Exactly my sentiments. I don't know how this all turns out, but I'm absolutely sure something drastic needs to be done to change the course we're on fiscally as a country.
DOW Futures down another 1600
- Thread starter 615dawg
- Start date
- Status
Exactly my sentiments. I don't know how this all turns out, but I'm absolutely sure something drastic needs to be done to change the course we're on fiscally as a country.
Is that an improvement over being a fascist?
Gonna run up the cost of the sucky sucky at the massage parlor too**
The only way you could ask this question is if you have never dealt with any of the federal government's regulatory agencies. There are high profile cases like the IRS targeting but it's the everyday sabotage that is more problematic. Certainly lots of malicious compliance. Gumming up the works on NOPRs and rulemaking because they want to cross every t and do every i, not just because they are trying to run out the clock on doing anything. And just refusing to do basic ministerial tasks is another terrible option they have. People waited for over 12 months for basic jurisdictional determinations because partisan bureaucrats were throwing a hissy fit because they disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and then they still didn't get determinations that really followed the Supreme court's decision. But even going down to pretty rank and file employees, you get malicious compliance, llike spending money and manpower to fence off open air monuments that normally have no security when there is a government shut down. Or trashing material related to the Tuskagee airmen to "comply" with orders on not granting racial preferences.
On a related note, if you ignore employees in the defense related jobs (Veterans affairs, military, DOD, etc) where donations are almost equal, something north of 85% of donations from federal employees go to democrats. That wouldn't be a problem if they generally acted non-partisan, but that explains how they can act openly partisan and not even think about how improper it is. If most of their coworkers even recognize it as an impropriety, there is a really good chance they will agree with it anyway.
Agree. Despite it being the best system, that's simply a downside to capitalism. We will always pursue doing more with less and the capital owners will tend to pocket the benefits causing things to get out of whack - human nature. But capitalism also requires a market so if things get too out of whack then the capital owners will have to share more margin with the masses unless they want their cash flows to permanently dry up. Rich people are only rich bc they have customers in capitalism and subjects/slaves in authoritarian systems. Allowing things to get too out of balance for too long will simply bring about revolution and they start getting murdered. Circle of life and such.
I wish I could predict the future on how humanity handles more automation and needing less physical labor (crossing into knowledge based capital now as well). It's a scary as hell thought. But we are either going to have to figure it out or change to archaic systems and ignore the reality that tech has brought us. Maybe that works, but I don't believe it to be possible on any large scale outside of us destroying civilization intentionally via war and having to completely rebuild. We seem to be approaching a crossroads here...
And if tariffs are paid for by the end consumer then why are the nations whose goods are being tariffed scrambling like crabs in a bucket to get rid of them??
If people really suffer and the crime rate soars but it works and gets us better trade deals? Is this a good thing? I say, "The poorest among us should never be taxed like this no matter the win. Nothing justifies what will happen to the weakest among us it this goes on very long. I would never celebrate the outcome no matter if it works or not if it hit the streets like that."
I just hope he backs off these tariffs before it gets that far.
No, I don't. I traded cash for the groceries. It's perfectly balanced. Unless you get your groceries for free, you have perfect trade balance with your grocer, too.
Using your example, you're saying it's better to give your grocer x% MORE CASH in exchange x% FEWER GROCERIES.
It's simply a misunderstanding of economics.
Last edited:
MAGA people sound like Genespagers: "We have to trust Coach Trump. The Single Wing Offense will work if we give it enough time!"
I'm glad you mentioned Vietnam. Great example.
Let's look at our deficit with them. Does anybody here really think that Vietnamese can afford the stuff we make? Yet, Americans certainly want the cheap things Vietnamese make. Thus, we have a trade deficit so we need to throw a tariff on them and make the stuff we buy more expensive.
So @birdawg........is that what you want?
Agreed. The transportation industry is a great example. I'm all for capitalism, but if we went full bore on self driving freight, it would wipe out the single largest way of earning a living for men aged 18-30 who do not have a college education in this country. I do not know the solution to this problem.
Those agencies enforce laws that Congress makes. You talk about all this maliciousness, the only people who have the power to do that are at the very top, and often political appointees.
Stop blaming the wrong people.
They didn't help, but really the bigger problem was the people that were ostensibly republican but were really just self-interested people interested in big government. So many people were worried about working with him that he mostly ended up with snakes in the grass although there were certainly big exceptions. How much of his trouble getting honest people to work for him was because he's difficult and volatile versus taking the risk of blow back seriously is hard to predict. Probably some of both for most people. But it's left us in a worse place.
You may think it's a reach, but it's crappy as our economy was tariffs were going to wallop us. And I still don't see why we have to ***** about the fact that we evened the playing field. Oh yes, we had a crappy economy to start with. That's a reason why we couldn't change anything. I am not taking anybody's side. It just sounds stupid to me, but of course, I'm not an economy genius.
Because it will hurt them as well. We won’t buy near as much product especially for the countries that have a >20% tariff. We cannot realistically keep buying goods at the same rate when the price of everything goes up.
EXACTLY. We do the same thing when we buy foreign goods. We get things of value in exchange for our money. Tariffs make that exchange artificially more expensive. We give the grocer MORE cash for FEWER groceries.
I'm assuming (praying) that this would settle out before anything is really felt at the cash register. I have a lot of words for Trump but I don't think he's so disconnected from reality that he believes the population is willing to put up with a significant cost of living increase to win a trade war that most would never understand anyhow. He knows why he was put into office and it wasn't to make things more expensive. He will lose the adoration of his very very loyal base and his ego will not be able to take that hit. Still think he's sticking his chest out to "win" some key trade agreements and we pull back shortly.
I just wish he wasn't playing poker using our market values and potential cost of living as his stack of chips.
Yes, it is exactly what I want.
Why do the Vietnamese need to make our products less competitive? What is the purpose?
Last edited:
This is easy to say, only because anyone you see agreeing with them you would label as a Trump yes man. Did you know the US Treasury Secretary is the former head of Soros Fund Management? And that he's gay (the highest politically ranked homosexual in US history - he passed Mayor Pete to zero fanfare, but I digress)? That guy is not a blind Trump supporter. He thinks this is a good idea that can work (again, LONG TERM).
How about UAW President Shawn Fain, noted Kamala supporter? He's for the tariffs.
No, I didn't suggest that at all. In fact, I said the people against it might be right. I typically do agree with Friedman, but a generalized blanket quote about tariffs by a financial policy genius from 30 years ago doesn't exactly sway me (yet.) Most of his policy ideas were developed in the Reagan years, and the world has changed a lot since then. I'm not sure there's only one right way to move forward.
The best argument I've heard against the tariffs and the way they've been rolled out today to me is Ben Shapiro's theory. He is concerned, rightfully so, that it will scare too many people too quickly, thereby tanking the economy short term, and losing all the positive momentum going so as to make JD Vance unelectable in 2028. That is scary to me, although I doubt that's what you are worried about.
How did opening the gates and allowing 10M unidentified and unvetted people to enter the country fit on this scale?
It was going to happen at some point, and it would have been 2008 type level bad if we kept kicking the can.
I am neutral on politics, and try to focus on running companies, but it does seem he is helping make this less painful.
The top 10% own 88% of the stock. I am in the 1% but don't really live and die by the stock market with my holdings.
Today and the weekend seemed like the panic of those way over leveraged with stocks, and ignoring the signs for over a year.
The AI boom carried the market the past 2 years, as well as government interference for a long time.
It is just surprising to me how many are caught off guard currently on it.
I am thankful to have listened to some smart dudes that told me hang on to cash and hedge against the market this spring. I am making some $$ on it today.
I suspect we had these same fears and discussions at forefront of the Industrial Revolution. Let's hope this too is a net win for humanity when we look back. That or we have to welcome our new robot overlords.
His base will believe whatever he tells them to believe. They will believe him before they believe their own eyes. Now the voters that swing elections won't. If he persists on this path the mid-terms will be a bloodbath for the GOP. This may be a swing that puts the GOP into the minority for 6o years. Smoot-Hawley did much the same. I do NOT want to see today's Dems with a majority that long, but I'm afraid that's where this is heading.I'm assuming (praying) that this would settle out before anything is really felt at the cash register. I have a lot of words for Trump but I don't think he's so disconnected from reality that he believes the population is willing to put up with a significant cost of living increase to win a trade war that most would never understand anyhow. He knows why he was put into office and it wasn't to make things more expensive. He will lose the adoration of his very very loyal base and his ego will not be able to take that hit. Still think he's sticking his chest out to "win" some key trade agreements and we pull back shortly.
I just wish he wasn't playing poker using our market values and potential cost of living as his stack of chips.
No, he can't explain it. Nobody can. That is utter nonsense. The Vietnamese don't impose tariffs on the goods they export. Good lord.
Market wise, thank you Trump. I will be getting richer buying this new dip when we find the bottom. Heavy hitters will be doing the same, as we of course will be going back up, however long that may take.
Your average American voter that doesn’t care for daily political drama but consider it their duty to still vote. They are going to vote with their wallets. If prices rise, which they will. If the pain is up come midterms. Trump and associates are going to get slaughtered midterms. Bloodbath.
Your average American voter that doesn’t care for daily political drama but consider it their duty to still vote. They are going to vote with their wallets. If prices rise, which they will. If the pain is up come midterms. Trump and associates are going to get slaughtered midterms. Bloodbath.
The tariffs are paid by the importer, not the exporter. That is FACT, unless a country is stupid enough to place tariffs on its own exports. Good lord the ignorance on this.
The point escapes you. You think me and my grocer have a trade imbalance lol.
I'm going to get my economics knowledge from a guy that thinks I have a trade deficit with my grocer.
EXACTLY. So you're saying other countries should make our products less competitive in their country. Why?
Bro you might need to edit your posts. It seems you do not have an understanding of tariffs.
And look....it appears you just did it right before I quoted you. But @L4Dawg already caught it and memorialized it. Good Lord, son.
It's time for you to exit this conversation, for your own sake.
You seem confused. Or maybe my brain is finally rotting. @OG Goat Holder does this read bassackwards to you as well?
You do understand that a tariff is on incoming good not outgoing right?
Trump does. I do NOT, unless I use the definition you are using. Again, you are clueless.
Last edited:
No....he didn't understand that. That is who so many in this thread were arguing with, including myself.
But I give myself credit for outing him
Just explain why other countries should make US products less competitive in their country. Why?
- Status