severe income inequality, home prices out of the reach of most average folks, uncontrolled illegal immigration (well, maybe getting under control now) that's left millions of illegals wandering the streets sopping up gobs of jobs that might have gone to legitimate citizens...we could go on.

Just askin'.

But the point of the article stands on its own. And that means we're entering on a period of unprecedented and ultimately unknown change. (Does anyone not see this?) And so either the markets-hate-uncertainty mantra is wrong, or we'll be hitting a wall sometime soon.

Meanwhile, the change unfolds daily bringing with it both political and grassroots push-back by those who both dislike the change and the Changer.

The political stuff seems to be playing out in various legislative and court actions. The grassroots hasn't really hit its stride yet. That part usually waits for better weather - as in spring/summer. Historically, social unrest remains muted in winter. (But what of the "October Revolution" in Russia? Maybe the Bolsheviks were heartier folks.) 

Back to the article. It raises the point that others outside the USA may be thinking that our current batch of government pooh-bahs will ramp up the power they've already gained after the election and choose to use power rather than law to achieve their aims.

Just as it's no surprise that things are a-changin', so too it should be no surprise that power builds on power. Power simply tastes good, especially to those who wield it for the first time. 

Of course, many of those in the new gang in Washington aren't strangers to power. But the sort of power that lies in DC may be a type they've never tasted before. It is, after all, perhaps the most powerful power that exists. The federal government has, for many years now, built, preserved, and increased levers of power that may never have been seen before in history.

Let's hope the new gang - for all its good intentions (one presumes or concedes) don't get drunk with their first sip of it.

Getting back to the article aforementioned, those who now wonder and worry whether "Might is right" is making a comeback, two points:

First, when did this ever recede? There's an implication that it's not been in the forefront ever since "globalism" took center stage. Not sure how that adds up. 

Second, these folks seem clearly disturbed that the current globalist order appears to be shaking, fraying, perhaps dissolving. Seems they've been wedded to a mistress that has been compliant and comforting for so long, the possible absence of said mistress simply looks and feels bad. "How can we live without her."

Now that part's not stated in the article; but it sure does seem something lurking between the lines.

We considered the whole tariff thing last time. This time it's the undoing of the global economy that seemed to so many the perfect machine to take folks flying through this 21st century. 

One caveat for those who don't follow such matters closely:

Re tariffs, other countries selectively use tariffs and have for a long time. The U.S, government isn't pulling these out of a hat.

Re globalism, we might consider that perhaps its had something to do with the blustering income inequality that has gutted a middle class that once provided a decent life (at least economically) for millions who worked an eight hour day, five days a week, could but a modest house, had the option of a mother staying home to raise the children, and enjoyed basic security and simple luxuries.

It wasn't a terrible life. Perhaps its absence lies somewhere in the mix of reasons that the Big Orange Guy got the mandate that has enabled the unleashing of Might is Right - if that article makes any sense. 

As for a return to the law of the jungle, we do flatter ourselves to think we've been that far from the jungle all along, don't we?