Trumpenomics
-
Indeed. I stumbled into investing in Palantir in Jan 2023. It’s up 2100% now so I just sold 1/3 of it. The bubble will burst one day, I think their PE ratio is like 650 or something.
@89th said in Trumpenomics:
Indeed. I stumbled into investing in Palantir in Jan 2023. It’s up 2100% now so I just sold 1/3 of it. The bubble will burst one day, I think their PE ratio is like 650 or something.
Nice. Purchasing individual stocks is an inferior strategy to a well balanced mix of funds, except when it’s not.
-
He’s doubling down on the 1500% cut in drug prices.
Someone asks Grok to explain:
A 1500% cut means reducing by 15 times the original price, e.g., a $100 drug becomes -$1400—you'd get paid to take it. Yes, that's a lot, but impossible without negative prices. Likely a misstatement; Trump's actual drug price reductions were more modest, around 1-5% annually.
-
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
-
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
Besides, just think about the alternative.
Is it still better than the alternative? -
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
Besides, just think about the alternative.
Is it still better than the alternative?@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
Besides, just think about the alternative.
Is it still better than the alternative?Absofuckinglutely.
-
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
Besides, just think about the alternative.
Is it still better than the alternative?Absofuckinglutely.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
While I would expect one of the most prominent business people in the world, and in a business that is specifically tied into interest rates and percentages, I would expect better… But… When we are spending 1500% more on drugs than the Phillipines and 400% more than most European countries, I would expect that most of his voters get it…
Besides, just think about the alternative.
Is it still better than the alternative?Absofuckinglutely.
I hate to be pernickity, but could you confirm that when you speak of "the alternative" you are referring to the election of President Kamala Harris, and not the earth being destroyed by a huge fucking meteor?
-
75% of the new jobs were in healthcare. That seems odd. Maybe that’s just a normal month in an industry that is growing as a percentage of gdp.
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
75% of the new jobs were in healthcare. That seems odd. Maybe that’s just a normal month in an industry that is growing as a percentage of gdp.
In fact if you take out healthcare and private education there was a net loss of 43k jobs.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
75% of the new jobs were in healthcare. That seems odd. Maybe that’s just a normal month in an industry that is growing as a percentage of gdp.
In fact if you take out healthcare and private education there was a net loss of 43k jobs.
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
75% of the new jobs were in healthcare. That seems odd. Maybe that’s just a normal month in an industry that is growing as a percentage of gdp.
In fact if you take out healthcare and private education there was a net loss of 43k jobs.
Compare and contrast if you took out new government jobs from 21-25…
-
ChatGPT says of the 16.1 Million jobs created during the Biden administration, 1.4MM were in the government sector.
Grok estimates 15.6MM total jobs, though it acknowledges (without prompting) that some sources have it at 16.1. Of its estimated 15.6 MM new jobs it puts 1.7MM as government jobs.
So that’s an average of between 290k and 304k non-governmental jobs per month added during the prior administration.
-
But that’s sort of irrelevant.
I think what we’re seeing here is that most industries aren’t making expansion plans in the face of economic uncertainty. That economic uncertainty, perhaps uniquely in our economic history, has a single author who just fired the head of his labor statistics department.
-
But that’s sort of irrelevant.
I think what we’re seeing here is that most industries aren’t making expansion plans in the face of economic uncertainty. That economic uncertainty, perhaps uniquely in our economic history, has a single author who just fired the head of his labor statistics department.
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
a single author who just fired the head of his labor statistics department.
I wonder if he was actually fired for pointing out that a 1500% decrease in expense is something that only a moron would talk about.
