https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/business/stock-market-prices-bubble.html?searchResultPosition=1
*Making Sense of Elevated Stock Market Prices
Shares are very expensive, but so are bonds. Even at current prices, the economist Robert J. Shiller says, it is reasonable to keep some wealth in stocks.
By Robert J. Shiller
March 5, 2021
The stock market is already quite expensive. That is evident when you compare current stock valuations with those from previous eras.
But it is also true that stock prices are fairly reasonable right now.
That seemingly contradictory conclusion arises when you include other important factors: interest rates and inflation, which are both extremely low.
Examined on their own, stock valuations are at giddy levels, yet they are far more attractive when viewed side by side with bonds. That’s why it is so hard to determine whether the stock market is dangerously high or a relative bargain.
Consider that the S&P 500 index of U.S. stock prices has repeatedly set records over the past year, while a measure that I helped to create, the CAPE ratio for the S&P 500, is also at high levels.
In my view, the CAPE ratio is the more important of these two measures of overpricing because it corrects for inflation and long-term corporate earnings. John Campbell, now at Harvard University, and I defined CAPE in 1988. This is a bit technical, but please bear with me: The numerator is the stock price per share corrected for consumer price inflation, while the denominator is an average over the last 10 years of corporate reported earnings per share, also corrected for inflation.*
Not sure if you will be maybe happy with your equities portion if you stay long invested (perhaps 15 20 yrs later - if you can avoid major prolong anemic returns and market crashes)

Andy Lane has managed the construction of enormous facilities for extracting and transporting natural gas, in places like Trinidad and Indonesia.
Now he is working in his native England, taking on a complex and expensive venture that essentially aims to reverse what he has spent much of his career doing.
Mr. Lane’s newest assignment is designed to collect carbon pollution from a group of chemical plants in northeast England and send it to a reservoir deep under the North Sea.
The multibillion-dollar project could be a breakthrough for a technology known as carbon capture and storage, a concept that has been around for at least a quarter-century to reduce the climate-damaging emissions from factories.
The idea sounds deceptively simple: Divert pollutants before they can escape into the air, and bury them deep in the ground where they can do no harm.

https://nytimes.com/2021/03/08/business/carbon-capture-bp.html

Bee's "Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify" discussion is important, and addresses quite a number of aspects which I will not discuss here.
I've taken the unusual step of opening a separate "chapter" on this subject, so to speak, because it seems to me that we, as a nation, are blithely stepping off a cliff without a whole lot of contemplation of the rocky landscape below.
Bee's discussion, like most others on this subject, makes some assumptions that I seriously question. Those assumptions go to the very heart of the issue: is it even realistically possible to have this electric "Greenification"?

***************************************************************************
As I write this, the last post in Bee's discussion is from kings53man, who contemplates a comforting scene of "thousands/M of electric vehicles [charging] in the night". This is absolutely not to poke fun at kings53man, because his scene is actually a pretty common picture promoted by the Green folks.
Now, before the bricks start flying, let's establish this: I fully understand the climate dilemma, agree that humans likely are major contributors to the problem, and that "something" major needs to be done, and soon.
What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality. To keep things reasonably easy to contemplate, let's confine our picture to the United States.
OK, postulate that in "x" number of years no more internal engine vehicles are going to be produced. Anyone wanting a vehicle will need to be driving electrics. Fine... one problem solved.
Energy. It comes in lots of different packages. To list just four: coal, natural/synthetic gas, gasoline/diesel, electricity. To help visualize the issue, consider each energy package as a number of boxes- that number being relative to the amount of each being currently used. The total amount of energy needed is equal to the volume of all of the various boxes.
Keeping things simple, lets assume that one box of energy is equal to any other box of energy, and that any kind of box may be transported over any kind of energy distribution network: a mental picture of boxes being transported across the country through trucks and tankers, or more weirdly, shoving their way through pipelines and thin electric grid wires.
Now, the reality is that all of the presently existing energy transportation networks are pretty close to operational capacity. There's simply not a huge amount of extra room just waiting to be used on the existing electric grids or fuel pipelines.
***************************************************************************
OK, coal is obviously a loser, and can be replaced for the most part by natural gas. So that means more boxes of natural gas, fewer of coal. This is actually under way, and seems pretty easy.
BUT: natural gas is now deemed unacceptable also, and the proposed premise is to substitute boxes of electricity. Now things are getting a bit more complicated. First of all, the electrical distribution grids of the United States do not have the capacity to transmit a significant additional number of energy boxes.
Let's step back for a moment and try to visualize a couple of huge mountains of energy boxes. First, those boxes needed to support our national vehicle fleets. Second, the boxes needed to supply heating and cooking for homes and workplaces. It's being proposed that all of those boxes are to be transported somehow over our already stressed electric grids. To me, this is a typical picture of political operators who haven't the faintest idea of the actual practical realities of electrical transmission. Very much like the politicians who are responsible for the Texas power grid network.
Let's think for a moment about the actual efficiency of various energy types. Yes, electricity can certainly be used to generate heat, and fairly easily too. Unfortunately, it takes significantly more than one box of electricity to equal the heat energy in one box of natural gas energy. In other words, electricity is simply less efficient than natural gas to transport or generate heat.
Well, that's something that obviously needs more thought, so let's look instead at vehicles. Again, to keep things fairly simple, let's ignore large trucks and similar equipment, and just consider the average automotive vehicle.
OK, first, lets look at the mountain of energy boxes now supplied by gasoline or diesel fuels, and try to visualize those boxes also being stuffed through the national electric energy distribution systems. H'mmm- that's quite a puzzler also. Existing grids were largely built when the country was less populated, and it was a lot easier to construct major infrastructure without lawsuits and protests. Not suggesting that situation was ideal- simply stating a fact.
When pundits and promoters talk about the "electric grid system", most of us compose a mental picture of huge steel pylons with heavy electric wires marching across the land. We think something like "well, those really aren't all that pretty, but then the odds of having one of those in my backyard are pretty slim, and most of that stuff is someplace else anyway".
Really? The next time you're out and about take a moment and look at the wiring on any overhead electric distribution system. Try to imagine having to either replace most of those wires with much thicker wires, or alternately, to double or triple the number of wires. Take a close look at some of those power poles, and note the large metal enclosures which are mounted there. Those are transformers, and they will also need to be either much larger, or have many more of them. Speaking of the power poles themselves- do you notice that many of them are already pretty full of stuff, and that there really isn't a lot of room for more stuff?
Well, perhaps you're fortunate, and live in a nice middle-class area where everything is neatly underground and out of sight. Sorry- get prepared for a lot of digging and streetwork- all of those systems will need substantial upgrades also.
Wow! And how exactly is all of this going to be paid for?
***************************************************************************
Well, let's assume some sort of miracle on that, and consider how each new electric vehicle is actually going to receive it's energy packages via the grid.
Right! We're back to looking at "thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night". Sounds easy enough. It's not too difficult to image a cozy scene of middle-class detached homes with one or two electric vehicles happily guzzling boxes of electric energy while their owners sleep away the night. OK, that's under control.
But what about the huge number of Americans who live in apartments, multi-family housing, or who need to park their vehicles on the street because they don't have suitable garage space?
And, thinking about this a little more, exactly what kind of plugs and extension cords will all of this need? The present vehicle charging systems don't just plug into the nearest 120 volt outlet with a #14 extension cord from Home Depot. No, each charging station needs to be installed with a power source that is pretty heavy-duty and able to handle the increased load.
Has anyone, anywhere, even begun to think through the financial implications of any of this? We have a substantial percentage of Americans who even now can barely keep food on the table. And they are going to have to install an expensive charging system in older homes which would need significant wiring upgrades to even accommodate this?
So now we are telling those people "sorry- but having a vehicle is just for the better-off folks"?
***************************************************************************
I've deliberately only touched on a few of the aspects of this whole thing. Having spent much of my career in electronics, I naturally tend to look at things from a somewhat technical point of view, and fully understand that others may not do so. But, as demonstrated here in California, and also so very recently in Texas, placing ignorant political activists of any persuasion in charge of problems requiring some degree of interest in and understanding of technical reality is not particularly helpful.

@Mark, apologies can't tell if you meant sarcasm??
Hey, don't we all think that unelected officials, he Zuck and West Coast Moses (the Twitter guy) and all the wonderful folks at Google should tell us how we should think and act.
They are so righteous and just. Stealing our personal info and feeding us brainwashing commentary. Really a form of mind control. Geniuses all of them.
Not.
Anyhoo, it appears that Cathie is getting her arse handed to her. We'll see if the drubbing continues in her ETFs. Folks might end up losing way more money in her dumpster fire than the fraud (allegedly) in IQDAX. I'm thinking that is the way it's going to play out. My larger concern is that in the escape from her funds is that the Nasdaq gets pulled down biggly in all the excitement. Again, might be solid buying opportunity.
As an observer of human nature, I wonder if she will come on Cramer and keep her narrative going, max out the hubris, buying the dip in her "disruptive" companies...you think so?
Baseball Fan

What happens to the historical CAPE? Too much cash chasing too few assets ?

Dow 35k! CAPE near 40 forever! It's a new era!

Hi @Mark
This is a reply to Derf from Jan. 18, which includes some info about Fido select trading. A bit of other not related chat, too.
I don't recall the start date for phone trading of select funds, but did use this feature for a pencil performance chart I kept for each week ending pricing. I still have the darn papers.
___@Derf You try'in to overload an oldtimers brain cells....??? :)
I recall reading a few articles in Barron's or WSJ about the Beardstown Ladies investment club.
About the coworker investment club: the life span was a portion of 1985 through a portion of 1991. As most funds required $2,500 to invest (exception was FCNTX); we had to get to that point for a purchase of a fund. The goal was met in short fashion. The initial monies went into a MM Cash Reserves fund that had a 1988, 7 day yield of 7.2%.
Additionally for the funds of this time period, is that many had a 3% (one time) front load and some had redemption fees up 1.5% within the first 12 months of purchase. This was still better than many of the prominent big houses at the time.....a Merrill Lynch, etc. The E.R. range was from .83 through 2%. The Select funds might also have a $75 trading fee. Select funds at the time could be bought and sold on the hour throughout the business day. Transactions were performed through F.A.S.T. (Fidelity Automated Service Telephone) using a touch-tone phone.
All investments were through a Fidelity account and only used their mutual funds.
I can offer a few trinkets about this period (1985-1991) and investing. As noted previous, Fidelity had already established numerous "select" funds; the front runners of sector funds or what are named thematic today.
To the best of my recall, we used the following funds during this period:
---Cash Reserves, MM
---Select American Gold (later merged in Precious Metals)
---Select Computers
---Select Health Care
---Contra... FCNTX
---Captial & Income, (junk bonds and related) FAGIX
We didn't trade often, mostly due to the fees. We also escaped, without harm, during the Oct., 1987 market melt, as we did not sell anything, and our position in American Gold provided a +40 in 1987 to provide a balance.
My recall for the time frame of the club is 10-12% annualized. As members of the club placed different amounts each month, each member had a percentage of ownership when the club was dissolved; and the total profits were dispatched to each member, along with their tax form for the year.
I'm sure I've missed something I thought about previously, but a fun flashback.
Take care,
Catch

@MikeW: when I was teaching I had a friend in Finance and we used to yack it up about equity CEFs. He actually knew something about international finance, while I was an amateur. After I retired I ran into him and I asked if he still was using CEFs; he said no because ETFs gave him all the exposure he wanted to given markets. I found it very hard work to take advantage of spikes or drops in discounts as it entailed frequent trading.
I did maintain a position in HQL, and then in BME, but I now believe that active management in those two healthcare funds added no alpha. I would not discourage an investor from exploring equity CEFs, especially if the goal is equity-income-like returns, especially as many CEFs have had to adopt minimum distribution plans, often in the range of 8% yearly. There is income to be had in those circumstances, but the learning curve could be steep for some. One drawback of equity CEFs is volatility, particularly on the downside. I have gotten more satisfaction and better returns from ETFs like MOAT and CAPE. Recently I added DSTL, DSTX, XBUY, CSB, NUEM, and of course ARKK. Best wishes to you from behind my KN 95.

Yes John certainly how I feel being cooped up in my home! I yearn to escape.

The converter tool is a good suggestion. Though it works better for some funds than for others, and PRIDX is not a fund for which it shines.
What the tool is supposed to try to do is find ETFs (and ETNs) tracking the same index as a fund's primary benchmark. If there are none, it broadens its search to ETFs in the same general category as that benchmark.
It reports the primary benchmark of PRIDX as S&P Global ex-US Small Cap Index. While that's the first of three indexes listed in the prospectus, the most appropriate of those in the prospectus IMHO is Lipper International Small/Mid-Cap Growth Funds Average. The others are blend indexes.
Here's where the tool gets weird. It says the S&P Global ex-US Small Cap Index is in the same category as Global Equities ETF. Then it goes completely off the rails by listing securities as diverse as CAPE (a US-only ETN) and some Israeli ETFs (EIS, ISRA) among others.
To get better results out of the site, one can pick the best matching category from ETFdb.com's category page. Closest category is "Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities".
https://etfdb.com/etfdb-category/foreign-small-mid-cap-equities/
Better, but I don't see anything that looks like a growth-leaning ETF. Though I'm only guessing from their names.
An ETF I ran across that's somewhat similar to PRIDX is ERSX. It invests in the same mid-cap growth space as PRIDX. In fact, it's a bit growthier and a bit more volatile.
PortfolioVisualizer reports its R² with PRIDX is 96%. M*'s factor profile for the two are very similar, though ERSX is not surprisingly a bit more volatile. ERSX performs similarly but not as well as PRIDX, despite the fact that they have nearly no holdings in common.
Here's ETFdb's page on the ETF, which curiously it puts into the small cap blend category. (And people complain about M*'s problems.)
A write up on ETF Trends:
https://www.etftrends.com/entrepreneur-etf-channel/rising-star-international-small-cap-etfs/

I had a financial adviser tell me once that holding gold bars in one's house made no sense as what's to stop someone from coming to the goldbug's house and beating that person to death with their own bars? Banks exist so one doesn't have to deal with those security issues. I guess rubies are easier to conceal. But there is a technological problem in 2021: https://scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3043892/will-cartier-and-other-luxury-brands-start-using-more-lab Would someone just accept rubies, even fake ones, without being an expert in 2021? Maybe the thing to do is buy fake rubies and pass them off as real when trying to escape.
Still, if you know the history of fascism--which the riot on capitol hill was all about--seeking to overturn a democratic election via pure violence--as opposed to democratic socialism--nowhere even close to that in the U.S.--diamonds and gold sometimes helped people escape and sometimes they didn't. Biden is no socialist. Taxes will go up almost certainly, but given the debt trajectory Trump had the country on previously, taxes were bound to go up anyway. But having any taxation, contrary to popular belief, is not socialism.
As for Hussman, he's a smart guy who's been wrong. He's bound to be right eventually as davfor points out. But in investing if a manager's timing is way off on a macro prediction, he is wrong. One thing I never quite understood regarding HSGFX is it was supposed to use both valuation and technical momentum driven signals to go long or hedge the market exposure. Despite the high valuations we've seen, I would've expected some of the fund to be long--or 50% long-- given the momentum we've also seen. Perhaps the reason it was often fully hedged--and I may be answering my own question here--is that while the market was always rallying, it was a narrow rally of a few giant stocks driving the market's returns. So perhaps Hussman felt that there wasn't enough breadth in the rallies to go partially long.

Good Morning Class,
I'm thinking when we look back at the "markets" (casino?) at the end of the year, we're going to realize that in late January we were facing a very binary outcome...either the majority of us get the jab in the arm (key could be JNJ vaccine (?), there is a antidote by Merck or with the new admin, taxes go up, regulations go up, socialistic spending ramps up and markets (casino?) craters....look at the nonsense with GME Gamestop...you wanna put your life savings into this sheet show?
so...
1) Is it time for Hussman, HSGFX or HSAFX...go ahead and call me crazee but don't call me Shirley but I'm going to step into the Huss with a noticeable investment today.
2) Is it time for high grade rubies? I recall a passionate discussion during the "Financial Crisis" (housing bubble scam) with my CFO and others by the water cooler how you could shove a million dollars of high grade rubies in your sock and no one would know they were there...shared stories from my Grandma how her wealth was confiscated by the democratic socialists under Tito...she was lucky to escape with her life as they usually popped the wealthy
I recall The Gundlach stated he "likes real assets that he can put in the trunk of his car" (paraphrasing)
3) On the other half, I'm thinking the markets might be up 30-40% if the vaccines take effect, we don't have the nutty tweeties anymore and things calm down, economy and jobs pick up etc..so slowly adding to ARTTX on down days
4) I'd rather myself play the "bro-investor" approach by buying stocks like Penn Gaming than Bitcoin...
Like I said, binary, place your bets? Of course, posting for entertainment purposes only, I have no idea what will happen this year, etc.
Best and good health to all,
Baseball Fan

@Derf You try'in to overload an oldtimers brain cells....??? :)
I recall reading a few articles in Barron's or WSJ about the Beardstown Ladies investment club.
About the coworker investment club: the life span was a portion of 1985 through a portion of 1991. As most funds required $2,500 to invest (exception was FCNTX); we had to get to that point for a purchase of a fund. The goal was met in short fashion. The initial monies went into a MM Cash Reserves fund that had a 1988, 7 day yield of 7.2%.
Additionally for the funds of this time period, is that many had a 3% (one time) front load and some had redemption fees up 1.5% within the first 12 months of purchase. This was still better than many of the prominent big houses at the time.....a Merrill Lynch, etc. The E.R. range was from .83 through 2%. The Select funds might also have a $75 trading fee. Select funds at the time could be bought and sold on the hour throughout the business day. Transactions were performed through F.A.S.T. (Fidelity Automated Service Telephone) using a touch-tone phone.
All investments were through a Fidelity account and only used their mutual funds.
I can offer a few trinkets about this period (1985-1991) and investing. As noted previous, Fidelity had already established numerous "select" funds; the front runners of sector funds or what are named thematic today.
To the best of my recall, we used the following funds during this period:
---Cash Reserves, MM
---Select American Gold (later merged in Precious Metals)
---Select Computers
---Select Health Care
---Contra... FCNTX
---Captial & Income, (junk bonds and related) FAGIX
We didn't trade often, mostly due to the fees. We also escaped, without harm, during the Oct., 1987 market melt, as we did not sell anything, and our position in American Gold provided a +40 in 1987 to provide a balance.
My recall for the time frame of the club is 10-12% annualized. As members of the club placed different amounts each month, each member had a percentage of ownership when the club was dissolved; and the total profits were dispatched to each member, along with their tax form for the year.
I'm sure I've missed something I thought about previously, but a fun flashback.
Take care,
Catch

@MikeW: I tried to get a discussion going a couple of weeks ago about Distillate Capital, the company running DSTL and DSTX. Kiplinger's put me onto checking out this manager in its listing of the best ETFs for 2021. DSTL figures in the list and it had been a previous recommendation. You know I've been a fan of MOAT and CAPE (or the OEF strategy DSENX) for some time. I like relatively concentrated funds with a comprehensible (to me) strategies; the Distillate theory of free cash flow and how a security's value should be determined as well as the fact that DSTL has outperformed MOAT and CAPE since its inception pushed me to read the DC white papers on their website and to dip my toe in DSTL. DSTX uses the same value strategy as applied to international stocks and I am willing to put some bucks into it as a vehicle for testing my belief that international and value will do well in this climate. On the domestic SC side, I bought CSB to play the rise in SCV and that is working out. Check out Distillate Capital; their stuff is readable.

I am happy with my investment in MGGPX, but I am now debating whether to add "one" foreign LG to my mix. The only international exposure I have is through MGGPX (for the most part).
My current allocation to MGGPX is 12% of my PV. I'm not sure i want to up it.
I am looking for an average or lower "risk" FLG fund. I've come across a few, but one that continues to interest me is MFAPX (Morgan Stanley Inter. Adv). It is managed by the same manager as MGGPX, with what appears to be, not too much overlap in top ten holdings.
Does investing in MFAPX and MGGPX make any sense?
Are there better/other alternatives you can suggest i look into?
I've been badly burned in the past, investing in "foreign" and/or EM, so i have stayed away, except for MGGPX. Is it time to dip back into the foreign landscape? Am i too late?
Any thoughts, suggestions or opinions VERY welcome!
Thx,
Matt

None, none, none.
This perplexing scenario to witness I have discussed in the briefest of ways w the august LBraham and JWaggoner, meaning exchanging a few rueful wtf words, and they list the usual suspects, chiefly fomo w tina (per the ongoing likely course of interest rates, mentioned above, plus new and ongoing disaster relief payments).
Plus a certain amount of rich-millennial behaviors (robinhood etc.).
But these ain't insights, really, nor is saying that this time some of it 'really is different' (permanent shift in p/e).
Also, these handful of factors many people have been pointing out for a long time.
I have been out of equities 100% since May 11, when nobody saw a 30% rise still ahead, of course.
Now. A real and significant dip takes us back to only say 28k Dow, a defined bear market back to only ~25k. It was not long ago at all that more than one big investment house were saying Well, okay, when we slump into the 26k area or whatever, it will be time to buy aggressively.
Anyway, greed stamina, and fundamentals, being what they are, that ain't happening. There has been a lasting shift upward, and no 2000 or 2009 ahead. CWood at Ark and others like her have started to write about the chronic underestimation of technology.
So ... upon dips I intend (he said) to put lots into VONV (p/e ~27) and CAPE and then sit tight (he said) for a few years. At ages 72 and 74 soon, we have enough years of cash for us to manage, looks like.
All very vexing, and if I had stayed the course in May we could be sending out so many more donations!

Warning: Investors need to understand their individual circumstances and their volatility and risk tolerances.....
FWIW....Most of the time I just observe. Market timing is left to others. (2019 to 2020 were exceptions to this observer mind set while a new secondary investment portfolio was being established.)
These are just a few somewhat random thoughts and opinions as 2021 begins from a generalist investor who typically acts with multi-year investment time frames:
***Its important to acknowledge the stock market is very expensive by historical measures -- particularly on the growth side. The articles linked above make that clear.
But...
***The Fed is now part of the investment landscape in ways it was not in the past. That hit home to me in early 2019 when the Fed abandoned its rate tightening efforts ( Powell Put ).
***The Fed further clarified the breadth of the Powell Put by acting very aggressively last winter when the markets were in turmoil. It has also suggested it will intervene aggressively if market turmoil erupts again in the near term.
***Having Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary will probably increase coordination between the Fed and Treasury.
***Having the Democrats in charge probably means additional fiscal stimulus will occur this year.
***The pandemic will probably have a significant ongoing disruptive economic impact for much/most of this year. The probable shape of the post-pandemic investment landscape may not come into focus until late this year or next year.
My investment portfolio thinking:
The combination of near zero interest rates, the Feds aggressive stance, and substantial fiscal stimulus helped me to decide to leave my allocation to stocks somewhat elevated by my standards when the annual review was completed in December (strong stock market performance and a shift of about 5% of the portfolio from ZEOIX to utility stocks in August had bumped it up during 2020). But, a nod to uncertainty resulted in the purchase of GBLMX, CRAAX, and SVARX as well as some trimming of growth stock holdings during the transition from 2020 to 2021.
Now I am just watching while keeping my eye on VIX out of curiosity. My crystal ball is still quite unclear about how long the Fed/fiscal stimulus part of the equation will succeed in keeping the bulls mostly in charge of the stock market. Maybe for multiple years if the Fed and fiscal policy makers navigate well??? But, maybe Grantham will prove to have been correct and the profitably investable top occurred last summer!!!
Other portfolio notes:
***There is adequate cash in reserve (SPAXX, JPST, and RPHYX) and enough investments in bond funds to enable an investment portfolio reallocation into stocks if a significant (20%+) market decline occurs.
***I am a 70 year old retiree. The dividends, distributions, and any capital gains received during the year are invested separately in the "Cash Pot" for release to a non-investment account at the end of the year. So, the set-aside beginning this month is for probable release at the end of 2021. But, there are adequate reserves outside the investment accounts to ride out an investment apocalypse event if that occurs during the year.

I use it (not nearly enough!) because it very slightly outperforms SP500 over 10-5-3-1y etc. (Same w/ CAPE, again not nearly enough, so faithless was I this last year.)

RConnor delves a bit:
https://humbledollar.com/2020/11/rate-debate/
cape ratio this weekend just under 34

I certainly hope you’re right. Yes - my argument above is rambling and unfocused as I’m trying to look at the arguments in the thread (in their entirety) from an entirely different perspective. Tired of the brickbats that have been flying back and forth here and elsewhere for two years or more. Yeah - the personal attacks and antics in Parliament are something. But, to an extent, the selection of head of state isn’t tanamount to an audition for lead role in a Hollywood remake of Top Gun as it often seems here. Transition is quick too. No two-months waiting “in limbo” for the previous guy (or woman) to pack up and leave town. Gone the next day.
-
PBS historian and documentary filmmaker Ken Burns seems to think that neither TR or FDR could get elected today. Albeit, his rationale is somewhat different from mine.
Burns: “[Franklin Roosevelt] has the same enthusiasm and confidence he had when he was a little boy. Theodore Roosevelt is trying to escape the demons. He’s always running faster than those demons. And Eleanor is very much like that, but she’s also saying, get up every day and do something that you don’t want to do. It’s facing your fears. And what’s what all of them did in a way, and they did it in an active way that they instilled confidence in others.”
Moderator: “But would these historical characters succeed if they were in today’s hot political climate? Burns doesn’t think so.”
Burns: “Theodore is very hot for this cool medium of television. He’d have lots of Howard Dean moments,” he said. “And Franklin Roosevelt, you know, in a wheelchair, we’d be vying, all the networks, for the most, you know, the stressed-out look, as he unlocks and stands up. … I think if we saw it we’d be saying, he couldn’t possibly lead us through a crisis.”
Source