Because It Needs To Be Said…

This moment of insanity is brought to you by TSLA. For those of you “new kids” not being hip. That would be Tesla™. Yes, the same cars you’re reading about crashing, spontaneously catching fire, ____________(fill in your own here.)

But just like they used to say in days-of-old when all those great saying in Latin terms were being memorized to be memorialized. Let’s use one a bit more modern, but still is of the “dated” variety from pop-culture.

This goes out to everyone that now have to further justify it’s valuation. You know, why it’s now the most valuable car company ever in the U.S. and why. (Not a joke!)

Right now, you’re “cruisin'” in other words, your investment prowess is just as deep as Tom’s line. This is precisely what investing has morphed into. All I’ll finish with is: best of luck with that, honest.

To wit:

(Chart Source)

And speaking of “Make Your Move.” Again, to wit:

Again, best of luck with all that.

© 2020 Mark St.Cyr

1979 Called – And 2020 Answered

Audio Version of Sunday’s Column: 1979 Called…

Usually I try and stay clear of all that’s political. However, when I do wade into the “pool,” I do my upmost to stay clear of the muck and mud and focus on the, what is.

In other words, what one needs to garner or surmise from the political dialogue, as to what may or will be coming forth in new laws or taxes, in regards to business. Although this is different, the arising consequences are the same. i.e., It’s going to affect everything.

I have been on record far too many times to count that when it comes to understanding this president, you have to view him from a purely business aspect, not the political. Sure, there’s an overarching political calculation, but that comes after the fundamental business equation.

Not fully understanding that implicit dynamic is where most assumptions go awry.

Whether or not one likes or hates him, his administration, _________(fill in your own here) is irrelevant. When it comes to understanding what might be forthcoming via legislation, rhetoric or anything else, the calculus should always be the same. First: What would a business person do in this situation? Then, how would the political aspect (if any) be handled?

For far too long only the latter has been considered by politicians and pundits alike. But as I said, which is now glaringly apparent: this isn’t 1979 and it ain’t coming back in any political calculus. Period.

I’m old enough to remember vividly (I was 19) the images crossing the television sets back in 1979 as Iranian militants seized, then paraded blindfolded American hostages before the world’s eyes. We were told back then (and from our politicians of the time) much the same as Iran’s Supreme Leader echoed this time, as Iranian backed militants embarked on trying to seize an American embassy as some gruesome expression of a 40 year anniversary surprise. e.g., “You can’t do anything.” Hint: We can, we did, and will do more – much more.

As I expressed on my show Friday when trying to give some context, for example as to how many Americans may view the response via the administration with the taking out of Iran’s top military officials, was this: There comes a point when threats will be taken as just that, meaning, they will be dealt with as such. “Bigly.”

This ain’t 1979, and Trump isn’t Carter. But more to the point: There’s a vast swath (I’ll say great majority) of Americans that hold absolutely no quarter for the idea of possibly needing to stock up on yellow ribbon ever again. Ever.

But there’s another part in this mix that’s being overlooked, and it’s this:

There is not a 1979 Iranian populace in play either.

Iranians themselves have grown tired of the 1979 takeover via the militant, Iron-fist of religious rule. This one aspect alone has the possibility of totally disrupting all the communistic visions for world domination being supplanted by China and Russia. Never mind Iran. And no one seems to be taking this into account. Repeat: no one.

Already we see the ping-ponging of deep introspect via the same “smart-crowd” populating the so-called “think tanks” professing such profound insights such as “The Middle-East just turned more dangerous.” and other pearls of wisdom.

These are the same people that got us into all this mess to begin with their “They’ll welcome us as liberators” tripe.

Hint: they didn’t and we should not have followed one word these people espoused. Now, 18 years later, they’re saying if we leave (e.g., Iraq) it could cause chaos! For the record, I’m OK with chaos, for I’m sick of this insanity, but that’s just me.

Going back to the wild card in all of this, what is not being calculated by this entire “smart-crowd” is the very real possibility that the Iranian people themselves might view this as the perfect time to push forward with their own struggle for both freedom of this rule, and once again returning to true self governing. And if that were to take place what happens to the now “China, Russia, Iran alliance?”

I’m not saying or implying a time like that under the Shaw that was supposedly an American puppet. I’m talking about true self rule, whatever they believe is correct. And they seem to be trying to do just that.

Now, because of the pure ideological bent and sheer fanaticism of the media (that’s U.S., not the others, just to clarify) all we ever see are the protests calling for “Death to America!” The reason for it is that’s all that the Iranian leaders will allow to be shown, because everything else is censored, not just to the world, but to its own people.

The people of Iran have been protesting in much the same way as Hong Kong and in similar numbers. But in the U.S., if it’s a protest in Iran – unless it’s against America – the need for coverage is squashed. Literally.

So I’m going to ask this question again, which I asked on my show: What would the world, never-mind the Middle East, look like if the Iranian people threw off the shackles of their current oppressors and became a more democratic country with self rule? How much would that change the calculus for the spread of communism’s world vision (i.e., China’s) for dominance?

China itself would find that all the so-called “alliances” in the Middle East they are trying to build would suddenly fall into a quagmire of second guessing if not outright rejection. I also will contend China is in no way financially stable enough to weather that possibility on a protracted time frame.

To be clear: what I am not advocating for is the U.S. in any way, shape, manner, or form to instigate or have at its decision making calculus the idea that doing this might bring about that. e.g., regime change for the sake of it. No, that’s not what I’m stating at all.

What I am saying is this: If the actions displayed via the administration (e.g. U.S.) in carrying out the strikes, in Baghdad, of a military leader of another nation that is orchestrating said attacks outside of his own country, at the desire and will of Iran’s current leadership to not only kill Americans, but to then profess that there’s nothing we could do? All I’ll say is welcome to the U.S.’s new 2020 Lasik enhanced vision.

Now, the sooner we get out of the entire Middle East entirely, the better. Let this action stand as a stark reminder of its own…

Threaten us? Here’s a pro-tip: It ain’t 1979.

© 2020 Mark St.Cyr