Market Commentary for the week of November 11, 2013

Hope and change.

Here in the United States, we had local and regional elections last Tuesday.  Several of the ballot initiatives, and many of the candidates, addressed what has commonly been phrased as “the inequality gap”.  To be sure, in an ideal world, everyone has access to, and participation in, the bounty that this country has to offer.  From “sea to shining sea” we do have a plentitude of idea-makers and resources available.

Of course, there is no ideal world or perfect system.  So how, then, do we gain and prosper from the abundance at our disposal?  Well, I’m not a politician so I don’t have an easy answer.  But I know that the resolution of that question frightens Wall Street.

Society benefits always from the ingenuity and technology of a “better mousetrap.”  From bioscience to aerospace to agriculture, dozens of historical advancements have led to better citizen outcomes.  In a population of more than 300 million, there is no reason why any adult or child should go to bed hungry or impoverished.

Whether it’s their “fault” is left to the ideology of politicians and their political persuasions.

Science offers us an unparalleled record of innovation and change.  Oftentimes, Wall Street doesn’t respond well to change.  Corporations like certainty, low costs, and high profits.  Unfortunately, there is no luxury to stakeholders when profitability is held in abeyance to R&D or “moral justice”.  Corporations aren’t responsible for this inconsistency, we are.

In fact, if we spent more time addressing “what works” rather than “what’s working now” we might develop even more commercial opportunities.

Fear.

But yet despite commercial potential, the markets seem only able to embrace an approach which places many at risk for the few.  The irony is that money and politics while working holistically together, are nevertheless negatively interconnected when it comes to accepting or discovering new ideas.

Let’s look, for example, at agriculture.  For thousands of years, humankind has been tilling the soil to grow crops.  Since the advent of chemistry, scientists have attempted to magnify soil output.  Some developments have proven to be unhealthy, others enormously beneficial.

Without debating the merits of herbology in this tome, let me pose the following questions:  “if we could, would we be able to feed all citizens of the country and eradicate hunger?”

“Can we produce enough arable land and potable water so that we might build a self-sustaining, profitable, agribusiness, not only domestically but globally?”

The answers are not solely found in economics, or politics, or science.  They are found in all three.

The notion that these, and other questions, must be held in abeyance because political or business leaders are uncomfortable with change, or regression in their personal satisfaction, is another matter altogether.

Not one of these questions, by the way, will be answered without our participation, our input.  That’s why Wall Street loves the status quo and hates peering into the abyss.  They’re fearful the only thing they’ll see in an abyss is a mirror reflecting back their own image.