By Chris Rossini
In this past election, it was widely believed that under a Hillary Clinton Administration, we would get more wars. Because of her horrendous war record, it was considered a given. Trump, on the other hand, has no war record, and his campaign rhetoric (for the most part) was not one of belligerence.
Placed side-by-side with Hillary, Trump was considered the peace candidate. This is always a smart move for a politician, as people naturally do not want war. Modern day America is so jaded by the string of failed military adventures that even wall-to-wall military propaganda can't move the needle. Americans simply do not want more war.
But the stock market doesn't seem to be buying Trump's campaign rhetoric. When real money is at stake in anticipating future events, that money is not being placed on less war.
Please take a look at the following military-industrial company stock charts:
You get the picture (pun intended).
Champaign and caviar are still on the menu for the military-industrial-complex.
Would that be the case if a genuine peace candidate were elected?
If Ron Paul were just elected president, the above stocks would have fallen through the floor! For it would mean that the troops were coming home and the sprawling Empire would be dismantled. It would mean the defense budget would be used for (you know) defending America and not policing the world.
The market is not indicating anything like that. If anything, it's anticipating business as usual.
Trump hasn't been sworn-in yet, and hasn't done a thing. But if he decides on business as usual, he's going to have a lot of disappointed supporters for sure.
The market is indicating (so far) that a warmonger Trump shall be.
Let's hope that changes.