OT: Interesting Levels for S&P 500

[johnson86-1]

Trump campaigned on increasing tariffs. He was elected and immediately promised large blanket tariffs. He justified some tariffs by saying they are a penalty for issues totally unrelated to trade. He justified other tariffs by either lying about trade numbers or misunderstanding trade numbers.
He very much wants to use tariffs- everything he has done for months and months clearly points to him wanting to use tariffs.

Tariffs are the one policy that Trump individually strongly believes in. I'm not sure exactly what his end goal is. If it's the Ross Perot approach of reciprocal tariffs and we match whatever other people put on us (been a while but I think that was his position), I think I'm probably ok with that?

If he really wants to onshore particular industries for national security purposes, the devil is in the details, but while I don't know about onshoring, I do know I don't want us dependent on China for drug manufacturing, chips, and whatever else.

If he believes that us having a trade deficit with a country is by definition us losing or somehow thinks that we are losing when we buy goods from another country instead of domestically, that would be concerning.

 

[John Deaux VII]

Tariffs are the one policy that Trump individually strongly believes in. I'm not sure exactly what his end goal is. If it's the Ross Perot approach of reciprocal tariffs and we match whatever other people put on us (been a while but I think that was his position), I think I'm probably ok with that?

Trump does not have a goal.

If he really wants to onshore particular industries for national security purposes, the devil is in the details, but while I don't know about onshoring, I do know I don't want us dependent on China for drug manufacturing, chips, and whatever else.

Trump does not know what he wants.

If he believes that us having a trade deficit with a country is by definition us losing or somehow thinks that we are losing when we buy goods from another country instead of domestically, that would be concerning.

Trump does not know what he believes.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Trump does not have a goal.

Trump does not know what he wants.

Trump does not know what he believes.

For someone so successful, it’s amazing he can be so much dumber than posters on this board.

 

[8dog]

I know this much. When millionaires and billionaires tell me I need to be patient and I need to experience some pain for alleged long term gain, I’m all in. Sign. Me. Up. For some pain. They got this!

 

[John Deaux VII]

For someone so successful, it’s amazing he can be so much dumber than posters on this board.

I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt?

 

[mstateglfr]

Tariffs are the one policy that Trump individually strongly believes in. I'm not sure exactly what his end goal is. If it's the Ross Perot approach of reciprocal tariffs and we match whatever other people put on us (been a while but I think that was his position), I think I'm probably ok with that?

I disagree and am not OK with it. I wasnt OK with it when Trump first tried to match tariffs, I wasnt OK when Biden largely kept Trump's tariffs in place, and I am not OK with Trump trying it again.
I dont think the approach will result in a successful result.

But sure, I accept you are OK with it and view that economic approach as good.

If he really wants to onshore particular industries for national security purposes, the devil is in the details, but while I don't know about onshoring, I do know I don't want us dependent on China for drug manufacturing, chips, and whatever else.

If he really wants to onshore particular industries, for whatever reason, then blanket tariffs arent the correct approach. Targeted tariffs would be a more correct tariff based approach.
Further, a back and forth on whether to implement tariffs or not, and implementing them then immediately adjusting, is not the correct approach.
For industries to want to set up domestic production, there needs to be sustained consistent policy. No company is going to work for years to set up domestic production if they think tariffs will continually change with the winds since they dont have protection with changes.

If that is his goal, he hasnt made it clear and his approach wont help.

If he believes that us having a trade deficit with a country is by definition us losing or somehow thinks that we are losing when we buy goods from another country instead of domestically, that would be concerning.

He 100% believes this. He has continually claimed that we are subsidizing Canada because there is a trade imbalance. A subsidy is not the same as a trade deficit, as you and basically every other educated person knows. He has claimed this multiple times since the election and the amount has changed too. $100Million, $100Billion, $200Billion.
Dec 18th 2024 - In a post on his social media platform, Trump wrote: "No one can answer why we subsidize Canada to the tune of over $100,000,000 a year?"
Feb 3rd 2025 - President Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China have an official rationale: the failure to stop fentanyl smuggling into the United States. In his public statements, though, the president keeps neglecting this reason, giving others instead. He posted on Truth Social on Sunday: "We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why?

 

[ckDOG]

I'm done trying to understand how 4D genius operates. He's transactional and bombastic and views all financial and political relationships as having a winner and a loser. Where that takes him is where we'll go. Foreign leaders are wise to that by now as well.

Hes 80 - there's no changing him. I'd just rather us be preparing for a booming economy that the world has never seen before and lower cost of living rather than trying to explain what the true definition of GDP and recession should be. He made the promises - he needs to deliver - preferably without me having to endure some undefined period of financial stress and DOGE side show before things get better. Not liking that pivot at all and definitely not why he was elected.

 

[grinningmule]

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I know this much. When millionaires and billionaires tell me I need to be patient and I need to experience some pain for alleged long term gain, I’m all in. Sign. Me. Up. For some pain. They got this!

I disagree. I’d much rather let people who have repeatedly proven to make poor choices tell me what’s best for the future.

 

[JacksonCPAdawg]

You know things are headed in the right direction when msstateglfr is outraged

 

[mstateglfr]

If he believes that us having a trade deficit with a country is by definition us losing or somehow thinks that we are losing when we buy goods from another country instead of domestically, that would be concerning.

He literally just repeated this disproven claim earlier today when he doubled steel and aluminum tariffs.
"We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue," Trump wrote.

He continues to believe that a trade deficit is the same as a subsidy.
He continues to claim, when it fits his narrative(whatever that is at the moment) that having a trade deficit is the same as the US losing.

 

[mstateglfr]

You know things are headed in the right direction when msstateglfr is outraged

We traded an old man who wasnt visible enough and wasnt tough enough on a few key issues for an old man who is too visible and cant figure out how to effectively be tough or what key issues he wants to be tough on, so 'break ****, then ask questions, then maybe glue the vase back together' seems to be his approach to...well everything I can think of.


I am not outraged, I am dizzy from confusion over why this is a supported approach to running the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world.
I am less confused now than I was before reading some responses in this thread. It looks like at least some support the approach because they arent fully aware of what is happening.

 

[johnson86-1]

I disagree and am not OK with it. I wasnt OK with it when Trump first tried to match tariffs, I wasnt OK when Biden largely kept Trump's tariffs in place, and I am not OK with Trump trying it again.
I dont think the approach will result in a successful result.

But sure, I accept you are OK with it and view that economic approach as good.

I never said it was good. I think I'm ok with it in the sense that it seems unobjectionable.

But why do you think it's bad? If you take out China, I could believe an argument that "unilateral disarmament" in trade war is a better approach. Maybe. Still seems like there's a point where industrial policy by other countries puts us at too much risk of painful adjustments due to shifting geopolitical winds.

But we are probably the most diversified economy on earth and have a big portion of the world's purchasing power. If free trade is good, it seems like a tit for tat strategy by us would be pretty effective in encouraging people to reduce tariffs and embrace free trade. Plus, since taxes are a necessary evil, that seems like a reasonable place to collect some tax revenue.

If he really wants to onshore particular industries, for whatever reason, then blanket tariffs arent the correct approach. Targeted tariffs would be a more correct tariff based approach.
Further, a back and forth on whether to implement tariffs or not, and implementing them then immediately adjusting, is not the correct approach.
For industries to want to set up domestic production, there needs to be sustained consistent policy. No company is going to work for years to set up domestic production if they think tariffs will continually change with the winds since they dont have protection with changes.

If that is his goal, he hasnt made it clear and his approach wont help.


He 100% believes this. He has continually claimed that we are subsidizing Canada because there is a trade imbalance. A subsidy is not the same as a trade deficit, as you and basically every other educated person knows. He has claimed this multiple times since the election and the amount has changed too. $100Million, $100Billion, $200Billion.
Dec 18th 2024 - In a post on his social media platform, Trump wrote: "No one can answer why we subsidize Canada to the tune of over $100,000,000 a year?"
Feb 3rd 2025 - President Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China have an official rationale: the failure to stop fentanyl smuggling into the United States. In his public statements, though, the president keeps neglecting this reason, giving others instead. He posted on Truth Social on Sunday: "We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why?

For better or worse, what trump says doesn't seem to be strongly correlated with anything other than what he thinks best serves his goals in that instant. If he needs to change his statement to something inconsistent within 24 hours, he'll do that. I think the fentanyl was always just something that sounds good because it was more than about money.

 

[John Deaux VII]

I disagree. I’d much rather let people who have repeatedly proven to make poor choices tell me what’s best for the future.

Well, you're in luck pal. That's exactly what you are we are getting....

 

[retire the banner]

It will be interesting to see where things are 6 months from now with tariffs, inflation, housing, and foreign wars. Everyone seems to think 2 months into a presidency things are completely doomed or going to be fine.

How about y’all just 17ing relax

 

[jethreauxdawg]

How about y’all just 17ing relax

That’s not how we roll here. Get with the extremes or get gone.

 

[mcdawg22]

It will be interesting to see where things are 6 months from now with tariffs, inflation, housing, and foreign wars. Everyone seems to think 2 months into a presidency things are completely doomed or going to be fine.

How about y’all just 17ing relax

Have you not seen coaches discussed? Nuance and letting things play out are not exactly our strong suits.

 

[mcdawg22]

View attachment 770093
That’s not how we roll here. Get with the extremes or get gone.

 

[johnson86-1]

We traded an old man who wasnt visible enough and wasnt tough enough on a few key issues for an old man who is too visible and cant figure out how to effectively be tough or what key issues he wants to be tough on, so 'break ****, then ask questions, then maybe glue the vase back together' seems to be his approach to...well everything I can think of.


I am not outraged, I am dizzy from confusion over why this is a supported approach to running the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world.
I am less confused now than I was before reading some responses in this thread. It looks like at least some support the approach because they arent fully aware of what is happening.

Maybe we should consider not giving the president so much unilateral power. Put the legislative and spending power back in the legislative branch. But that would realistically require that the federal government pare back its involvement in non-federal issues. Plus the legislators would have to actually work instead of just preen for the camera and blame or praise the president for whatever is happening.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Have you not seen coaches discussed? Nuance and letting things play out is not exactly our strong suit.

We’re not exactly great at coaching getting better in time either

 

[JacksonCPAdawg]

We traded an old man who wasnt visible enough and wasnt tough enough on a few key issues for an old man who is too visible and cant figure out how to effectively be tough or what key issues he wants to be tough on, so 'break ****, then ask questions, then maybe glue the vase back together' seems to be his approach to...well everything I can think of.


I am not outraged, I am dizzy from confusion over why this is a supported approach to running the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world.
I am less confused now than I was before reading some responses in this thread. It looks like at least some support the approach because they arent fully aware of what is happening.

I’m just bustin balls brother man. we are all on the same team

 

[mstateglfr]

Maybe we should consider not giving the president so much unilateral power. Put the legislative and spending power back in the legislative branch. But that would realistically require that the federal government pare back its involvement in non-federal issues. Plus the legislators would have to actually work instead of just preen for the camera and blame or praise the president for whatever is happening.

Well yeah, obviously Congress should legislate and oversee spending. My goodness- its been almost 2 months of people screaming for those in power to actually step us and remind the Executive branch that Congress enacts laws and controls spending.
Instead, we have Legislators within the controlling Party that are straight up like 'yeah, I support it all!' which means they are just giving up their powers and happily not following the pesky Constitution.


The kicker is that you mention 'non-federal issues' and in reality, the current actual issue is that the Legislative branch is just allowing another branch to take control.
Checks and balances between those branches are largely a thing of the past.

It is difficult to determine what is or isnt a federal issue. It isnt difficult to determine what is or isnt a Congressional responsibility.
I do agree that in general, the president should not be overly involved in non-federal issues. This applies to Democrat and Republican presidents. Again though, the details are key here since people will disagree as to whether something is or isnt a federal issue. It often isnt cut and dried.
Congress enacting laws and managing spending is easy to determine. That is cut and dried.


If Republican members of Congress would take issue with Biden issuing bonkers EOs and taking spending power as well as Legislative power away from Congress, then they should take issue with Trump and Musk doing the same, even if they like the end goal(whatever that may be at any given moment).

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Beyond agriculture what do we actually produce here in the U.S. that isn't tied to the global supply chain?

Anyone?

 

[dorndawg]

Maybe we should consider not giving the president so much unilateral power. Put the legislative and spending power back in the legislative branch. But that would realistically require that the federal government pare back its involvement in non-federal issues. Plus the legislators would have to actually work instead of just preen for the camera and blame or praise the president for whatever is happening.

That's what we have. The Framers never considered the Legislative and (increasingly) Judicial branches would stick a thumb up their asss and not do their job.

 

[mcdawg22]

We’re not exactly great at coaching getting better in time either

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Beyond agriculture what do we actually produce here in the U.S. that isn't tied to the global supply chain?

Anyone?

Bourbon

 

[johnson86-1]

Well yeah, obviously Congress should legislate and oversee spending. My goodness- its been almost 2 months of people screaming for those in power to actually step us and remind the Executive branch that Congress enacts laws and controls spending.
Instead, we have Legislators within the controlling Party that are straight up like 'yeah, I support it all!' which means they are just giving up their powers and happily not following the pesky Constitution.


The kicker is that you mention 'non-federal issues' and in reality, the current actual issue is that the Legislative branch is just allowing another branch to take control.
Checks and balances between those branches are largely a thing of the past.

It is difficult to determine what is or isnt a federal issue. It isnt difficult to determine what is or isnt a Congressional responsibility.
I do agree that in general, the president should not be overly involved in non-federal issues. This applies to Democrat and Republican presidents. Again though, the details are key here since people will disagree as to whether something is or isnt a federal issue. It often isnt cut and dried.
Congress enacting laws and managing spending is easy to determine. That is cut and dried.


If Republican members of Congress would take issue with Biden issuing bonkers EOs and taking spending power as well as Legislative power away from Congress, then they should take issue with Trump and Musk doing the same, even if they like the end goal(whatever that may be at any given moment).

the people that have only been talking about it for two months are not serious. they just sat by while we couldn’t even identify who was running the executive branch. Hell, the potus twitter account claimed to amend the constitution.

 

[mstateglfr]

the people that have only been talking about it for two months are not serious. they just sat by while we couldn’t even identify who was running the executive branch. Hell, the potus twitter account claimed to amend the constitution.

And the people that were talking about it before but have not shut up entirely or even spoken out in support of them losing their power are also not serious.

Looks like we have identified that nobody is serious. I guess the only thing to now do is insert the spiderman gif where they all point at one another...so apply post 58 here.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Ole boy in Ontario just buckled, I guess there’s an art to these deals.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Ole boy in Ontario just buckled, I guess there’s an art to these deals.

They have set up a meeting for Thursday.
Don't sound like they buckled.

 

[dorndawg]

Ole boy in Ontario just buckled, I guess there’s an art to these deals.

When I think of any art produced by shitforbrains, a downward red line comes to mind first. For example:

 

[mstateglfr]

Ole boy in Ontario just buckled, I guess there’s an art to these deals.

Guy A implemented tariffs, then delayed them, then implemented them, then almost immediately adjusted some. Guy B implemented tariffs in response, and then said a few will increase more. Guy A threatened more tariffs. Guy B then decided to not increase those recent few.


So both Guy A and Guy B have implemented tariffs on products from the other guy's country, which makes products cost more for consumers.

What has actually been accomplished that could be called 'an art to these deals'? If Guy A didnt shitstir, then Guy B wouldnt have imposed tariffs and prices on both sides would be lower.
Is that really an 'art of the deal'?

 

[POTUS]

Might be useful to know what percentage of our imports come from Canada vs. what percentage of their imports come from us.

 

[POTUS]

 

[jethreauxdawg]

They have set up a meeting for Thursday.
Don't sound like they buckled.

He buckled. He said “just kidding” a few hours after he announced rate hikes on energy, once Trump explained the consequences. All this a few weeks after bragging he’d turn off our power with a smile on his face.

 

[Pars]

Is this a red wave?

When I think of any art produced by shitforbrains, a downward red line comes to mind first. For example:

View attachment 770144

is this a red wave?

 

[RBDog82]

All I know is I was much more likely to spend before I’d lost ~$500k in the last 7-10 trading days. The “wealth effect” is real. When things are going well and your investments increase, you’re much more likely to spend. When you get your nuts kicked in every day for 7-10 days, you’re much more likely to think before spending. When the top 10% of consumers that are responsible for 40%+ of consumer spending start thinking about spending, that becomes a real problem.

 

[8dog]

I’m just glad we are finally focusing on the real enemy- Canada.

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

All I know is I was much more likely to spend before I’d lost ~$500k in the last 7-10 trading days. The “wealth effect” is real. When things are going well and your investments increase, you’re much more likely to spend. When you get your nuts kicked in every day for 7-10 days, you’re much more likely to think before spending. When the top 10% of consumers that are responsible for 40%+ of consumer spending start thinking about spending, that becomes a real problem.

Dang go ahead and make me feel poor.

 

[Pars]