Trumpenomics
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
The fact that the market plunged after he announced the tariffs, is proof that very few people thought he'd do this. If they thought he'd do this, it would have been priced in after he was elected. The idea that Trump cared about the stock market, was generally agreed upon.
In a way, I think that’s what made this necessary. IF this is about leverage, then it wouldn’t be a very good tool if nobody thought he would really go through with it. To his way of thinking he had no choice. I still think it’s entirely possible that within 2 weeks there are a number of reworked trade deals and things are looking far rosier. You’ll see a handful of promises to restore manufacturing and the markets will be euphoric for a few weeks.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
The fact that the market plunged after he announced the tariffs, is proof that very few people thought he'd do this. If they thought he'd do this, it would have been priced in after he was elected. The idea that Trump cared about the stock market, was generally agreed upon.
In a way, I think that’s what made this necessary. IF this is about leverage, then it wouldn’t be a very good tool if nobody thought he would really go through with it. To his way of thinking he had no choice. I still think it’s entirely possible that within 2 weeks there are a number of reworked trade deals and things are looking far rosier. You’ll see a handful of promises to restore manufacturing and the markets will be euphoric for a few weeks.
That would be nice, but I am not optimistic. I do think some very high tariffs will be reduced through negotiations, but I don't know if the flat 10% across the board will be negotiable. I will watch the Vietnam thing, to get an indicator if Trump is willing to reduce tariffs below 10% on any country.
Since these are not real reciprocal tariffs, a country can't simply reduce tariffs on America to zero, and expect America to reciprocate that.
I think Trump is really excited about this revenue. It's like he's living out the fantasy of someone who bought a bridge, and will now charge the tolls.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Good to see that you, Adam, and whoever made the meme still don’t get it.
As I mentioned several times already, still better than the alternative…
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Good to see that you, Adam, and whoever made the meme still don’t get it.
As I mentioned several times already, still better than the alternative…
Cold comfort for the Trump haters.
But I can't see a clip from that movie, and not mention that it is one of the greatest comedies of all time.
-
Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I'm just sitting back, enjoying the show....I guess you have that in common with a good chunk of the left...
And other wealthy folk who won't be affected financially by these taxes. Including your bumchum Trump (CF)
@AndyD said in Trumpenomics:
Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I'm just sitting back, enjoying the show....I guess you have that in common with a good chunk of the left...
And other wealthy folk who won't be affected financially by these taxes. Including your bumchum Trump (CF)
I doubt wealthy people are enjoying this, either. Buffet maybe, who's got tons of cash on the sidelines, waiting for an opportunity like this.
Education is extremely important.
-
For some people, their support for Trump is faith based.
They will not be confused by information.@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
For some people, their support for Trump is faith based.
They will not be confused by information.Most of the immediate information the average person gets is either biased, incomplete or erroneous. I didn't work for the Feds, but I have a pretty good idea that much of the data generated by them is no better than state government generated data (and a lot of that sucks).
I think we're probably better at trends, particularly in a historic context or perhaps crunching metadata.
As for faith in Trump? Only a fool has absolute faith in any politician.
-
@AndyD said in Trumpenomics:
Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I'm just sitting back, enjoying the show....I guess you have that in common with a good chunk of the left...
And other wealthy folk who won't be affected financially by these taxes. Including your bumchum Trump (CF)
I doubt wealthy people are enjoying this, either. Buffet maybe, who's got tons of cash on the sidelines, waiting for an opportunity like this.
-
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
The fact that the market plunged after he announced the tariffs, is proof that very few people thought he'd do this. If they thought he'd do this, it would have been priced in after he was elected. The idea that Trump cared about the stock market, was generally agreed upon.
If you start counting the market drop from the time it started becoming clear he was serious, after he took office, we're at a 20% drawdown on America's piggy bank. The 12% over the past two days has been a continuation of the slow realization of how serious he is about the tariffs. No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved. I'm worried about companies going out of business, and the job losses from that. You can't suffocate efficiency in highly tuned economic systems without suffocating a bunch of jobs out of existence. And the lead time to create new jobs will be significant, in that best case scenario where there's a point to this all.
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved.
If he keeps this up, imagine the mid-terms. He will lose everything in 2026, and will be able to spend the remaining two years of his Presidency ranting about voter fraud, buoyed up by his fanbase.
I was only joking
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
-
America is the richest, most powerful country in the world. The idea that Americans are getting a raw deal because of the behaviour of other countries is completely bogus.
Some Americans may indeed be getting a raw deal, but the reasons are much closer to home.
-
What’s your over/under on “greedy corporations” becoming a MAGA talking point?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
That's not the problem he's trying to fix. It's manufacturing capability as national security. All this rise of the middle class and good jobs is smoke. We need more steel and aluminum made here, alongside chips, etc.
I'm not crazy about his methods, but then we had a pretty good idea it would be crudely done. Finesse is not his middle name. He may end up being viewed as a very good or very bad president, but no one will be neutral.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
That's not the problem he's trying to fix. It's manufacturing capability as national security. All this rise of the middle class and good jobs is smoke. We need more steel and aluminum made here, alongside chips, etc.
I'm not crazy about his methods, but then we had a pretty good idea it would be crudely done. Finesse is not his middle name. He may end up being viewed as a very good or very bad president, but no one will be neutral.
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
That's not the problem he's trying to fix. It's manufacturing capability as national security. All this rise of the middle class and good jobs is smoke. We need more steel and aluminum made here, alongside chips, etc.
Specific industries can be (and are) subsidized internally. I suspect you've misread his actual intentions here, and that his actual intentions are closer to his actual talking points.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved.
If he keeps this up, imagine the mid-terms. He will lose everything in 2026, and will be able to spend the remaining two years of his Presidency ranting about voter fraud, buoyed up by his fanbase.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved.
If he keeps this up, imagine the mid-terms. He will lose everything in 2026, and will be able to spend the remaining two years of his Presidency ranting about voter fraud, buoyed up by his fanbase.
Did you ever have a single positive thought about any politician, no matter what stripe?
“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
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Mik said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Axtremus said in Trumpenomics:
#3 can happen after the Democrats win big in the mid-term.
Two years of this madness will be enough time for the Dems to gain credit for saving the economy, if they end the tariffs. If they do it now, with some GOP help, Trump takes only a small hit, and he'll be able to retail the idea that the tariffs would have worked if they'd been given a chance.
As Matt Yglesias opens today's email with:
Well, “Liberation Day” has arrived and it sucks, but Trump’s taste for terrible trade policy may be American democracy’s best hope, so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
I assume these sorts of mixed feelings are shared by lots of Democrats, and so I'm a little surprised they would try to end the tariffs right now. But once the legislation is on the floor, which I hope happens as soon as possible, I guess they'll have to vote to end them, or take responsibility for them.
And nowhere does Mr. Yglesias state what he would suggest doing about the problems Trump is trying, however well or badly, to address. he just snipes from the gallery. Pundits gotta pundit.
It's not hard to meaningfully criticize, when doing nothing would have been much better than doing something. Your premise that Trump is addressing a problem, is flawed. Trade imbalances are not a problem. People in poorer countries doing America's dirty work making cheap products and selling them to us, is not a problem.
That's not the problem he's trying to fix. It's manufacturing capability as national security. All this rise of the middle class and good jobs is smoke. We need more steel and aluminum made here, alongside chips, etc.
I'm not crazy about his methods, but then we had a pretty good idea it would be crudely done. Finesse is not his middle name. He may end up being viewed as a very good or very bad president, but no one will be neutral.
We need more steel and aluminum made here….
The fact is that the US ranks No. 10 in world for iron ore production and is insignificant in primary aluminium production. In the case of the latter it is largely owing to the amount of electricity required in the smelting process. Canada (primarily in Québec) is fourth largest global producer of aluminium in part because of the availability of cheap hydro electric power at source.
Cheaper to import from Canada than to produce in the lower 48. One of the reasons there were three free trade agreements. The national security aspect Trump has repeatedly used to tariff Canadian iron and aluminium imports is wholly bogus and absurd. Regardless, there are people like one or two in this forum who buy the lie hook, line and sinker as a matter of faith.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved.
If he keeps this up, imagine the mid-terms. He will lose everything in 2026, and will be able to spend the remaining two years of his Presidency ranting about voter fraud, buoyed up by his fanbase.
Did you ever have a single positive thought about any politician, no matter what stripe?
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
No telling where it stops, but permanent tariffs, at least until 2028, would surely cause more beatings, at least until morale improved.
If he keeps this up, imagine the mid-terms. He will lose everything in 2026, and will be able to spend the remaining two years of his Presidency ranting about voter fraud, buoyed up by his fanbase.
Did you ever have a single positive thought about any politician, no matter what stripe?
Sure, many times. I also noticed that your response has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
What’s your over/under on “greedy corporations” becoming a MAGA talking point?
It's always a talking point, by any politician seeking a vote.
Betting on the ubiquitous is a pretty safe bet.
“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
-
This man used a fake emergency to pass the largest peacetime tax hike in history. He took all that money and put it on red. And there’s no red on the wheel. I don’t understand how anyone with a cursory understanding of the constitution is ok with this.
The best case scenario is some bullshit art of the deal where he uses these fake tariffs to give everyone a blanket 10%.
Oh well, the whole world is on this sinking ship together.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
The fact that the market plunged after he announced the tariffs, is proof that very few people thought he'd do this. If they thought he'd do this, it would have been priced in after he was elected. The idea that Trump cared about the stock market, was generally agreed upon.
In a way, I think that’s what made this necessary. IF this is about leverage, then it wouldn’t be a very good tool if nobody thought he would really go through with it. To his way of thinking he had no choice. I still think it’s entirely possible that within 2 weeks there are a number of reworked trade deals and things are looking far rosier. You’ll see a handful of promises to restore manufacturing and the markets will be euphoric for a few weeks.
That would be nice, but I am not optimistic. I do think some very high tariffs will be reduced through negotiations, but I don't know if the flat 10% across the board will be negotiable. I will watch the Vietnam thing, to get an indicator if Trump is willing to reduce tariffs below 10% on any country.
Since these are not real reciprocal tariffs, a country can't simply reduce tariffs on America to zero, and expect America to reciprocate that.
I think Trump is really excited about this revenue. It's like he's living out the fantasy of someone who bought a bridge, and will now charge the tolls.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
What’s your over/under on “greedy corporations” becoming a MAGA talking point?
It's always a talking point, by any politician seeking a vote.
Betting on the ubiquitous is a pretty safe bet.
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
What’s your over/under on “greedy corporations” becoming a MAGA talking point?
It's always a talking point, by any politician seeking a vote.
Betting on the ubiquitous is a pretty safe bet.
Except no it isn’t. Did W ever say it? Trump in his first term?
