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?
@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.
-
@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?
@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.
-
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.?@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?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@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?
@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.
@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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
@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?
-
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.
-
I agree he doesn’t want to be known as the guy that destroyed the economy. I think the problem is he thinks these tariffs really will usher in a new era of American prosperity and that both the market and economic experts are just wrong.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Unfortunately, even though I am not an economist, I pretty sure it is not possible to increase labor costs by 10X or so and be able to sell the product (for example iPhone) for the same or lower price. LOL
-
It’s not even particularly desirable. An iPhone sells for $1000, costs about $400 to make and about $100 of that value is driven by China.
Would we rather have Huawei in America with $100 going to American manufacturing (just assume that’s possible) - or the current state of an American company (Apple) with $100 going to China?
The way Trump talks, he’d take the former.
-
It’s not even particularly desirable. An iPhone sells for $1000, costs about $400 to make and about $100 of that value is driven by China.
Would we rather have Huawei in America with $100 going to American manufacturing (just assume that’s possible) - or the current state of an American company (Apple) with $100 going to China?
The way Trump talks, he’d take the former.
-
The simple act of building the factories makes it impossible. You can reshore some critical manufacturing capabilities, but it will need some subsidizing and a lot of deregulation to get the factories up and running, and it will still require competition. While I still think American Car manufacturing is pretty piss poor, the Japanese competition did force them to get a little better…
The Brad
