I just wonder if all the black pillers are right. They seem to be predicting that Republicans are going to lose the House and lose the Senate and the Trump boom will be aborted in its infancy. Just sayin' ...
It is certainly possible that we lose the midterms, because the party in the White House almost always loses the midterms, as Reagan did in 1982. But it's harder to see how they think that would end the gathering boom, any more than it did in 1983. They can't undo the now-permanent tax cuts without a President to sign that. Ditto for re-regulation. They can harass the President but they can't legislate. And he's planned for that from the beginning.
Having said that, I'm pretty optimistic about the midterms. First, what I describe here will have an impact before November (though early voting cuts into that). Second, it's very hard to see any math by which the Democrats take the Senate, while the quality of Republican Senators will go up measurably. And third, if you actually look at the House races in play, Democrats would have to win over 2/3 of all of them to eek out a very slim majority. What are the odds of that?
Now you can look at Polymarket and see what they think the odds are. But Polymarket said that the odds against Brexit were 98% WHEN THE POLLS CLOSED. I haven't forgotten that.
Agreed. Btw, I was in London for Brexit watching the returns at the home of a friend who had campaigned for it. Very exciting night with huge geopolitical benefits.
Success will bring us together once it's so overwhelmingly glaring that everyone just assumes the media is lying. That's exactly what happened in 1983-1984.
Even worse than that. There were only three networks, no one had cable, and social media didn't exist. Most newspapers were liberal too. So all we heard was the constant drumbeat of how Reagan was failing...even after it became 49-state-victory-level obvious that was not true.
Four years later in my first college economics class I was still being taught how the Reagan boom was a myth. We had just come off of a year of 7% GDP growth.
I don’t have tons of subscriptions, but yours is by far the best bang for the buck. I used to resent having to pay for information…COVID changed all that. If someone truly cares about having the right information, I would encourage him to put his money where his mouth is. There’s no better money spent than your analysis, Rod.
👏👏👏 A terrific and very informative article, Dr. Martin! Like Ronald Reagan, the economic “experts” didn’t believe that Trump’s economic policies will cause any meaningful economic growth were 100% wrong! The next economic boom is on its way!
Outstanding analysis. Very encouraging. One change I would like to see, however, is a full reversal of the war on natural gas appliances for domestic use, which OBiden waged and Trump has not (as far as I know) addressed. I believe it was a policy designed not only to help the left's anti-Oil EV agenda but also to serve business interests wanting the higher profits they could get from LNG exports to Europe in conjunction with the sabotage of Nord Stream 2 and the Russian sanctions. American citizens should not be penalized in that process.
Absolutely correct. But there's been more progress on this than you might think:
1. A day-one executive order (“Unleashing American Energy,” January 20, 2025) explicitly directed agencies to protect consumer choice for appliances including gas stoves, water heaters, and similar products, and to review/rescind regulations that restrict that choice or burden domestic energy use.
2. Several early 2025 actions paused or delayed implementation of Biden-finalized appliance efficiency standards. Congress used the Congressional Review Act; Trump signed measures repealing certain Biden-era rules on gas water heaters and related products.
3. DOE withdrew coverage determinations and lifted regulations on miscellaneous gas products (decorative hearths, outdoor heaters, etc.).
4. In June 2026, the Supreme Court, citing the Trump administration’s position that the rules rested on legal error, sent challenges to Biden-era furnace and commercial water-heater efficiency rules back to the appeals court for reconsideration—rules that would have effectively banned many non-condensing gas furnaces.
5. On July 2, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to overhaul DOE’s “Process Rule” for setting energy-conservation standards. The explicit goal is to permanently end “Green New Scam” appliance mandates that raise costs and limit choice, covering gas stoves, water heaters, AC units, washers/dryers, refrigerators, and more. This revives and strengthens first-term Trump process protections that Biden had reversed.
Chris has been all over this, and many other things. There's just an awful lot to do.
As an owner of a manufacturing company providing components to OEMs, I am witnessing much of what is described here. Very positive. I do think, however, that one of the most powerful tools for long term competitive advantage for American industry continues to be oil and gas energy. I believe that US industry and consumers absorb too much of the cost of international turmoil when, as the largest producer, so much of what we produce/refine gets exported due to the higher profit potential of the international market. The Saudis do not pay $5.00 a gallon for gas. I do think there is a domestic use policy with great potential to benefit consumers and American competitive manufacturing through a concept I have not seen discussed before. How do I get the discussion going?
Rod, thank you for the response- it is very much appreciated.
My approach is to treat the oil and gas industry as a quasi utility. I wrote down my thoughts a while ago. It maybe a little long but it outlines the approach. The devil is in the details, I know, but I do think that taking advantage of our oil reserves to advantage our manufacturing is worth the analysis and consideration. Here are my thoughts:
American Interest First National Oil Policy
American consumers, be it private individuals or corporate, have frequently borne the damage caused by hostilities embedded in the supply chains of the Middle East, Asia and South America. The US has been deeply involved and suffered casualties due to involvement with countries, governments and economic distortions in which it would have been far better to avoid. In bearing the cost of avoiding catastrophic disruption to production and transport security, the US has expended vast dollars without anywhere near equal benefit except to the largest multi-national oil companies. Most notably, through all this it is the American consumer that has seen $5.00+ gas prices, inflation and uncertainty brought on by the chaos so easily initiated by others. Recall the gas lines of the 1970s. I do.
What has been, however, no longer holds a lock on what could be made given the current global supply realignment. That said, it is time to consider a policy far more in favor of the American people and businesses.
Premise: The US energy markets in many ways resemble the conditions that justified the price regulation of US utility markets. Oil/energy is not an option any more than water, it is clearly a necessity. The vacillation of supply and price over the past 6 decades has caused enormous disruptions both economic and political, leading to wars, corruption, market manipulation and alliances that on many occasions were harmful to US interests. It would seem unnecessary for the US consumer to endure the economic hazards associated with global market oil volatility when the current supply situation is such that near self-sufficiency is possible. What is needed is for the energy needs of America to be supplied by energy primarily produced in this country, a break from having the global market strictly determine the cost of energy in South Dakota rather than the cost in North Dakota. We produce an excess but the people and businesses don’t retain the benefit of our own resource but rather allow it to go wherever the traders do best.
Making this more equitable to Americans would require a massive change in policy and practice for which there may be few friends in the oil industry. Yes, it would necessitate the setting of price levels for a portion of the domestic market relative to domestic production, but it would also provide stability for the margins generated for that segment, and stability is a key factor both for producers and consumers. Consider the following objectives for such a massive policy overhaul:
1. Harden US energy security by designating a set percentage of domestically produced oil and gas stay within the country at a level adequate to prevent countries or cartels from meaningfully disrupting the supply in the US.
2. Allow the US to avoid entanglements and costs brought on by conflicts and market disruptions outside our borders.
3. Stabilize the price of oil and gas so that the US economy doesn’t experience the drastic and disruptive price swings resulting from international events. That would be for others to manage for themselves. Gas prices at the pump could still move, but it would only be by small increments. Most drivers would find it hard to fathom prices that don’t vacillate over several years, a good thing that would also greatly reduce the political chaos these swings produce.
4. A stable and controlled domestic cost/price structure would likely be lower than the external market would be an advantage to American business and an offset to other labor advantaged countries. Depending on how the numbers work out, this policy could result in a strong competitive advantage for the US, something we have all too often given away to or tolerated from other predatory countries.
5. The financial health of large oil companies is critical and while this structure would necessarily impact negatively on the high profits of the spike years, it would smooth out those times when long term agreements become massive losses because of the price swings that are regular events in this global market. There will remain ample opportunities to develop and trade resources as they currently exist. Producers would have very strong incentives to increase output as those amounts would be available to trade in any market deemed favorable at any given time. And they could do this on top of a stable, predictable cash flow from a domestic base market.
How might this be achieved? The first step would be to recognize domestic oil and gas as an essential utility and set a strong and enforceable policy tied to the secure supply of base and refined product relative to the current needs of the US economy. The goal is to provide domestically the majority of US oil and gas needs by requiring domestic drillers, refiners and traders to sell their product to the US market at a set, but moving, price. As an example, the US consumes roughly fifteen million barrels of oil per day for transport, electric generation and residential use. US production has increased to over 13.5 million barrels, much of which is currently exported because the global market is such that the profit potential is in export. If a mandate was created that required domestic producers to retain product equal to say 60% of US consumption roughly 9M bpd would be restricted for the domestic market and sold at a regulated price. Given the rapid increase in output it would be easy to see that number increase somewhat. Anything over the domestic percentage would be completely unrestricted. Key here is the risk of government getting too greedy by setting the domestic provision at too high a level. While it may seem perfect to require full supply domestically, it is not workable nor necessary to achieve these goals.
This is a key factor. Any policy that excessively harms the production of current products or the incentive to expand is too short-sighted to be practical. The price set would need to be determined in a manner similar to the way electric utility pricing is structured. First is the cost of actual production, which is easily known and well documented now. An added provision needs to be made for depreciation, exploration, capital budgets and a moderate but very adequate return (profit) on that portion of production. That price would be adjusted very modestly, if at all, for changed international market conditions or disruptions, up or down, because the cost of production is not determined by markets and doesn't change when Hormuz is blocked. The US price structure would be significantly insulated from global conditions giving industry the much sought after ability to project costs over the long term.
The product produced over the domestic requirement would be unrestricted as to price. The current excess and future increases production would very likely go to whatever international market offered the highest profit potential, an incentive to expand output. One of the benefits of this structure is to greatly reduce the volatility in earnings, although the boom-and-bust cycle has been greatly reduced in the past decades. Again, the goal is to stabilize prices to Americans, ensure robust domestic supply and security, allow for a profitable energy sector, and in times of international chaos shield the American consumer from wild swings at the gas pump or in heating their homes. At best, lowering modestly and stabilizing the domestic market could provide American industry a distinct competitive advantage that could not be manipulated by outside forces.
In return, the oil companies would retain the opportunity to operate independently for a large portion of domestic production and retain the ability to operate internationally with no greater restriction than they currently face. What needs correcting is the current situation where Americans are penalized at $5 per gallon while the US oil companies export millions of gallons in search of the maximum profit around the globe. No other major producing country penalizes their own people as we do here. Are the Saudis paying $5?
Oil and gas, like water and electricity, are necessary and essential commodities without which life in America could not continue at our current standard of living. It is possible to strengthen our energy security, moderate and stabilize the price and potentially provide massive support and even advantage to the productive manufacturers here at home. Lastly, American energy companies would still be globally pervasive enough so that the US government would retain the ability to use oil and gas export to support international political policy. No one loses.
Thank you for the insightful and encouraging analysis! God bless you 🙏✝️😀
Question: as a typical customer and investor, what is the best way to participate in the cycles? I have a tech stock portfolio and some S&P 500 funds. Can you recommend a resource or ETF/funds?
I am long all the major defense contractors, especially Lockheed Martin and SpaceX. SpaceX is not going to be an incremental gain: it's going to be the biggest company in the history of the world. It'll take a minute, but I'm an investor, not a trader (anymore, at least).
I'm also long the energy sector, and right now especially ExxonMobil now that they've shed New Jersey and bought up half of the oil patch in the Permian. Anybody building gas pipelines is going to be great too, with the caveat that those are more susceptible to losing an election in 2028.
Nuclear might be beyond your risk tolerance, but I'm bullish.
I just wonder if all the black pillers are right. They seem to be predicting that Republicans are going to lose the House and lose the Senate and the Trump boom will be aborted in its infancy. Just sayin' ...
It is certainly possible that we lose the midterms, because the party in the White House almost always loses the midterms, as Reagan did in 1982. But it's harder to see how they think that would end the gathering boom, any more than it did in 1983. They can't undo the now-permanent tax cuts without a President to sign that. Ditto for re-regulation. They can harass the President but they can't legislate. And he's planned for that from the beginning.
Having said that, I'm pretty optimistic about the midterms. First, what I describe here will have an impact before November (though early voting cuts into that). Second, it's very hard to see any math by which the Democrats take the Senate, while the quality of Republican Senators will go up measurably. And third, if you actually look at the House races in play, Democrats would have to win over 2/3 of all of them to eek out a very slim majority. What are the odds of that?
Now you can look at Polymarket and see what they think the odds are. But Polymarket said that the odds against Brexit were 98% WHEN THE POLLS CLOSED. I haven't forgotten that.
Agreed. Btw, I was in London for Brexit watching the returns at the home of a friend who had campaigned for it. Very exciting night with huge geopolitical benefits.
It really was. Successive UK governments have made very little of the opportunity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Trump said success would bring us together, he was wrong but at least we will have success.
Success will bring us together once it's so overwhelmingly glaring that everyone just assumes the media is lying. That's exactly what happened in 1983-1984.
But was there this overwhelming mental illness on the left at the time? Or the 24/7 algorithmic manipulation? I hope you’re right.
Even worse than that. There were only three networks, no one had cable, and social media didn't exist. Most newspapers were liberal too. So all we heard was the constant drumbeat of how Reagan was failing...even after it became 49-state-victory-level obvious that was not true.
Four years later in my first college economics class I was still being taught how the Reagan boom was a myth. We had just come off of a year of 7% GDP growth.
I don’t have tons of subscriptions, but yours is by far the best bang for the buck. I used to resent having to pay for information…COVID changed all that. If someone truly cares about having the right information, I would encourage him to put his money where his mouth is. There’s no better money spent than your analysis, Rod.
Thank you sir! That means a lot!
👏👏👏 A terrific and very informative article, Dr. Martin! Like Ronald Reagan, the economic “experts” didn’t believe that Trump’s economic policies will cause any meaningful economic growth were 100% wrong! The next economic boom is on its way!
America 250 Book Club 🇺🇸🫡❤️🤍💙🎆🎇📚 This Edition: American Civil War
* The Civil War: A Narrative - 3 Volume Box Set by Shelby Foote
* The American Civil War: A Military History by John Keegan
* Gettysburg: The Definitive Account of the Civil War's Turning Point-A Comprehensive Narrative History by Stephen W. Sears
* Gettysburg Rebels: Five Native Sons Who Came Home to Fight as Confederate Soldiers by Tom McMillan
* Armistead and Hancock: Behind the Gettysburg Legend of Two Friends at the Turning Point of the Civil War by Tom McMillan
* Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam by Stephen W. Sears
* Lincoln's Lieutenants: The High Command of the Army of the Potomac by Stephen W. Sears
* George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon by Stephen W. Sears
* Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy by Donald L. Miller
* All for the Union: The Civil War Diary & Letters of Elisha Hunt Rhodes by Elisha Hunt Rhodes
* Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War by Sam R. Watkins
* The South Vs. The South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War by William R. Freehling
* True Blue: White Unionists in the Deep South during the Civil War and Reconstruction by Clayton J. Butler
* This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War by Drew Gilpin Faust
* Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles B. Dew
* For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James M. McPherson
* Living Hell: The Dark Side of the Civil War by Michael C.C. Adams
* Germans in the Civil War: The Letters They Wrote Home by Walter D. Kamphoefner
* Sons of Garibaldi in Blue and Gray: Italians in the American Civil War by Frank W. Alduino & David J. Coles
* The Irish in the American Civil War by Damian Shaels
* Black Soldiers in Blue: African American Troops in the Civil War Era by John David Smith
* Between Two Fires: American Indians in the Civil War by Lawrence M. Hauptmann
* The Three-Cornered War: The Union, the Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West by Megan Kate Nelson
* Hispanic Americans in the Civil War by A.J. Schenkman
* On Great Fields: The Life and Unlikely Heroism of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain by Ronald C. White
* A Campaign of Giants--The Battle for Petersburg: Volume 2: From the Crater's Aftermath to the Battle of Burgess Mill by A. Wilson Greene
Excellent! Great comparison with Reagan’s first term.
OUSTANDING.
Outstanding analysis. Very encouraging. One change I would like to see, however, is a full reversal of the war on natural gas appliances for domestic use, which OBiden waged and Trump has not (as far as I know) addressed. I believe it was a policy designed not only to help the left's anti-Oil EV agenda but also to serve business interests wanting the higher profits they could get from LNG exports to Europe in conjunction with the sabotage of Nord Stream 2 and the Russian sanctions. American citizens should not be penalized in that process.
Absolutely correct. But there's been more progress on this than you might think:
1. A day-one executive order (“Unleashing American Energy,” January 20, 2025) explicitly directed agencies to protect consumer choice for appliances including gas stoves, water heaters, and similar products, and to review/rescind regulations that restrict that choice or burden domestic energy use.
2. Several early 2025 actions paused or delayed implementation of Biden-finalized appliance efficiency standards. Congress used the Congressional Review Act; Trump signed measures repealing certain Biden-era rules on gas water heaters and related products.
3. DOE withdrew coverage determinations and lifted regulations on miscellaneous gas products (decorative hearths, outdoor heaters, etc.).
4. In June 2026, the Supreme Court, citing the Trump administration’s position that the rules rested on legal error, sent challenges to Biden-era furnace and commercial water-heater efficiency rules back to the appeals court for reconsideration—rules that would have effectively banned many non-condensing gas furnaces.
5. On July 2, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to overhaul DOE’s “Process Rule” for setting energy-conservation standards. The explicit goal is to permanently end “Green New Scam” appliance mandates that raise costs and limit choice, covering gas stoves, water heaters, AC units, washers/dryers, refrigerators, and more. This revives and strengthens first-term Trump process protections that Biden had reversed.
Chris has been all over this, and many other things. There's just an awful lot to do.
Great stuff easy read all make sense for my biz
As an owner of a manufacturing company providing components to OEMs, I am witnessing much of what is described here. Very positive. I do think, however, that one of the most powerful tools for long term competitive advantage for American industry continues to be oil and gas energy. I believe that US industry and consumers absorb too much of the cost of international turmoil when, as the largest producer, so much of what we produce/refine gets exported due to the higher profit potential of the international market. The Saudis do not pay $5.00 a gallon for gas. I do think there is a domestic use policy with great potential to benefit consumers and American competitive manufacturing through a concept I have not seen discussed before. How do I get the discussion going?
Fascinating. I should connect you with a couple friends at the US Oil & Gas Association. I'd love to hear more.
Rod, thank you for the response- it is very much appreciated.
My approach is to treat the oil and gas industry as a quasi utility. I wrote down my thoughts a while ago. It maybe a little long but it outlines the approach. The devil is in the details, I know, but I do think that taking advantage of our oil reserves to advantage our manufacturing is worth the analysis and consideration. Here are my thoughts:
American Interest First National Oil Policy
American consumers, be it private individuals or corporate, have frequently borne the damage caused by hostilities embedded in the supply chains of the Middle East, Asia and South America. The US has been deeply involved and suffered casualties due to involvement with countries, governments and economic distortions in which it would have been far better to avoid. In bearing the cost of avoiding catastrophic disruption to production and transport security, the US has expended vast dollars without anywhere near equal benefit except to the largest multi-national oil companies. Most notably, through all this it is the American consumer that has seen $5.00+ gas prices, inflation and uncertainty brought on by the chaos so easily initiated by others. Recall the gas lines of the 1970s. I do.
What has been, however, no longer holds a lock on what could be made given the current global supply realignment. That said, it is time to consider a policy far more in favor of the American people and businesses.
Premise: The US energy markets in many ways resemble the conditions that justified the price regulation of US utility markets. Oil/energy is not an option any more than water, it is clearly a necessity. The vacillation of supply and price over the past 6 decades has caused enormous disruptions both economic and political, leading to wars, corruption, market manipulation and alliances that on many occasions were harmful to US interests. It would seem unnecessary for the US consumer to endure the economic hazards associated with global market oil volatility when the current supply situation is such that near self-sufficiency is possible. What is needed is for the energy needs of America to be supplied by energy primarily produced in this country, a break from having the global market strictly determine the cost of energy in South Dakota rather than the cost in North Dakota. We produce an excess but the people and businesses don’t retain the benefit of our own resource but rather allow it to go wherever the traders do best.
Making this more equitable to Americans would require a massive change in policy and practice for which there may be few friends in the oil industry. Yes, it would necessitate the setting of price levels for a portion of the domestic market relative to domestic production, but it would also provide stability for the margins generated for that segment, and stability is a key factor both for producers and consumers. Consider the following objectives for such a massive policy overhaul:
1. Harden US energy security by designating a set percentage of domestically produced oil and gas stay within the country at a level adequate to prevent countries or cartels from meaningfully disrupting the supply in the US.
2. Allow the US to avoid entanglements and costs brought on by conflicts and market disruptions outside our borders.
3. Stabilize the price of oil and gas so that the US economy doesn’t experience the drastic and disruptive price swings resulting from international events. That would be for others to manage for themselves. Gas prices at the pump could still move, but it would only be by small increments. Most drivers would find it hard to fathom prices that don’t vacillate over several years, a good thing that would also greatly reduce the political chaos these swings produce.
4. A stable and controlled domestic cost/price structure would likely be lower than the external market would be an advantage to American business and an offset to other labor advantaged countries. Depending on how the numbers work out, this policy could result in a strong competitive advantage for the US, something we have all too often given away to or tolerated from other predatory countries.
5. The financial health of large oil companies is critical and while this structure would necessarily impact negatively on the high profits of the spike years, it would smooth out those times when long term agreements become massive losses because of the price swings that are regular events in this global market. There will remain ample opportunities to develop and trade resources as they currently exist. Producers would have very strong incentives to increase output as those amounts would be available to trade in any market deemed favorable at any given time. And they could do this on top of a stable, predictable cash flow from a domestic base market.
How might this be achieved? The first step would be to recognize domestic oil and gas as an essential utility and set a strong and enforceable policy tied to the secure supply of base and refined product relative to the current needs of the US economy. The goal is to provide domestically the majority of US oil and gas needs by requiring domestic drillers, refiners and traders to sell their product to the US market at a set, but moving, price. As an example, the US consumes roughly fifteen million barrels of oil per day for transport, electric generation and residential use. US production has increased to over 13.5 million barrels, much of which is currently exported because the global market is such that the profit potential is in export. If a mandate was created that required domestic producers to retain product equal to say 60% of US consumption roughly 9M bpd would be restricted for the domestic market and sold at a regulated price. Given the rapid increase in output it would be easy to see that number increase somewhat. Anything over the domestic percentage would be completely unrestricted. Key here is the risk of government getting too greedy by setting the domestic provision at too high a level. While it may seem perfect to require full supply domestically, it is not workable nor necessary to achieve these goals.
This is a key factor. Any policy that excessively harms the production of current products or the incentive to expand is too short-sighted to be practical. The price set would need to be determined in a manner similar to the way electric utility pricing is structured. First is the cost of actual production, which is easily known and well documented now. An added provision needs to be made for depreciation, exploration, capital budgets and a moderate but very adequate return (profit) on that portion of production. That price would be adjusted very modestly, if at all, for changed international market conditions or disruptions, up or down, because the cost of production is not determined by markets and doesn't change when Hormuz is blocked. The US price structure would be significantly insulated from global conditions giving industry the much sought after ability to project costs over the long term.
The product produced over the domestic requirement would be unrestricted as to price. The current excess and future increases production would very likely go to whatever international market offered the highest profit potential, an incentive to expand output. One of the benefits of this structure is to greatly reduce the volatility in earnings, although the boom-and-bust cycle has been greatly reduced in the past decades. Again, the goal is to stabilize prices to Americans, ensure robust domestic supply and security, allow for a profitable energy sector, and in times of international chaos shield the American consumer from wild swings at the gas pump or in heating their homes. At best, lowering modestly and stabilizing the domestic market could provide American industry a distinct competitive advantage that could not be manipulated by outside forces.
In return, the oil companies would retain the opportunity to operate independently for a large portion of domestic production and retain the ability to operate internationally with no greater restriction than they currently face. What needs correcting is the current situation where Americans are penalized at $5 per gallon while the US oil companies export millions of gallons in search of the maximum profit around the globe. No other major producing country penalizes their own people as we do here. Are the Saudis paying $5?
Oil and gas, like water and electricity, are necessary and essential commodities without which life in America could not continue at our current standard of living. It is possible to strengthen our energy security, moderate and stabilize the price and potentially provide massive support and even advantage to the productive manufacturers here at home. Lastly, American energy companies would still be globally pervasive enough so that the US government would retain the ability to use oil and gas export to support international political policy. No one loses.
Jeff Pope
Scales Mound, IL
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Show original message
Thank you for the insightful and encouraging analysis! God bless you 🙏✝️😀
Question: as a typical customer and investor, what is the best way to participate in the cycles? I have a tech stock portfolio and some S&P 500 funds. Can you recommend a resource or ETF/funds?
I am long all the major defense contractors, especially Lockheed Martin and SpaceX. SpaceX is not going to be an incremental gain: it's going to be the biggest company in the history of the world. It'll take a minute, but I'm an investor, not a trader (anymore, at least).
I'm also long the energy sector, and right now especially ExxonMobil now that they've shed New Jersey and bought up half of the oil patch in the Permian. Anybody building gas pipelines is going to be great too, with the caveat that those are more susceptible to losing an election in 2028.
Nuclear might be beyond your risk tolerance, but I'm bullish.
A couple useful items:
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/the-spacex-ipo-isnt-overpriced-the
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/energy-dominance-americas-new-shale
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/energy-dominance-americas-lng-revolution
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/deep-dive-americas-nuclear-renaissance