Trumpenomics
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
If nothing else good comes of this…
It might be worth it just for the penguin memes.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 18:25 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
If nothing else good comes of this…
It might be worth it just for the penguin memes.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 18:27 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 18:31 last edited by
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
If nothing else good comes of this…
It might be worth it just for the penguin memes.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 18:36 last edited by Renauda 4 Jul 2025, 18:37@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
If nothing else good comes of this…
It might be worth it just for the penguin memes.
It’s not just the penguins in the southern hemisphere Trump is going after, but their northern cousins, the Puffins, as well that inhabit the little islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon just off the coast of Newfoundland.
Trump really has it out for iconic sea birds.
-
Glenn Greenwald on the idea-swapping going on, as the pro- and anti-Trump sides spout their rhetoric.
If nothing else good comes of this, at least we can emerge with the free trade issue settled, to a greater degree than it had been. Trade barriers have been a bad idea on both sides of the aisle over history.
Link to videowrote on 7 Apr 2025, 18:47 last edited byGlenn Greenwald on the idea-swapping going on, as the pro- and anti-Trump sides spout their rhetoric.
He really seems to be chasing his own tail on the subject. He can’t seem to wrap his mind around the fact that opposition to free trade and globalization is not nor has it ever been exclusively a right vs left issue. Opposition to free trade is a readily exploitable political stances for populist opportunists inhabiting both sides of political spectrum.
He either needs some schooling on the horseshoe theory or take his head out of his ass and actually pay attention to what’s happening around him.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 20:38 last edited by
-
Futures tomorrow look grim. Has anyone given thought to the real reason he’s doing this? He simply needs to be the center of attention to feed the narcissim. And the whole purpose of the tarriffs are to get nations to come entreat witu the Donald and bend the knee and do it all in front of cameras so the world can see how important the king of America is. And he will most certainly deal. That’s what he does. He is not so dense that he is not bombarded with econmic 101 lessons by his people. He has to understand the trade imbalances that exist are just like what was mentioned earlier here. No country’s gouging the USA.. But i wouldnt blame them if they tried as we are sitting on the biggest pot of money and global power the world has ever known. We are the bull
n the China shop and Trump wants to hop on and ride it for 8 seconds if he can. Look 
at me, i’m Sandra Dee is what this all is.
I have never personally met Someone whose personality is so overtly poisoned.wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 21:43 last edited by@NobodySock said in Trumpenomics:
Futures tomorrow look grim. Has anyone given thought to the real reason he’s doing this? He simply needs to be the center of attention to feed the narcissim. And the whole purpose of the tarriffs are to get nations to come entreat witu the Donald and bend the knee and do it all in front of cameras so the world can see how important the king of America is. And he will most certainly deal. That’s what he does. He is not so dense that he is not bombarded with econmic 101 lessons by his people. He has to understand the trade imbalances that exist are just like what was mentioned earlier here. No country’s gouging the USA.. But i wouldnt blame them if they tried as we are sitting on the biggest pot of money and global power the world has ever known. We are the bull
n the China shop and Trump wants to hop on and ride it for 8 seconds if he can. Look at me, i’m Sandra Dee is what this all is.
I have never personally met Someone whose personality is so overtly poisoned.Ha! I knew it before they did.
Link to video -
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 21:52 last edited by
The best attempt I've seen to have a reasonable pro-tariff discussion: (Megyn Kelly and VDH)
Link to video
It's not really worth muddling through the whole thing, as they can't provide the essential piece to the argument where they connect dots between these tariffs, and helping poor people. They just assume the stated intent, will be the outcome.
They accept a drop in the stock market as the price to be paid to help poor people. Which is fine. Same justification could be used for a higher corporate tax, for instance, which might fund manufacturing industry subsidies, or other programs to help elevate people economically.
For the other side of the argument, I thought this was good. Clear explanations of job losses and economic damage in small businesses and the lower class. I hope to see more of this guy in financial interviews, he's good.
Link to video -
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 22:52 last edited by
Bessent seems to be pushing him toward negotiations, Miller and Navarro for permanence.
Today the White House retweeted and then deleted a tweet from Navarro saying they were here to stay.
Seems like a battle is going on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/trump-bessent-trade-deals-tariff-endgame-messaging-00277395
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 23:21 last edited by
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
-
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 23:50 last edited by xenon 4 Jul 2025, 23:51@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 00:44 last edited by Horace 4 Aug 2025, 00:45@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
I don't know anybody will ever admit that. They can always find a reason to claim victory and reduce them, after they've made America great again.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
Interesting, thanks for those details.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 01:39 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
Isn't it fortunate that we've got Mr. Attention to Detail running the show.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 01:48 last edited by
Op-ed addressing the question "why Wall Street didn't see it coming":
Why Did So Many People Delude Themselves About Trump?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 02:27 last edited by
Some wishful thinking, and some belief that it was just too crazy for even Trump to do.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 02:44 last edited by
Art Laffer, former Reagan economist, loves Trump, and thinks his first term was the best economically in presidential history. He believes term two will be even better. Because he believes these tariffs are 100% negotiating tactic. Put him in the camp of "it's too crazy for Trump to do this".
That part is at 8:23.
Link to video -
Bessent seems to be pushing him toward negotiations, Miller and Navarro for permanence.
Today the White House retweeted and then deleted a tweet from Navarro saying they were here to stay.
Seems like a battle is going on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/trump-bessent-trade-deals-tariff-endgame-messaging-00277395
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:11 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Bessent seems to be pushing him toward negotiations, Miller and Navarro for permanence.
Today the White House retweeted and then deleted a tweet from Navarro saying they were here to stay.
Seems like a battle is going on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/trump-bessent-trade-deals-tariff-endgame-messaging-00277395
Elon and Navarro are going at it.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:12 last edited by
Elon has been very quiet about the tariffs until the last few days.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:17 last edited by
Yeah. Very quiet.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:55 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Yeah. Very quiet.
But not so much the last two days. What happens as the split widens over tariffs?