🏦A sub-optimal situation 🏦

Hi friends!

Welcome to Better Have My Money, my Monday night newsletter about stocks, investing and taking money from the rich.

This week a clip of Jim Cramer — America’s favourite market news guy — talking about how Wall St. dreads Elizabeth Warren possibly becoming president went viral (I love when suddenly the stockmarket is sexy).

“Are they worried about Elizabeth Warren attacking?” asked Jim Cramer, talking about Wells Fargo, one of the country’s largest banks. In January, it reported $6.1 billion in quarterly income.

“Of course they are… If she becomes president, what do you think is going to happen to the banks?” replied fellow host David Faber.

“It would be a sub-optimal situation for the banks,” said Cramer. He goes on to say how fearful Wall Street execs are of Warren, and that they’ve supposedly been telling him “she’s got to be stopped.”

Now, in this instance, I found it hard to tell if Cramer and co were simply spouting off stuff for the cameras or not.

But it’s interesting to me that most market news sites see business growth as more important than any other thing. They don’t seem take into account that for many investors, such as myself, growth at the expense of workers; household debt; the environment; the rest of the economy; our social fabric of society etc is…. not actually growth we want in the companies we own shares in.

Lots of 2020 Democratic candidates are trying to figure out how to reform industries and markets and propose different ideas of how an economy could work.

Warren, the former Harvard professor and anti-corruption activist, often talks about how she’s a capitalist who believes in the markets — but that she wants to fight money in politics, stop deregulation of banks and break up big tech companies.

Confusing word of the day: “deregulation” — basically, reducing government power or control in an industry supposedly to encourage competition, which can be great for business, but not always for consumers.

Bernie Sanders wants Wall Street to pay for student debt, while Kamala Harris proposes that trades could be taxed and spent on a Medicare for All plan.

There is a push for a different type of economy that focuses less on encouraging companies just to grow, grow, grow.

And Warren wasn’t worried about criticizing the banks — she simply turned Cramer’s chat into a campaign ad.

But there was another small part of her anti-corruption proposal that stuck out to me. She proposes that members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, White House staff and other senior government officials, should not be allowed to own individual stocks when in office (she herself has millions in mutual funds).

I love owning individual stocks, but it also makes a lot of sense that those in positions of political power should be more focused on encouraging an entire market, rather than specific businesses.

What’s your take on 2020 Democrats and their response to Wall Street? What do you think about balancing your own investments with 2020 politics?

Do certain candidates worry you about how your investments may drop — or are you OK sacrificing some personal wealth? And do you think members of Congress should be able to own individual stocks?!

This week, the charity pick is an obvious one: Open Secrets. The independent organization tracks money in politics and how it impacts elections.

Can’t wait to hear your responses,

Amber Jamieson

Better Have My Money is on Twitter @bhavemymoney, so please tweet nice things (aka the link to our sign up page) and tag us. Got a mate who also wants to destroy the banks? Forward this onto them and tell them to subscribe. If you sign up to Acorns, use my sign up code to join and we both get $5.

As always, if you've got any questions about stocks, this is a shame free zone. Just reply and ask away.