Hi @Stannis

Trump showed and stated very clearly who he was. He said that this will be the last election - get out and vote you won’t have to do it again. I clearly remember him saying this at one of his campaign rallies during the lead up to the recent election. The thing I find perplexing is that people chose not to listen and ignore his tyrannical edicts.

I don’t know what is worse, that people aren’t believing what he is saying or that they still voted for a man not believing his words and dismissing him as Trump being Trump.

Integrity is a core value for me and I believe this is a basic requirement for anyone who holds political office.

Now to veer back to why this matters as an investor this market chaos is utterly destabilizing as his actions will likely mean a lot of investors will potentially lose a lot of money.

So anyone have any stats on the impacts of dictators on feee market economies? Is there such a thing that can co-exist?

No hard stats come to mind, @Nnyck777 , but I recently read Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson which offers a very relevant framework.

The authors argue that it’s not geography, culture, or resources that determine prosperity, but institutions. In particular, they contrast inclusive institutions (strong rule of law, property rights, accountable governments) with extractive regimes, which concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few.

Extractive regimes can initially appear efficient or economically productive, especially if they leverage existing wealth or infrastructure. But over time, they suppress innovation, reduce trust, and hollow out the foundations needed for sustainable, broad-based growth. So to your question: dictatorships and healthy free markets rarely coexist for long. The short-term market may rally under certain authoritarian policies, but long-term investment tends to suffer.

As for Trump, without getting overly political, he appears more focused on personal power and control than on strengthening institutions. That suggests a shift toward extraction -- not inclusion. Market-friendly policies might offer short-term sugar highs, (very possibly) backed by more (debt funded) spending and stimulus. But these could come at the cost of institutional erosion and long-term economic stability.

We're in unpredictable territory. But history shows that when institutions weaken, markets eventually follow. But the word "eventually" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement. I could actually see a 'melt-up' scenario if the money printers go into overdrive -- great from a nominal perspective, but probably not great in real terms, and certainly not for any extended period.

As @Stannis said, these are strange times

I wonder how much the internet and other modern elements will affect the pace of how these things play out.

Like market crashes playing out quicker and bouncing back these days, perhaps the rise and fall of extractive dictator types will also play out quicker.

I mean even Hitler didn’t last that long did he.

Obviously smoking that one to the filter came at enormous global cost…but compared to history, perhaps the reign of these types is much smaller time-wise.

Honestly, you can now see Trump affecting a much greater number of peoples money now in a bad way….i think even his base will start shrinking.

My guess is he won’t make the end of his term one way or the other.

This is the best explainer I've heard of .....Trump’s Plan to Smash the Global Economic Order

https://www.theringer.com/podcasts/plain-english-with-derek-thompson/2025/03/31/trumps-plan-to-smash-the-global-economic-order

52 min pod from Derek Thompson - very clear thinker and communicator IMHO

Gives a good economics based perspective on what's happened so far, the likely why behind it and how to think about the future.

The Ringer do the best pods.

Not good @Stannis

1930's Germany springs to mind.

Yep, Caeser's story didn't end well at all. But we could have a "roaring 20s" kind of scenario for a couple more years before the party ends, kinda like in the build up to the Great Depression.

Point to note: My friends in the US maintain that, just like previous presidents, Trump actually has only 12 months free sailing with the wind entirely to his advantage. The mid-terms occur in November 26, but the campaigns for them start at the beginning of 26. If by then, Trump's policies are hurting the average American (as they likely will, given the medical insurance/Obamacare roll-backs already announced, tariffs if they ever come, and other medical roll backs as per RKennedy, just to name a few) then Trump is going to start getting a lot of pushback from Republican members wanting to hold onto their seats. And that pushback's going to be very vocal, because those same members and candidates need to be "seen" to be fighting on the side of their constituents. That's very probably the reason behind his rush to get his policies up and implemented, even if he runs into legal challenges down the track. He needs to be seen to be doing what he promised, and some of what he promised (e.g. lowering grocery prices) he knows he can't do.

So I don't know that he'll get much more than one year of "anything goes" clear sailing, but how all that affects the markets (up? down?) is anyone's guess.

for all his faults there might be some necessary creative destruction in there.

no one can argue with a straight face that for all their right intentions the Democrats have swung way to far to the bloated ineffective left.

unfortunately all this will come at a cost to a lot of decent people.

plucking one data point, at least NATO are now taking more responsibility for their own security and spending appropriately…

horrible way for it to happen, but perhaps some good will come from this whirlwind.

gee I’m rooting for Ukraine, hope they see a fair peace without giving up territory.