President Trump @realDonaldTrump should look for more endorsements of House Republican candidates in the upcoming campaign, both through recommendations from people at campaign speeches and offsite (on X or in TV interviews, etc.).😊
President @realDonaldTrump should go to Virginia in the last days of the election and give one speech as passionate as the one he gave in Michigan, a state with traditional virtues.
Judging from Behavioral Economics and Behavioral Finance, Trump @realDonaldTrump Will Win Big This Year
By He Jiangbing, 2024-10-26
[Summary] For voters without financial investments, broad economic effects like the herding effect and "watermelon effect" may sway American voters. For instance, two of the wealthiest and most influential people globally—Elon Musk @elonmusk , who publicly supports Trump, and Warren Buffett, a longtime Democratic supporter who recently announced he does not support Kamala Harris—play significant roles. Today, I'll focus on the endowment principle within behavioral economics, examining U.S. stock trends, Bitcoin, and Trump-related trades. American financial investors appear to strongly support Trump, with investors and non-investors alike overwhelmingly favoring him. Unless we see a repeat of the 2020 “Biden Curve” or a similarly strange outcome for Harris, Trump is positioned for a significant victory.
"Behavioral finance studies the influence of psychology on the behavior of financial practitioners and the subsequent effect on markets" (Behavioral finance, n.d.).
"Behavioral economics... combines behavioral analysis theory with economic principles, integrating psychology with economic science" (Behavioral economics, n.d.).
Part 1: Endowment Effect
Investors in stocks, bonds, funds, digital currency, and betting industries tied to Trump’s election are particularly likely to vote for him.
The first concept, the endowment effect, is defined as "the tendency of people to value an owned object higher than its market value simply because they own it" (Endowment effect, n.d.). Richard Thaler, who introduced this concept in 1980, found that people assign greater value to items once they own them, which affects their perceived loss and gain. For instance, discovering $100 brings less happiness than losing $100 brings sadness. This phenomenon is common and explains why many people hold onto underperforming stocks rather than sell at a perceived loss.
Another example: After buying a stock, an investor often follows related information, especially positive news. If someone criticizes Musk or Tesla, a Tesla stock owner may react defensively. Unlike traditional economic theory, which assumes people are rational actors, behavioral economics acknowledges irrational tendencies in human decision-making. Many companies leverage this to increase profit.
Due to the endowment effect, investors currently in financial markets are overwhelmingly betting on Trump (64%) versus Harris (36%), making Trump’s chances look strong. Trump-related stocks include DJT (his own company), a media firm backed by Vance, and others shorting the Mexican peso, affecting U.S. Treasury bonds, Bitcoin, steel, banks, prisons, and the auto sector (Tesla and GM). Those investing in Trump-related assets are likely to support him to protect these investments, a direct result of the endowment effect.
"The endowment effect explains why people often refuse to sell stocks at a loss, believing any sale means a permanent financial loss" (Endowment effect, n.d.).
Part 2: The “Watermelon Effect” and Herd Mentality
The middle-ground voters will likely support Trump due to the “watermelon effect” and herd mentality. Previously discussed, the “watermelon effect” refers to the tendency of undecided voters to lean toward the prevailing candidate or force.
The watermelon effect illustrates how around 95% of people lack strong views and gravitate toward what seems strongest. Right now, polls, media, betting markets, and the financial sector favor Trump, and undecided voters are likely to follow suit. Similarly, the herd effect occurs when followers look to influential leaders—in this case, Musk and Buffett. Their influence in American investment circles is now highly visible.
Traditional Democratic and conservative Republican supporters may find policy details difficult to follow and are more likely to follow influential figures like Musk, who strongly supports Trump. Musk, a resident of Pennsylvania—a critical swing state—has bet his influence in this herd effect, where his 200 million X (formerly Twitter) followers could sway many. Buffett’s lack of support for Harris significantly impacts Democratic supporters, as he’s long been a prominent Democrat.
"Behavioral economics holds that people are not always rational and tend to make decisions influenced by biases, like following others or being swayed by influential figures" (Behavioral economics, n.d.).
The reluctance to vote for Harris extends to congressional races, especially in the House. Given Harris’s lack of support, apathy towards her may reduce Democratic representation.
Part 3: Expectation
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s Prospect Theory, a concept within behavioral economics, is grounded in future expectations and was acknowledged with a Nobel Prize in 2002.
"The theory describes how people decide between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known" (Behavioral economics, n.d.).
Public sentiment is clear: polls reveal that nearly 80% of people believe the current administration is heading in the wrong direction. Most view Trump’s prior performance as favorable, with many expecting him to perform better. When the majority holds such views, they often prove accurate, as optimism or pessimism can self-fulfill in economic trends.
Trump’s question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” draws an overwhelmingly negative response towards the Biden administration’s recent performance. Rising inflation, stagnant wages, and high crime rates have diminished public confidence. Trump’s established strengths in managing the economy, border, and foreign relations make many believe he will outperform Harris.
In conclusion, based solely on economic factors, Trump is positioned for a significant victory—assuming there are no significant irregularities.
Related terms explained and news
Behavioral Finance
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Behavioral finance. In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 26, 2024, from https://t.co/Tu6L5lAbTN
Behavioral Economics
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Behavioral economics. In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 26, 2024, from https://t.co/ZkJDVVVXq4
Endowment Effect
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Endowment effect. In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 26, 2024, from https://t.co/NYVTycCzNQ
Opinion Article on Behavioral Economics
https://t.co/Cug7rUEn6n. (2024, October 26). Analyzing Trump’s projected victory from behavioral economics and finance [User opinion post]. https://t.co/Cug7rUEn6n. Retrieved October 26, 2024, from https://t.co/6P0cEaYCDx
从行为经济学和行为金融学判断，川普今年大胜
贺江兵 2024-10-26
【内容提要】对于未有金融投资的人来说，广义上来说的经济学中羊群效应、西瓜效应会对美国选民产生作用，比如世界上最聪明和最有财富的两个人：马斯克公开大力支持川普、历来支持民主党候选人的股神巴菲特今年公开声明不支持卡马拉……我今天重点讲述的是行为经济学中的禀赋原理，从美国股票、比特币、特朗普交易等方面看，美国金融投资者也会绝大多数支持川普。美国选民中投资者、非投资者绝大多数人都会支持特朗普的情况下，除非跟2020拜登曲线一样出现贺锦丽（卡马拉）更怪异的曲线，否则，川普将超乎想象的大胜。
“行为经济学是作为实用的经济学，它将行为分析理论与经济运行规律、心理学与经济科学有机结合起来，以发现现今经济学模型中的错误或遗漏，进而修正主流经济学关于人的理性、自利、完全信息、效用最大化及偏好一致基本假设的不足。行为经济学在西方主流经济学中不是新学，只不过，自1950年代至1990年代，它沉寂了几十年。”—心理学家丹尼尔・卡内曼提出展望理论，获得2002年诺贝尔经济学奖。
各位朋友大家好，今天是2024年的10月26号，我们今天从行为经济学以及行为金融学的角度来分析特朗普先生可能会大胜，这是有科学依据的，简介的主要部分已经放在了前边，有很多原理大家或许已经知道了，但是有些原理你们可能不一定清楚。
第一部分：根据禀赋效应，投资川普当选相关的股票、债券、基金、数字货币、博彩等行业的投资者尤其是美国投资者会投票给川普——甚至有金融投资的绝大多数会投票川普。
² 第一个就是禀赋效应，这个原理我简单说几句你们就能懂。禀赋效应指的是：一个人一旦拥有了某种物品，那么对该物品的品质评价以及估值就会比拥有之前大大提高，这个理论是由塞勒（Richard Thaler）于1980年提出来的，这就是损失厌恶型，比如说你在路上捡了100块钱和你丢失了100块钱这两件事同时发生，那么你捡了100块钱的快乐远远抵不过你丢失100块钱时的伤心，此外还有个杯子原理，比如说一个十块钱的杯子，如果你要是没有杯子的时候，你可能只想出五块钱，但是一旦拥有了这个杯子，你可能卖出的心理价位就是15块钱，这种现象是非常普遍的，这就解释了为什么说很多人宁愿股票被套牢也不卖，因为他觉得自己卖了就亏了。
² 还有一种情况也印证了禀赋效应，例如说买了一个股票以后，那么你一定会收集关于这个股票的相关信息（尤其是正面信息），比如说大家原来炒过的特斯拉，一旦拥有特斯拉股票之后就会天天去关注特斯拉的正面消息，万一听到谁说马斯克或者是特斯拉公司的坏话，你肯定想骂人想揍他，这种就是行为经济学和行为金融学的一部分，行为经济学与经典传统的经济学原理不一样，传统经济学它是把人设想为理性的，而现实生活中人都是非理性的，有很多商家就是根据人类这种非理性的消费去赚钱，所有大的公司都会这样搞。
² 根据禀赋效应，现在参与金融市场的投资者买川普赢的大概是64%，买贺锦丽赢的是36%，川普的赢面是遥遥领先，川普概念股一个是DJT（他自己的公司），另一个是万斯入股的一家媒体公司，第四个就是做空墨西哥的比索，并对国债、比特币、钢铁行业跟银行、监狱和收容所以及汽车（这里边既有特斯拉也有通用）产生影响，这篇文章中（注：文末有相关链接）有不准确的地方（关于特斯拉还有国债），所有押注特朗普交易的金融投资者他的选票必将投给川普，这就是禀赋效应。
² 禀赋效应其实就是敝帚自珍，这个典故是由东汉25年我们枣阳出的皇帝刘秀引发的，就是说你自己家里哪怕是丢失一把扫帚也会心疼，禀赋原理这个名字取得比较怪，这么多人持有特朗普交易的相关股票、债券、基金甚至是保险，拥有这些金融产品后他一定会珍惜，而且为了维护他自己的金融产品，肯定会主动去投票给川普，这是毫无疑问的，不可能说买了川普的相关股票，然后去给贺锦丽投票，除非这个人有毛病。
² 再有一个，川普从共和党里面出线以后，美股一直在涨，这个上涨和贺锦丽短暂的下跌形成鲜明对比，包括那个黑色星期一，我们讲过的，那天就是因为贺锦丽取代拜登以后的民调一飙升，股市就暴跌，这就是说整个金融市场的投资者都不希望贺锦丽当选，她如果要超过川普，股市早就跌了，这就是禀赋原理在金融市场上的一种表现，那么黑色星期一之前之后美国的经济有大起大落吗？没有！只是因为川普的民调当时被贺锦丽短暂的追上才造成了暴跌。
第二部分：根据西瓜效应与羊群效应中间选民会一边倒支持川普。前面讲过西瓜效应，指趋炎附势，基于自身利益，向势力强大或局势较有利一方倒戈的情况。马斯克强力支持川普和股神巴菲特几十年来首次公开放弃支持民主党总统候选人，会导致马斯克追随者和中间选民投票支持川普、另一方面中间派甚至民主党原本支持者对脑袋空空甚至糟糕的贺锦丽投不下去票，这样对民主党参众议员都造成极大负面影响。
² 第二个部分我们讲西瓜效应和羊群效应，西瓜效应我们原来讲过，就是西瓜傍哪边，中间选民以及95%的人都是乌合之众，他没有主见，某方强的时候就会很强，现在的大势就是：所有的民调、所有的媒体，所有的博彩公司以及金融市场都偏向川普，那么中间选民就会偏向川普，这就是西瓜效应；羊群效应就是当一群乌合之众不知道朝哪去的时候，出现了一个领头的指明方向，那他就会跟着走，这其中就是马斯克和股神巴菲特，这两个在美国的羊群效应现在已经正在发酵中。
² 无论是支持民主党左派的，还是支持特朗普右派保守派的，如果要让一般的老百姓详细地听完他们的主张政见，尤其是经济政策和国际关系非常难懂，要让每位选民都搞懂那是不可能的，这时候他们就会跟风，马斯克对于川普的支持力度非常大，现在还是在摇摆州一天发100万美元，另外给每一位联署支持宪法第一修正案以及第二修正案的选民47美元（因为这是47届美国总统选举），这种会起很大的作用，马斯克身体力行，并且住在宾州—这个最重要的摇摆州，得宾州得天下，所以马斯克就是把自己的身家性命赌进去了。
² 马斯克有2亿的X粉丝，并且他被誉为世界首富，这不仅是光环而且是现实，他实际上也是宇宙内最聪明的人之一，我们普通老百姓看不准也听不懂，但是会觉得马斯克这么卖力地支持川普，那他比我聪明比我有钱有智慧，他科技方面也是第一，那我就跟着他走肯定错不了，这就是羊群效应。还有一个就是老人或者投资家们第二个跟风的对象就是巴菲特，巴菲特是民主党人，他这几十年来每次大选都要投票给民主党的候选人，包括奥巴马甚至希拉蕊，上届他没怎么发声，但是这一次公开地申明：不支持任何一位候选人，不支持贺锦丽也不会支持川普，不支持川普是可以理解的，因为巴老是终生的民主党党员，他不可能去支持川普，这就是个羊群效应，此外，贺锦丽的确是脑中空无一物，智商是74还是47，这样的人实在投不下去，并且左派媒体采访她的时候给她递刀子，她都不会用，没有提示器只能蹦单词，并且在她唯一管理的一个边境制造了边境危机，就这一项工作都没做好。
² 在这种情况下，实在投不下去选票的就不投，也学巴菲特。对于中间选民，甚至民主党的中左选民就会素然无味，干脆不投票；中间选民中的一部分会被马斯克带到投票，因为有物质奖励还有他的精神引导，这批跟着去投，坚定地支持共和党的会更坚定；中左选民会跟马斯克区投票（他原来也是中左），摇摆不定的另外一部分人虽然支持民主党的某些政策，但是实在不喜欢贺锦丽就会学巴菲特不投票，这样一来中间选民就会产生严重的分化，原来支持民主党的人就像巴老一样不投票，巴菲特是民主党党员，他以前的资金投票都是支持民主党的，但是这次有所改变，包括上次支持拜登的基数也会大幅度减少，民主党的基本盘也会减少，投票支持率也会减少，然后中间选民也会减少甚至投川普，这样是根据经济学的上述原理，特朗普是必将大胜，这是没有疑问的。
² 另外还有一个附带效应，由于民主党基本盘减少甚至产生动摇，中间选民都不投票，倾向于民主党人都不投票支持贺锦丽，因为实在投不下去，这样也会造成对参众议员选举结果的影响（特别是众议员），美国的众议员是两年选一次，参议员是每两年改选1/3，6年换完，这样由于不想投票给贺锦丽，不出去的话，那么也会导致民主党参众议员的席次会减少，具体的变化有待于今后的统计结果，这就是两个主要的部分。
第三部分：预期
心理学家丹尼尔・卡内曼提出展望理论，获得2002年诺贝尔经济学奖。展望理论就是预期。推选后支持川普的黑莉说，贺锦丽在过去四年唯一只主抓了一件事：边境问题，这位边境女沙皇让边境出现历史上最严重的危机，四年一件事都干不好——都能干成灾难的人假如能当选美国总统，世界将会怎样？左派媒体和华尔街日报民调中川普都领先，一半以上认为川普四年总统干的很好；一半以上认为贺锦丽现在的副总统都不合适。
配合之前我几年来一直讲的经济学【预期】就是，大众都这么想的事情大多能成，都以为经济会下滑的时候就减少或降低消费经济就下去了；相反，大家都积极乐观投资消费，经济就好起来了。当大多数人都以为贺锦丽领导美国会带来灾难；而川普领导下的美国会美好，关键是选民都有票直接推上去了。
² 第三个原理我跟大家讲过很久，每年都讲很多次，预期就是对未来的一个假设，未来是前景美好还是不美好？我在前面发的有一段长的文字，就是美国的民调公司有79%（接近80%）的人都认为拜登贺锦丽这届政府把美国引向了错误的方向，就是八成的人觉得他们方向搞错了，也就是不满的人占多数。
² 川普任内的驻联合国大使黑利说：拜登政府在这四年只让贺锦丽干了一件事，就是边境，结果她还制造了边境危机，四年做一件事结果还造成了危机，这样的人如果当上总统，千头万绪，那么是不是每件事都会搞砸呢？而川普问了一句话：你现在过得比四年前好？还是比四年前差？因为四年前是他在执政。大家回答的对比非常强烈，拜登做的太糟糕了，这四年通货膨胀严重，工资涨的没有物价涨的高，犯罪率飙升，非法移民增加了1000多万，杀人抢劫强奸各种案件频发，我刚看到德克萨斯州一个十岁小女孩被非法移民杀害的视频，昨天晚上川普到了德克萨斯，这是一个铁定的红州，他去了巩固基本盘。
² 美国的选民会去想这四年过的差还是比之前好，并且所有的民调都显示川普在经济、边境、对外关系，控制局势各方面的所有指标都比贺锦丽高，他过去有这个基础，大家有理由有预期觉得川普干得绝对比贺锦丽好。在这种情况下，我仅仅从经济因素方面分析川普会大胜，如果没有作弊，没有贺锦丽更奇特的曲线，川普必然会大胜而不止是小胜。
相关名词解释和新闻链接：
https://t.co/6q0QN3fMUl（行为金融学）https://t.co/GtrB9fAMr2 （行为经济学）
https://t.co/HHkfbVDN9W（禀赋效应）https://t.co/6P0cEaYCDxhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ga4DQobbsAA0rmo.jpg
<head><meta charset="UTF-8"></head><pre style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.3); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given Kamala Harris’s current state as the election nears, Mr. Trump should stop giving interviews and let her take the spotlight. The more she speaks, the more her incompetence and dubious rise to power will be exposed, along with her inability to handle key issues.
Mr. Trump and his daughter-in-law, Lara Lea Trump, who is also a Co-chair of the Republican National Committee, should now focus on preventing election fraud. Specifically, they need to closely monitor the swing states: Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Winning just one of these states could essentially secure Mr. Trump's victory.
I've noticed that Mr. Elon Musk has already realized this. He is closely watching Pennsylvania. Winning Pennsylvania would virtually secure Mr. Trump's victory. Mr. Musk is fully committed, and I believe Mr. Trump should also give it his all. Lara Lea Trump, as the Co-chair of the Republican National Committee, should pay particular attention to Pennsylvania, as it holds significant importance.
Mr. Trump has a foundation of support in Pennsylvania. I recall that the Governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, is Jewish, and Kamala Harris has shown a clear disfavor toward the Jewish community. She did not choose Josh Shapiro as her running mate, which makes this a critical weakness that should be fully exploited. Mr. Trump's ear injury from an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania is notable, and many of his stories resonate in the state.
I am confident that even with cheating, Kamala Harris won't be able to outmaneuver Mr. Trump in other swing states, but Pennsylvania is challenging. With its large population and significant number of electoral votes, Pennsylvania remains critical, offering Kamala Harris ample room for potential cheating.😂
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by 贺江兵 | export