Trumpenomics
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 12:57 last edited by
Not until 1792.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:19 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
-
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:27 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trumpenomics:
Too soon to tell.
Was the War of
Western AggressionIndependence good or bad for the U.S.?Was there an American stock market at the time?
Part of your lore here is that second career you had helping indigents with financial stuff, and all of that surely involved the stock market. But now you're a newborn babe when it comes to questions about whether the stock market actually matters to real America.
Honestly, is that even a serious question? Does anybody ask whether a highway network is good for the U.S. because after all things were so much better back in the Victorian age?
Obviously, the only reason we're hearing the question is because of who's crashed the market. If it was a Democrat, it would be a completely different story.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 13:57 last edited by Jolly
Just musing...The market (Dow) was losing money in the prelude to WW2 (approx 1938) and actually fell below those levels in 1942. It did not return to the 1939 level, until 1947. Starting in the 1950's, people made money in the market, with a bit of a dip in the 58 recession.
My point is that WW2 was good for America, despite the loss and carnage of war at a size never seen before. America emerged as the Leader of the Free World, the war lifted thousands out of poverty and enlarged the middle class, advanced civil rights and the war set off an economic boom and a baby boom.
So, you have the juxtaposition of a market that really did not like WW2, but the war on many levels had a positive effect upon the country.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 14:17 last edited by Doctor Phibes
That's quite a socialistic viewpoint. Or maybe not. Society's benefit over individual loss?
Who knows what would have happened to the USA if WW2 hadn't happened?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 15:39 last edited by
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
-
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 16:07 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
Alright - so step 1, stock market down. Step 2 - destroy a large portion of all other major countries. Step 3 - profit.
On to step 2, I guess?
Underwear Gnomes?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 16:16 last edited by
Trump's most imbecilic trade advisors, Navarro and Lutnik, each called out the fact that large tech stocks were the main reason the stock market was doing so well. This was presented as a bad thing. Taking down America's most successful public companies may not be the goal, but it is certainly an acceptable loss, to the people behind the policies. But I remain cautiously confident that Trump does not want to be known for all those great and famous American companies getting clobbered. Lutnik and Navarro don't care, but I'm guessing that Trump does. Of course, even if Trump cares, his abject insanity regarding trade policies may prevent him from doing the right things to keep those companies healthy. He still thinks IPhones can be made in America.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 17:10 last edited by jon-nyc
I agree he doesn’t want to be known as the guy that destroyed the economy. I think the problem is he thinks these tariffs really will usher in a new era of American prosperity and that both the market and economic experts are just wrong.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 17:18 last edited by
Unfortunately, even though I am not an economist, I pretty sure it is not possible to increase labor costs by 10X or so and be able to sell the product (for example iPhone) for the same or lower price. LOL
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 18:07 last edited by xenon
It’s not even particularly desirable. An iPhone sells for $1000, costs about $400 to make and about $100 of that value is driven by China.
Would we rather have Huawei in America with $100 going to American manufacturing (just assume that’s possible) - or the current state of an American company (Apple) with $100 going to China?
The way Trump talks, he’d take the former.
-
It’s not even particularly desirable. An iPhone sells for $1000, costs about $400 to make and about $100 of that value is driven by China.
Would we rather have Huawei in America with $100 going to American manufacturing (just assume that’s possible) - or the current state of an American company (Apple) with $100 going to China?
The way Trump talks, he’d take the former.
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 18:31 last edited by@xenon said in Trumpenomics:
It’s not even particularly desirable.
No, it's all an idiotic fever dream, cooked up by maybe the only two economists in the world who think tariffs cause prosperity, and the intuitions of Trump.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 18:48 last edited by
The simple act of building the factories makes it impossible. You can reshore some critical manufacturing capabilities, but it will need some subsidizing and a lot of deregulation to get the factories up and running, and it will still require competition. While I still think American Car manufacturing is pretty piss poor, the Japanese competition did force them to get a little better…
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 19:01 last edited by
Indeed they did. I had an 86 ford tempo in 1990, already a cheap used car by then, that almost bankrupted me with repair bills.
-
I agree he doesn’t want to be known as the guy that destroyed the economy. I think the problem is he thinks these tariffs really will usher in a new era of American prosperity and that both the market and economic experts are just wrong.
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 19:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
I agree he doesn’t want to be known as the guy that destroyed the economy. I think the problem is he thinks these tariffs really will usher in a new era of American prosperity and that both the market and economic experts are just wrong.
Been saying he's channeling McKinley.
-
The simple act of building the factories makes it impossible. You can reshore some critical manufacturing capabilities, but it will need some subsidizing and a lot of deregulation to get the factories up and running, and it will still require competition. While I still think American Car manufacturing is pretty piss poor, the Japanese competition did force them to get a little better…
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 19:51 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Trumpenomics:
The simple act of building the factories makes it impossible. You can reshore some critical manufacturing capabilities, but it will need some subsidizing and a lot of deregulation to get the factories up and running, and it will still require competition. While I still think American Car manufacturing is pretty piss poor, the Japanese competition did force them to get a little better…
Trump Admin is claiming $7T investment coming to America. I'm sure that's inflated, but look at the marching orders that went to the agencies about rules that have made up out of whole cloth. Washington should soon be in a deregulation frenzy.
Less regulation burdens, no tariffs, a Navy ship building program, etc. Maybe the world gets the hint we're in the business for business?
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 20:59 last edited by jon-nyc
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2025, 00:55 last edited by
I don't think we're deterring students from coming here, if they're coming to study.
You want to play justice warrior for your pet cause, especially using illegal protests to do so or protesting for a terrorist organization? I think your time in America will be brief and rightly so.
-
I don't think we're deterring students from coming here, if they're coming to study.
You want to play justice warrior for your pet cause, especially using illegal protests to do so or protesting for a terrorist organization? I think your time in America will be brief and rightly so.
wrote on 18 Apr 2025, 01:22 last edited by@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I don't think we're deterring students from coming here, if they're coming to study.
Sure we are.
If you are a foreign student looking to study abroad, and you have a choice of lets say, US, UK, Australia, etc. you may give less thought to the US, regardless if you are a pure angel or not.
I am guess that 4 years from now, foreign students in the US will have decreased by at least 10-20%.
US universities like them as they pay full amount to go to school. I know of quite a few Chinese students at schools like Univ. of IL, and they are all paying list price of USD$50K per year. (They may be getting some sort of subsidy from their home country, but not from the US school).
-
@Jolly said in Trumpenomics:
I don't think we're deterring students from coming here, if they're coming to study.
Sure we are.
If you are a foreign student looking to study abroad, and you have a choice of lets say, US, UK, Australia, etc. you may give less thought to the US, regardless if you are a pure angel or not.
I am guess that 4 years from now, foreign students in the US will have decreased by at least 10-20%.
US universities like them as they pay full amount to go to school. I know of quite a few Chinese students at schools like Univ. of IL, and they are all paying list price of USD$50K per year. (They may be getting some sort of subsidy from their home country, but not from the US school).
wrote on 18 Apr 2025, 03:35 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Trumpenomics:
I am guess that 4 years from now, foreign students in the US will have decreased by at least 10-20%.
Good.
