361–370 of 777 posts
So where is the bottom? I don’t actually believe there is one, I’m just curious to hear what other people think.
The vision is to convert the American economy from one with infinite profit margins (ads and software) to a manufacturing one with single percentage profit margins and limited growth potential due to tariff environment. So I think a 80-90% drop in the overall market value is justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brexit was pretty bad for the UK proportional to the size of their population/economy, and is still causing problems even though the initial dislocation is over. If you think it's a lesser crisis, you could just say that. I haven't done the numbers to make an exact comparison, but they both have the qualities of being being abrupt, severe, and self-inflicted.
> If you think it's a lesser crisis, you could just say that. I do, but the principal reason I didn't say that is that I had no idea it's what the commenter I replied to was referring to. 'Brexit' feels mostly completely irrelevant / not a topic of concern or debate since at least the beginning of the pandemic five years ago. The vote was almost a decade ago. 'If bdelmas thinks it's like Brexit, they could just say t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are they unconstitutional? i imagine, like many things, congress has constitutionally saw fit to cede its authority to the executive many many moons ago
They could be unconstitutional. The ability of Congress to delegate its authority to the President does have limits. If companies (the ones in a financial position to do this) sued, they'd have standing and could make their case. Whether it's successful or not would take a while to find out, and this is an instance where judges would likely leave the tariffs in place until the suit was settled in a court (before appe…
A simple but profound idea that has stuck with me from the days when I religiously listened to The Macro Tourist's podcast: who's on the other side of the trade? In order for AAPL to drop 7% today, someone of course had to agree to sell their shares at a price that is 7% lower than yesterday's. But perhaps more interesting, someone else agreed to buy the shares at that price. Who's buying here and who's selling? Who'…
While some people freak out, call an agent, sell stocks, I'd imagine this is mostly actively managed (by humans and software) investments doing the selling.
Beyond that, when you sell something, maybe it felt like it was worth $10. But you offer it for $9.95. Maybe someone buys it, maybe not. Maybe you drop it to $9.80? Then someone buys it. Rinse and repeat until the price is now $8.
When you sell a "$10" stock, if you say you won't sell it for less than $10, you might not be able to do so. It's all more complicated than that, and there are limit and market orders, etc. that affect how much the price will vary from when you initiate it.
But if you're like "hmm, this is horrible news for the economy" you probably press the "sell as fast as possible" order, and your $10 stock might actually sell instantly for $9.50 because for someone with a "smart" algorithm, $9.50 looks pretty good when the stock still seems valued at $9.75+. But then a few million shares sell at prices lower than $9.75 and now the same system that thought it was a good idea to buy at $9.50 thinks it's a good idea to turn around and sell it... for even less.
This doesn’t seem to shock them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very well put. Alliances take years to build but can be broken in just days. I'm tempted to think (hope? dream?) that the markets and trade will rebound if all this chaos makes American politics swing back towards an interest in global stability, but I think anyone partnering with the US would do so VERY carefully and right now the entire world is plotting how to remove US dependencies.
I was bringing this up with a guy yesterday who was genuinely supporting the policies and somebody chimed in that they were not worried at all, because everyone wants to trade with the big boy in town. Trust is not important if they are afraid of you (I'm paraphrasing). Quite a different perspective, but it is consistent with an observation I made about a lot of US comments, people are quite happy for their country/g…
If you (the US) massively subsidize the world order through your financial markets, military defense, and foreign aid, it’s only fair that you get to take advantage of your position.
Historically, the US has done this at the expense of its working class. Now there is a populist feeling that we are owed a long due “payback” for our generosity.
The Bernie/AOC left believe the payback is owed by our elites, who enriched themselves by austerity and hollowing out our industrial base.
The Trump/MAGA right believe the payback is owed by other countries — freeloaders that have benefited from our technology, military defense, and foreign aid while simultaneously being net exporters to the US.
To the latter crowd, the kind of “bullying” behavior you describe is actually the equivalent of a gentle giant who never stood up for himself finally deciding that he won’t take any more shit.
Edit: To any downvoters, please comment with where you think I’m wrong. I’m not defending any policy, just providing what I believe is an accurate representation of the populist American mindset described in the parent comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National stock market is owned by people, but the national debt is owned (and has to be payed) by the government. Basically, the government is just milking the reach now to lower gov's national debt. Poorer people rather win from this (even if no manufacturers come to U.S. to avoid tariff barriers, which some manufacturers will and which will be another small benefit for the poorer (more jobs)).
Tariffs are incredibly regressive, add in the likely job losses and wage losses, and poorer people are going to be the biggest losers.
Give some good examples, please, to support your claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US manufacturing is at an all time high in terms of output. Less people are needed in that sector because it's an area where automation is highest. I agree that there is a national security reason to have tariffs to protect some manufacturing, but that should be a precision targeted tariff if anything.
Your level of paranoia and aggression will vary depending on how hawkish you are. If you’re more hawkish you’ll be more aggressive and make your move as early as possible, and you’ll also tolerate a lot more pain to achieve your goal. Bessent seems pretty determined. I do think it’s clear that our industrial capacities have eroded. Look at our infrastructure compared to China. We lag on every metric: transportation i…
new roads and oil only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well before what's happening now the US still was doing very strong on the economy (plus their advantage to be that big, their military advantage, them owning half of their continent, etc...). But with what is unfolding now... If you want to know more about the current situation in the UK I would recommend this video [1]. His channel is amazing for geopolitical content. [1] https://youtu.be/OTWDzMjgsEY?si=hxoB8ef_y2Q…
Some stats from this video: - The UK has one of the worst homelessness problems in Europe, with about 1 in 50 Londoners experiencing homelessness. - The UK economy stagnated for 10 years following 2008, resulting in a "lost decade" - The median disposable income in the UK was slightly lower than the US and Norway before the GFC by 6-8%, not it's 16-20% behind. IDK if I'd call this a crisis, i.e. people aren't rioting…
US population is around 340 000 000, 770 000 homeless.
UK population is around 68 000 000, 354 000 homeless. (Possibly calculated more inclusively.)
That's 0.23 % and 0.52 %.
(Numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Kin... or more specifically from a govt department and a homelessness charity. The US figure "does not include those staying with friends or family because they do not have a place of their own".)
This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy in a way that is light on MAGA ideology and doesn't simply claim the overwhelming majority of economists are dumb. I'm simply not seeing even a glimmer of a possible upside right now. I see even less possibility of an upside for those of us North of the border…
Trump has kooky beliefs about tariffs, and his economic guys are yes men. Economics and science mean nothing to the President. He probably heard some blowhard in a bar 50 years ago yabber about tariffs. He’s an instinctual person, and when he senses danger to himself, he’ll pivot. I’d guess there will be air strikes on Iran or threats of an incursion into the Mexican side of the border by June.