Trumpenomics
-
Bernie, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren have to be concerned as hell right now… The entire country is freaking out and turning against the pro-labor policies that they’ve always advocated for.
wrote on 16 Apr 2025, 18:00 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
Bernie, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren have to be concerned as hell right now… The entire country is freaking out and turning against the pro-labor policies that they’ve always advocated for.
Win-win, IOW.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
The entire country is freaking out and turning against the pro-labor policies that they’ve always advocated for.
Huh? What are you talking about?
wrote on 16 Apr 2025, 18:25 last edited by@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
The entire country is freaking out and turning against the pro-labor policies that they’ve always advocated for.
Huh? What are you talking about?
Protectionism, high tariffs, limited trade, government intervention in the free markets… these are all traditional positions of the “progressive” left and have traditionally been at odds with conservatives.
-
wrote on 16 Apr 2025, 19:47 last edited by
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
-
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
wrote on 16 Apr 2025, 20:00 last edited by@89th said in Trumpenomics:
I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Wrong. AOC is absolutely winning the polling right now.
-
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
wrote on 16 Apr 2025, 21:21 last edited by@89th said in Trumpenomics:
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
The question is, does he really give a shit?
-
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 02:04 last edited by@89th said in Trumpenomics:
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
Generic question: Is what is good for the stock market the same thing as what is good for the country?
-
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
Generic question: Is what is good for the stock market the same thing as what is good for the country?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 02:15 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
Generic question: Is what is good for the stock market the same thing as what is good for the country?
I don't think that's the way 89th used the word "market".
But the answer to the question is pretty close to "yes". It gives everybody with some income and ability to save, the opportunity to participate in the miracle of compound interest. That way lies the American dream, and there is no more accessible path to it.
How do you suppose Dave Ramsey would answer that question?
I am sure we can all stipulate that the stock market does not matter to people who do not save for their futures, and that they are people too, and that their lives matter. Maybe Trump's plans will be good for them, but then you'd be up against the difficult task of explaining how.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 02:21 last edited by
Enjoy!
When Lindell goes under, 1600 Americans lose their jobs.
-
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
Generic question: Is what is good for the stock market the same thing as what is good for the country?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 07:22 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
The term paleoconservative (is new to me) but certainly is a deviation from traditional and/or neoconservatives.
Anyway, the market is absolutely ripe for a moderate to come in that is fiscally conservative, moderately social, judiciously conservative, free market, pragmatic regulations, good at communications, and restores respect/honesty to the office.... would this be a new political party, or will one just pounce on the opportunity? I'd imagine the left will find someone reasonable (not AOC, not bernie, not gavin....well maybe gavin) that tries to fit into that moderate mold that'll win over the country, at least enough to win office. Oh... and if they can shore up some of the latino vote, then we might see them in power for a while.
Trump is absolutely shooting the GOP in the foot, per Mik's note about 2026 earlier...
Generic question: Is what is good for the stock market the same thing as what is good for the country?
This is true even the minority of the country with no direct exposure to the market. The market is a measure of health of the companies that employ a lot of people who may not own any stock.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 11:52 last edited by
Was WW2 good or bad for the U.S.?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 12:24 last edited by Doctor Phibes
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.? -
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 12:50 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 12:57 last edited by
Not until 1792.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:19 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
-
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:27 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
Honestly, is that even a serious question? Does anybody ask whether a highway network is good for the U.S. because after all things were so much better back in the Victorian age?
Obviously, the only reason we're hearing the question is because of who's crashed the market. If it was a Democrat, it would be a completely different story.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:57 last edited by Jolly
Just musing...The market (Dow) was losing money in the prelude to WW2 (approx 1938) and actually fell below those levels in 1942. It did not return to the 1939 level, until 1947. Starting in the 1950's, people made money in the market, with a bit of a dip in the 58 recession.
My point is that WW2 was good for America, despite the loss and carnage of war at a size never seen before. America emerged as the Leader of the Free World, the war lifted thousands out of poverty and enlarged the middle class, advanced civil rights and the war set off an economic boom and a baby boom.
So, you have the juxtaposition of a market that really did not like WW2, but the war on many levels had a positive effect upon the country.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 14:17 last edited by Doctor Phibes
That's quite a socialistic viewpoint. Or maybe not. Society's benefit over individual loss?
Who knows what would have happened to the USA if WW2 hadn't happened?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 15:39 last edited by
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
-
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 16:07 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
Underwear Gnomes?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 16:16 last edited by
Trump's most imbecilic trade advisors, Navarro and Lutnik, each called out the fact that large tech stocks were the main reason the stock market was doing so well. This was presented as a bad thing. Taking down America's most successful public companies may not be the goal, but it is certainly an acceptable loss, to the people behind the policies. But I remain cautiously confident that Trump does not want to be known for all those great and famous American companies getting clobbered. Lutnik and Navarro don't care, but I'm guessing that Trump does. Of course, even if Trump cares, his abject insanity regarding trade policies may prevent him from doing the right things to keep those companies healthy. He still thinks IPhones can be made in America.