Trumpenomics
-
He’s thirty points underwater on inflation. Even though tariff inflation is only just getting started.
I think a lot it is that many people think ‘taming inflation’ means bringing prices down to some level where they’re ‘supposed to be’. Trump encouraged then to think this way during the campaign.
-
He’s thirty points underwater on inflation. Even though tariff inflation is only just getting started.
I think a lot it is that many people think ‘taming inflation’ means bringing prices down to some level where they’re ‘supposed to be’. Trump encouraged then to think this way during the campaign.
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
I think a lot it is that many people think ‘taming inflation’ means bringing prices down to some level where they’re ‘supposed to be’. Trump encouraged then to think this way during the campaign.
What are you talking about? Eggs are going for 2 cents each in Trump's Fantasy World, gas is 79 cents a gallon, and gallons are now 10 pints!
-
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
"many people have told me" he says, too
Presumably not the 'Very Bad People' who whisper to him from under the stairs about Jeffrey Epstein's list while he's waiting for the stairlift to arrive, but the 'Very Fine People' who tell him he's the Greatest President Ever on the hour, every hour.
-
Im still salty that Trump normalized MMT across republicans.
We’re in for some pain in the future.
-
@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Im still salty that Trump normalized MMT across republicans.
We’re in for some pain in the future.
There was never any stopping that train, and the budget deficit would have been worse under Harris.
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Im still salty that Trump normalized MMT across republicans.
We’re in for some pain in the future.
There was never any stopping that train, and the budget deficit would have been worse under Harris.
I don’t know. Harris would have had a lot to prove. The republicans would have howled to the high heavens about the deficit (but would have also given her shit if she didn’t cut taxes).
But they would have at least stuck to their traditional stance of deficits=bad.
I expect this sort of profligacy from the Dems.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Stellantis (parent company of Chrysler) lost over $2B thanks to Trump.
No, they lost $1B in directly attributable tariff charges. In all fairness, Stellantis had a drop of 70% from 23-24. Most of the losses so far this year is a continuation of the same drop they had last year.
Besides, aren’t the Tariffs ultimately paid by the consumer and not the company? Yet, new car sales are up 3% in the US this year despite the tariffs. And the US is only 20% of the global car market. Blaming the tariffs for Stellantis failings is lazy.
-
It’s not just direct costs of tariffs, it included charges for shuttering plants in CA and MX and laying off workers in Michigan.
From AP:
Stellantis, the maker of Jeep and Ram vehicles, says its preliminary estimates show a 2.3 billion euros ($2.68 billion) net loss in the first half of the year due to U.S. tariffs and some hefty charges.
The automaker anticipates an impact of about 300 million euros for net tariffs incurred, and also expects planned production losses related to implementing its response plan.
The automaker provided preliminary financial figures on Monday after suspending financial guidance in April due to Trump’s tariffs. It also halted production at plants in Canada and Mexico in response to a 25% tax on imported cars, and it temporarily laid off 900 workers at plants in Michigan and Indiana.
Stellantis expects approximately 3.3 billion euros ($3.84 billion) of pretax net charges mostly related to program cancellation costs and platform impairments, restructuring and the net impact of costs related to emission standards. Automakers have been penalized if the average fuel economy of their annual fleet of vehicle production exceeds a certain level.
