Trumpenomics
-
wrote 28 days ago last edited by
OMG HE STOPPED FENTANYL!
HE WON THE WAR ON DRUGS.
-
wrote 28 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 28 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 28 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 27 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 27 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 27 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 26 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
Corporate greed strikes again.
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
Yeah, cause margins don’t exist. Remember when the Republicans were yelling at Biden for blaming inflation on greedy Jewish grocers?
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
You either die a tariff hawk, or live long enough to embrace greedflation.
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
Has Bernie responded?
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
I’m sure he’ll be hypocritical too.
-
wrote 24 days ago last edited by
Cliff Asness comments:
I may have mentioned this but we have two economically left-wing parties now that only differ in their preferred pronouns.
-
Cliff Asness comments:
I may have mentioned this but we have two economically left-wing parties now that only differ in their preferred pronouns.
wrote 24 days ago last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Cliff Asness comments:
I may have mentioned this but we have two economically left-wing parties now that only differ in their preferred pronouns.
Yep.
At least Trump will make pro capitalism noises though.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Cliff Asness comments:
I may have mentioned this but we have two economically left-wing parties now that only differ in their preferred pronouns.
Yep.
At least Trump will make pro capitalism noises though.
wrote 24 days ago last edited by@Horace said in Trumpenomics:
@jon-nyc said in Trumpenomics:
Cliff Asness comments:
I may have mentioned this but we have two economically left-wing parties now that only differ in their preferred pronouns.
Yep.
At least Trump will make pro capitalism noises though.
Perhaps along with also more ICE raids at Walmart locations?
-
wrote 24 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 23 days ago last edited by