Trumpenomics
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 23:21 last edited by
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
-
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
wrote on 7 Apr 2025, 23:50 last edited by xenon 4 Jul 2025, 23:51@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 00:44 last edited by Horace 4 Aug 2025, 00:45@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
I don't know anybody will ever admit that. They can always find a reason to claim victory and reduce them, after they've made America great again.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
Interesting, thanks for those details.
-
@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
I think the 10% universal tariff sticks until jobs numbers or inflation numbers push him off of it. The negotiations are to reduce >10% to 10%. That's my prediction anyway.
Optimistic take. In the sense that anyone will be forced to admit that lower growth is attributable to tariffs.
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
It becomes important - e.g., China contributes about 25% of the value in an iphone, but the trade deficit takes into account the full BOM (chips sourced from Japan, Taiwan, etc.).
You don't have to do any of this work before you introduce tariffs - and then you have to do it by every product in the economy. And then we rail against regulations.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 01:39 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Tariffs are also a huge compliance burden and corruption surface. I haven't seen any clarity on how these things are going to be levied. Will it be on Bill-of-materials? (e.g., what the thing being imported is worth) - which is easier. Or is it based on value-add (what did the last country add vs. all the countries before it?) - which is more accurate.
Isn't it fortunate that we've got Mr. Attention to Detail running the show.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 01:48 last edited by
Op-ed addressing the question "why Wall Street didn't see it coming":
Why Did So Many People Delude Themselves About Trump?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 02:27 last edited by
Some wishful thinking, and some belief that it was just too crazy for even Trump to do.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 02:44 last edited by
Art Laffer, former Reagan economist, loves Trump, and thinks his first term was the best economically in presidential history. He believes term two will be even better. Because he believes these tariffs are 100% negotiating tactic. Put him in the camp of "it's too crazy for Trump to do this".
That part is at 8:23.
Link to video -
Bessent seems to be pushing him toward negotiations, Miller and Navarro for permanence.
Today the White House retweeted and then deleted a tweet from Navarro saying they were here to stay.
Seems like a battle is going on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/trump-bessent-trade-deals-tariff-endgame-messaging-00277395
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:11 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Bessent seems to be pushing him toward negotiations, Miller and Navarro for permanence.
Today the White House retweeted and then deleted a tweet from Navarro saying they were here to stay.
Seems like a battle is going on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/trump-bessent-trade-deals-tariff-endgame-messaging-00277395
Elon and Navarro are going at it.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:12 last edited by
Elon has been very quiet about the tariffs until the last few days.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:17 last edited by
Yeah. Very quiet.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:55 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Yeah. Very quiet.
But not so much the last two days. What happens as the split widens over tariffs?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:16 last edited by Renauda 4 Sept 2025, 02:28
Musk has now called out Navarro as being “dumber than a sack of bricks”:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrgx4ky1xxo
Sounds like the malice in wonderland theatrical hit of the first term may be on for an encore.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:32 last edited by
Trump just posted about all of the "negotiations" he's doing with other countries. That is an easy off-ramp from the tariffs, if he chooses to take it.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:41 last edited by Jolly 4 Aug 2025, 16:41
Don't buy the bullshit.
Example: On supposedly Black Monday, CNN was running the stock tickers all day and telling us all how bad Trump had screwed up.
Today, the market is up a bit and a stock ticker is no longer scrolling across the bottom of the screen. The media is going to do everything it can to generate clicks through Trump doomporn.
I haven't been adding to my investments in awhile. I think today I start dollar averaging the Roth and will continue to do so for the next 18 months.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:43 last edited by
Okay, so moving beyond the outright tariff policies, there has been a lot of talk about non-tariff trade barriers including currency manipulation. Is that accurate? And what are the other trade barriers they are alluding to?
And as a side note, Netanyahu is now saying he planes on eliminating the trade deficit between Israel and the US. Please explain to me how a nation of 10M can possibly equal the economic consumption of a nation of 350M? Especially when much of that trade is based on precious jewels, which the US has little industry in mining…
-
Okay, so moving beyond the outright tariff policies, there has been a lot of talk about non-tariff trade barriers including currency manipulation. Is that accurate? And what are the other trade barriers they are alluding to?
And as a side note, Netanyahu is now saying he planes on eliminating the trade deficit between Israel and the US. Please explain to me how a nation of 10M can possibly equal the economic consumption of a nation of 350M? Especially when much of that trade is based on precious jewels, which the US has little industry in mining…
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:50 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
Okay, so moving beyond the outright tariff policies, there has been a lot of talk about non-tariff trade barriers including currency manipulation. Is that accurate? And what are the other trade barriers they are alluding to?
I think they've pivoted to this because they can hand-wave "non-tariff barriers", but not tariffs, which are publicly known and unambiguous. The example of a non-tariff barrier I've heard them use is a VAT, or sales tax, in Europe, and I've heard that calling that a barrier is nonsense, because it applies to Europe's own domestic products too.
And as a side note, Netanyahu is now saying he planes on eliminating the trade deficit between Israel and the US. Please explain to me how a nation of 10M can possibly equal the economic consumption of a nation of 350M? Especially when much of that trade is based on precious jewels, which the US has little industry in mining…
I'm hoping "trade deficits" are computed per-capita. They still wouldn't be a bad thing per se, but at least they would be a reasonable thing to talk about.
-
Don't buy the bullshit.
Example: On supposedly Black Monday, CNN was running the stock tickers all day and telling us all how bad Trump had screwed up.
Today, the market is up a bit and a stock ticker is no longer scrolling across the bottom of the screen. The media is going to do everything it can to generate clicks through Trump doomporn.
I haven't been adding to my investments in awhile. I think today I start dollar averaging the Roth and will continue to do so for the next 18 months.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:52 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
Don't buy the bullshit.
I don't think the damage done to the world economy by universal tariffs, is bullshit.
There is a case to be made that a more protectionist America is a more economically resilient America, so there is that, but the economic efficiency of tariff-free trading will be missed hugely, and everybody will feel it, if it goes.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 17:01 last edited by 89th 4 Aug 2025, 17:01
It was only the worst 3-day run for the S&P since the 1987 crash, and as CNN displayed the ticker, Fox removed their stock ticker for the first time to hide the news from granny in the nursing home.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
Okay, so moving beyond the outright tariff policies, there has been a lot of talk about non-tariff trade barriers including currency manipulation. Is that accurate? And what are the other trade barriers they are alluding to?
I think they've pivoted to this because they can hand-wave "non-tariff barriers", but not tariffs, which are publicly known and unambiguous. The example of a non-tariff barrier I've heard them use is a VAT, or sales tax, in Europe, and I've heard that calling that a barrier is nonsense, because it applies to Europe's own domestic products too.
And as a side note, Netanyahu is now saying he planes on eliminating the trade deficit between Israel and the US. Please explain to me how a nation of 10M can possibly equal the economic consumption of a nation of 350M? Especially when much of that trade is based on precious jewels, which the US has little industry in mining…
I'm hoping "trade deficits" are computed per-capita. They still wouldn't be a bad thing per se, but at least they would be a reasonable thing to talk about.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 17:06 last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
And as a side note, Netanyahu is now saying he planes on eliminating the trade deficit between Israel and the US. Please explain to me how a nation of 10M can possibly equal the economic consumption of a nation of 350M? Especially when much of that trade is based on precious jewels, which the US has little industry in mining…
I'm hoping "trade deficits" are computed per-capita. They still wouldn't be a bad thing per se, but at least they would be a reasonable thing to talk about.
I'm a bit concerned there is a concern about trade deficits in the first place. They aren't inherently bad, and one could argue in the current environment, they're actually a good thing most of the time. We're also in a global economy...different countries produce different goods with respective efficiencies. Let USA focus on what we're good at, let China do what they're good at. Plus it promotes peace, to an extent, too.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 17:11 last edited by
The idea that trade deficits are inherently bad really is surprisingly stupid. Does Trump actually believe this?