Trumpenomics
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 16:57 last edited by
Count John Stossel, boomer conservative, in with those who don't think the tariffs are a good idea. The set of people who like them remains limited to Trump and exactly two of his advisors.
Link to video -
wrote on 13 May 2025, 17:00 last edited by
I've enjoyed Stossel's segments ever since his "give me a break" segments during 20/20 back in the 90's.
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 18:09 last edited by
I’ve been reading him at Reason for years.
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 19:25 last edited by Copper
The importer doesn't like tariffs.
Wow.
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 19:52 last edited by
@Copper said in Trumpenomics:
The importer doesn't like tariffs.
Wow.
It's so typical that when you punch someone in the face, they'll just whine about how much it hurt. They have no idea how predictable and tedious that whining is. It happens almost every time someone gets punched in the face.
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 21:21 last edited by
@Copper said in Trumpenomics:
The importer doesn't like tariffs.
Wow.
Copper doesn't like it when people criticise President Trump.
Wow.
-
@Copper said in Trumpenomics:
The importer doesn't like tariffs.
Wow.
It's so typical that when you punch someone in the face, they'll just whine about how much it hurt. They have no idea how predictable and tedious that whining is. It happens almost every time someone gets punched in the face.
wrote on 13 May 2025, 22:16 last edited by Renauda@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@Copper said in Trumpenomics:
The importer doesn't like tariffs.
Wow.
It's so typical that when you punch someone in the face, they'll just whine about how much it hurt. They have no idea how predictable and tedious that whining is. It happens almost every time someone gets punched in the face.
Then just throw him an elbow to the head and keep your eye on the play. Works for me.
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 22:57 last edited by Copper
Better than Pete Rose, and still alive. (The rumor is that Mr. Trump got the ban lifted).
-
wrote on 13 May 2025, 23:00 last edited by jon-nyc
One out of four of those is actually true.
Welcome home, Edan.
-
wrote on 14 May 2025, 02:18 last edited by
Edan should be thanking Copper. Profusely thanking Copper.
-
wrote on 14 May 2025, 02:28 last edited by
And the Indians and Pakistanis that are suffering from radiation burns from the nuclear conflict they experienced should thank him too. VP Shillbilly and Copper. Both of them.
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
OMG HE STOPPED FENTANYL!
HE WON THE WAR ON DRUGS.
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
No reason to be cautious, with all those factory jobs coming. I'd be spending like a drunken sailor. Like a drunken sailor who was about to get a sweet factory job.
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
I’ll admit to being a little surprised. It’s not obvious why they should have been retrenching in Q1. The fear of tariff-related inflation and job losses is more of a future concern. You’d also expect higher income people to be more clued in on the risks than the common man.
-
wrote 29 days ago last edited by
It's unprecedented! It's historical!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/14/trump-tariffs-china-trade/
Since the inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump administration officials have announced new or revised tariff policies more than 50 times, according to a tally by The Washington Post. (A separate tally by Reed Smith, a law firm, has found about 55 such actions.) Trump has issued more than a dozen tariff-related executive orders, or about one per week ..:
-
I’ll admit to being a little surprised. It’s not obvious why they should have been retrenching in Q1. The fear of tariff-related inflation and job losses is more of a future concern. You’d also expect higher income people to be more clued in on the risks than the common man.
wrote 29 days ago last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
I’ll admit to being a little surprised. It’s not obvious why they should have been retrenching in Q1. The fear of tariff-related inflation and job losses is more of a future concern. You’d also expect higher income people to be more clued in on the risks than the common man.
Common men fear for the future and tighten belts right away; higher income people say let's buy more and stock up before tariffs get real?
-
wrote 29 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
Sure, but that assumes the common man and the higher income folks both have similar intuitions that tariffs are going to harm them economically in the immediate future.
-
wrote 28 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 28 days ago last edited by jon-nyc