Why Saber Rattling Alone Does Not Create a Superboom
Threats involving Greenland, Panama, or Canada are not themselves the relevant market catalyst. Hirsch argues that investors should watch actual federal expenditure, security deals, resource agreements, and their economic effects rather than provocative rhetoric.
- Threats are weaker signals than enacted spending
- Security and raw-material agreements can carry economic value
- Global competition may increase strategic investment
- Political rhetoric should not be mistaken for fiscal evidence
“I think it's not so much the threat of war. It's overall federal spending”
“But it's really about the spending in general.”