The following is an excerpt from John Kimelman | March 21, 2016 | Barrons.com |
Two weeks ago, I wrote a cover story for Barron’s magazine arguing that Hillary Clinton would be better for markets as president than Donald Trump.
The story pointed out that a Clinton administration would be predictable and that markets like predictability. By contrast, Trump’s more ambitious tax-cutting agenda could expand the federal deficit and debt and his threats to impose a severe tariff against China could ignite a trade war and set in motion the kind of protectionist behavior that contributed to the Great Depression.
I knew at the time that this wouldn’t be the last word on the topic.
That’s putting it mildly. Shortly after the story posted to the Website, many Barron’s readers who support Trump and despise Clinton let me know what they thought of my piece.
Now two seasoned writers – Stephen Moore and Doug Kass – have weighed in on the topic of Trump and the markets and their arguments are certainly worth considering.
In a column for the Washington Times, Stephen Moore, an economic consultant with FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group, writes that Barron’s, Warren Buffett and “other stock gurus” have established a consensus view that Clinton would be better for markets than Trump. Moore thinks that Trump, the current favorite to win the GOP nomination, would be better for investors.
For more visit: Barrons.com