Pundits and data junkies alike are predicting a win for Hillary Clinton in November. But one of of looking at the race might make you think differently.
There are public opinion polls, PACs, Super PACs, online betting platforms, and even Las Vegas handicappers all making predictions about who will win the upcoming presidential election in November -- and by how much. But there is another way that removes the ego, emotion and human judgement from the equation: Socionomics.
Socionomics is the concept of tracking the crowd's mood swings in the process of anticipating and predicting social action. Sound a bit Elliott Wave-ish? It should. Robert Prechter began developing socionomics in the '70's and '80's -- and he is also the guy credited with rescuing the Elliott Wave Theory from obscurity.
There are concepts that are similar to socionomics, like behaviorial finance. However the governing tenant of socionomics is that the mood of the crowd (society itself) determines what will happen in economies. This is the opposite of what we traditionally believe: That the economy determines what the mood will be, thus what will happen in society.
Let's compare the perspectives of each, in a very general way, and see which better reflects objective common sense (assuming we can get there from our subjective human perspective of needing straight-line explanations to order our world). Mainstream paradigmers believe that the economy is great because stocks are at all-time highs, so social mood is ebullient, and all is well. During these periods, governments tend to push their agendas while the crowd is anesthetized by rising markets, portfolios, and the ability to buy and do things that satisfy our ego needs.
Socionomics paradigmers believe that the ebullience of social mood is allowing markets to rise, as the structural troubles of the economies around the world are ignored, due to the anesthetizing effects of the manic phase of the mood pendulum. The mood pendulum swings regularly, at various degrees of trend (durations of time) from depression to mania, back to depression, then mania, etc.
Mainstreamers propose that since markets are at all-time highs, the status quo will be maintained, and Clinton will win the presidency. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't change it. Socionomists propose that this level of ebullience, mania, and complacency can only be manifested at the termination point of a long term trend, which, at this extreme in mood, portends a looming reversal in society's awareness of the actual conditions in which we live. Again, these are very general perspectives, to set up an objective counter-forecast to the current mainstream's assumption that prices only rise, the Fed is in control, and in this TINA (there is no alternative) environment, stocks are the only place to have money, as nothing else earns or grows. This assumption can only be made with years of pump-priming stimulus has created such complacency that risk is no longer even considered when exposing capital to the market.