Trumpenomics
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 07:11 last edited by
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump tariffs will add 60% to the cost of the iphone in the USA vs its price in Canada.
-
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I'm just sitting back, enjoying the show.
It's a complete shitshow.
It's going to create severe hardship for millions, people with no savings, living on the breadline, dependent on jobs which will now vanish. Anyone sitting back enjoying this shitshow is a shit.You mentioned Larry, the piano expert and nasty bigot who wanted to round up all Arabs in America and send them all to the middle east. I doubt he would be sitting back enjoying the show.
May he RIP.wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 09:52 last edited by@AndyD said in Trumpenomics:
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I'm just sitting back, enjoying the show.
It's a complete shitshow.
It's going to create severe hardship for millions, people with no savings, living on the breadline, dependent on jobs which will now vanish. Anyone sitting back enjoying this shitshow is a shit.You mentioned Larry, the piano expert and nasty bigot who wanted to round up all Arabs in America and send them all to the middle east. I doubt he would be sitting back enjoying the show.
May he RIP.World ends Monday.
Women and children to suffer most.
I still like ol' Larry. And I still think you're an opportunistic pissant.
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 18:18 last edited by
Foreign trade is basically an 80/20 issue, in favor of its benefits to America. I think this issue will move votes more than most issues, if people see their retirements crash, and stay crashed.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657581/americans-foreign-policy-priorities-nato-support-unchanged.aspx
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 19:24 last edited by
Spending some time looking through comments on Social Media, a lot of folks really don't understand what's about to happen. They're quite sanguine about tariffs as in "they'll not affect me" or "I don't have a 401K" or "I buy AMERICAN - so what's the problem?" "Trump is playing chess while those stupid economists are playing checkers...haha!"
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 19:48 last edited by
Nobody with no skin in the game should care, any more than a renter would care if home prices cratered. They actually benefit from that, and that's understandable. But I figure that the net movement of votes due to a crash like this would be from Republican to Democrat, sharply so.
Not to mention that the crash is just a forward indicator of corporate profit destruction, which will necessarily destroy jobs.
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 20:44 last edited by
The tariffs will be bad. The overreaction to the tariffs will likely be worse.
-
The tariffs will be bad. The overreaction to the tariffs will likely be worse.
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 21:22 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
The tariffs will be bad. The overreaction to the tariffs will likely be worse.
Well, at least that will give Trump somebody to blame for the completely unnecessary situation which he has created pretty much single-handedly.
When people say to me 'you know, one man really can't make a difference', I can say 'Yeah? Well what about Donald Trump?'
I know, I know, we've got TDS. We're the problem here.
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 22:09 last edited by
More and more I am feeling like the overreaction is what he is looking for. He wants the panic, he wants the global markets to temporarily tank. He wants everyone’s sphincters to get tight enough to turn a turd into a diamond. While we’re all sitting here, bitching and moaning that restoring American manufacturing can’t happen without months/years of buildup, and while we’re bitching that this drives away our allies straight into the arms of China, and no countries will want to have anything to do with us, that’s simply inaccurate. The fact is that we’re not going to instantly become irrelevant in a brand new world order. We’re not going to instantly lose all economic power in the world at large. Ultimately, most countries will still earnestly try to finds some type of accommodations no matter how pissed they are (and probably rightfully so). The more we sit here and envision worse and worse outcomes, the more the global market tanks, the more leverage he has in the negotiations.
The more pissed you are, the more scared you are, the more credibility you give this threat, the more actual leverage and power you give the asshat. And over nothing. The guy is still infatuated with his legacy. He’s not going to kill the global economy, and while he’s not as brilliant as he or the MAGATS believe, he’s not as stupid as @Axtremus …. believes he is… But he is a hardass, and youn’z are feeding right in.
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 22:11 last edited by
I’ll put a bottle of decent booze on the line that says the market is trading at least at 43.5K in September, 2025.
-
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 22:21 last edited by
I hope so. Tomorrow's futures are looking similar to thursday and friday.
-
More and more I am feeling like the overreaction is what he is looking for. He wants the panic, he wants the global markets to temporarily tank. He wants everyone’s sphincters to get tight enough to turn a turd into a diamond. While we’re all sitting here, bitching and moaning that restoring American manufacturing can’t happen without months/years of buildup, and while we’re bitching that this drives away our allies straight into the arms of China, and no countries will want to have anything to do with us, that’s simply inaccurate. The fact is that we’re not going to instantly become irrelevant in a brand new world order. We’re not going to instantly lose all economic power in the world at large. Ultimately, most countries will still earnestly try to finds some type of accommodations no matter how pissed they are (and probably rightfully so). The more we sit here and envision worse and worse outcomes, the more the global market tanks, the more leverage he has in the negotiations.
The more pissed you are, the more scared you are, the more credibility you give this threat, the more actual leverage and power you give the asshat. And over nothing. The guy is still infatuated with his legacy. He’s not going to kill the global economy, and while he’s not as brilliant as he or the MAGATS believe, he’s not as stupid as @Axtremus …. believes he is… But he is a hardass, and youn’z are feeding right in.
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 23:17 last edited by Renauda 8 days agoUltimately, most countries will still earnestly try to finds some type of accommodations no matter how pissed they are (and probably rightfully so).
There’s much more to it than just that when you live outside the USA.
And yes, he is just as incompetent and stupid as Ax vicariously maintains along with a host of other very intelligent and capable people who tried in vain to work with him during his first term regularly attest. I do not feel the need to list any of their names. You know them and their narratives all too well.
-
Ultimately, most countries will still earnestly try to finds some type of accommodations no matter how pissed they are (and probably rightfully so).
There’s much more to it than just that when you live outside the USA.
And yes, he is just as incompetent and stupid as Ax vicariously maintains along with a host of other very intelligent and capable people who tried in vain to work with him during his first term regularly attest. I do not feel the need to list any of their names. You know them and their narratives all too well.
wrote on 6 Apr 2025, 23:23 last edited by@Renauda said in Trumpenomics:
he is just as incompetent and stupid as Ax vicariously maintains along with a host of other very intelligent and capable people who tried in vain to work with him during his first term regularly attest.
His words, his actions and the opinions of those 1st term people - "F'ing moron" - weigh heavily. I do think he has some history of surviving - but his personal survival vs. the vitality of the people foolish enough to do business with him is another matter. Lufan - I hope I am wrong and you are right.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 00:38 last edited by
I listened to Navarro and Bessent interviews today. They seem perfectly fine with "wall street" taking a hit, because now it's "main street's turn". They do not leave any room for hope that the tariffs might get negotiated away. I know that could just be the talking points in a 4D negotiation tactic, but somehow, I think they're committed to these tariffs.
I am impressed by the fact that these top level cabinet members at the heart of economic decisions, are going on all these shows. They were on mainstream, opposition media, like Meet the Press. But their answers, where they provide any beyond question avoidance, leave very little room for optimism that a crashing market matters to them. It seems almost part of the plan. One of them started to describe it as a "wealth redistribution", but caught himself and adjusted his wording.
-
I listened to Navarro and Bessent interviews today. They seem perfectly fine with "wall street" taking a hit, because now it's "main street's turn". They do not leave any room for hope that the tariffs might get negotiated away. I know that could just be the talking points in a 4D negotiation tactic, but somehow, I think they're committed to these tariffs.
I am impressed by the fact that these top level cabinet members at the heart of economic decisions, are going on all these shows. They were on mainstream, opposition media, like Meet the Press. But their answers, where they provide any beyond question avoidance, leave very little room for optimism that a crashing market matters to them. It seems almost part of the plan. One of them started to describe it as a "wealth redistribution", but caught himself and adjusted his wording.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 00:42 last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I listened to Navarro and Bessent interviews today. They seem perfectly fine with "wall street" taking a hit, because now it's "main street's turn". They do not leave any room for hope that the tariffs might get negotiated away. I know that could just be the talking points in a 4D negotiation tactic, but somehow, I think they're committed to these tariffs.
I am impressed by the fact that these top level cabinet members at the heart of economic decisions, are going on all these shows. They were on mainstream, opposition media, like Meet the Press. But their answers, where they provide any beyond question avoidance, leave very little room for optimism that a crashing market matters to them. It seems almost part of the plan. One of them started to describe it as a "wealth redistribution", but caught himself and adjusted his wording.
Do they think maybe that their core voters don't have 401K's?
I wonder how long it can last before mainstream Republicans rebel.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I listened to Navarro and Bessent interviews today. They seem perfectly fine with "wall street" taking a hit, because now it's "main street's turn". They do not leave any room for hope that the tariffs might get negotiated away. I know that could just be the talking points in a 4D negotiation tactic, but somehow, I think they're committed to these tariffs.
I am impressed by the fact that these top level cabinet members at the heart of economic decisions, are going on all these shows. They were on mainstream, opposition media, like Meet the Press. But their answers, where they provide any beyond question avoidance, leave very little room for optimism that a crashing market matters to them. It seems almost part of the plan. One of them started to describe it as a "wealth redistribution", but caught himself and adjusted his wording.
Do they think maybe that their core voters don't have 401K's?
I wonder how long it can last before mainstream Republicans rebel.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 00:57 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes I think they are sane enough to know that whatever they are doing, has to be palatable to the stock market by mid-terms. Otherwise they hand the Democrats the easiest slam-dunk campaign talking point imaginable, which is that they'll immediately pass legislation to end the tariffs. There's no doubt in my mind that the GOP will lose elections over this, unless they can reverse the damage. Manufacturing jobs just aren't as viscerally important to people as their retirement nest eggs are. Not that there will be any new manufacturing jobs in any politically viable time frame anyway.
Actually I think it may be Trump's bad luck that he did this while the market teetered on extremely high valuations. Any nudge might have toppled the house of cards. But this toppling is indelibly linked to the tariffs, and I'm glad for that, because tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that.
-
@Doctor-Phibes I think they are sane enough to know that whatever they are doing, has to be palatable to the stock market by mid-terms. Otherwise they hand the Democrats the easiest slam-dunk campaign talking point imaginable, which is that they'll immediately pass legislation to end the tariffs. There's no doubt in my mind that the GOP will lose elections over this, unless they can reverse the damage. Manufacturing jobs just aren't as viscerally important to people as their retirement nest eggs are. Not that there will be any new manufacturing jobs in any politically viable time frame anyway.
Actually I think it may be Trump's bad luck that he did this while the market teetered on extremely high valuations. Any nudge might have toppled the house of cards. But this toppling is indelibly linked to the tariffs, and I'm glad for that, because tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 01:11 last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that
Government intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this. Maybe they're actually hoping that MAGA burns on the lighthouse rocks of mixed-metaphor, and think this might be the best way to get rid of the goblins who are in the process of taking over the castle.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that
Government intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this. Maybe they're actually hoping that MAGA burns on the lighthouse rocks of mixed-metaphor, and think this might be the best way to get rid of the goblins who are in the process of taking over the castle.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 01:31 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that
Government intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this. Maybe they're actually hoping that MAGA burns on the lighthouse rocks of mixed-metaphor, and think this might be the best way to get rid of the goblins who are in the process of taking over the castle.
I guess it's a good thing in the long term, if this lesson can be very well learned.
In fairness, it was already pretty well learned, and there is no way Trump would have won if people had believed he'd do these sorts of tariffs. He'd have still gotten plenty of votes, but this single issue would easily have swayed enough people to overcome his 1 or 2% victory margins in swing states. People care deeply about their money, that they've sacrificed through their lives to accumulate. Not to state the obvious.
I know he's talked about how much he loves tariffs his whole life, but Trump 1.0 still didn't attempt anything like this.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that
Government intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this. Maybe they're actually hoping that MAGA burns on the lighthouse rocks of mixed-metaphor, and think this might be the best way to get rid of the goblins who are in the process of taking over the castle.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 01:44 last edited by Renauda 22 days from nowGovernment intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this.
That train left the station years ago. Hence my pejorative description pseudo-con. Started years ago going back to the moral majority fringe, Pat Buchanan and tea bag populists. Lee Atwater was one of its early proponent tacticians and prophets.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 02:23 last edited by
The economy is complicated and we might be on the cusp of learning something we did not know before. That's all to say - nothing is certain.
But what we do know is there is no way for many businesses to sell what they're selling today without a massive price increase. A price increase which may kill their demand.
I also can't imagine any business leader wanting to seriously invest against an executive order. I also think no large company wants to be the first to complain - so these things may hang around until the pain is quite severe.
I guess - I'm responding to @LuFins-Dad, I don't see how this is similar to the covid panic. We have a pretty clear line of sight to the first order effects. I also don't think the stock market aspect is the really important one - it's just where the impact shows up first.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
tariffs suck, and America needs to learn that
Government intervention in the name of protectionism is totally counter to traditional conservative values. I think large numbers of Republicans must still believe this. Maybe they're actually hoping that MAGA burns on the lighthouse rocks of mixed-metaphor, and think this might be the best way to get rid of the goblins who are in the process of taking over the castle.
I guess it's a good thing in the long term, if this lesson can be very well learned.
In fairness, it was already pretty well learned, and there is no way Trump would have won if people had believed he'd do these sorts of tariffs. He'd have still gotten plenty of votes, but this single issue would easily have swayed enough people to overcome his 1 or 2% victory margins in swing states. People care deeply about their money, that they've sacrificed through their lives to accumulate. Not to state the obvious.
I know he's talked about how much he loves tariffs his whole life, but Trump 1.0 still didn't attempt anything like this.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 02:24 last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I know he's talked about how much he loves tariffs his whole life, but Trump 1.0 still didn't attempt anything like this.
I think it's becoming pretty clear that1.0 was heavily restrained.