I’ve always thought that was problematic legislative language, in most any context.
If POTUS gets to unilaterally declare emergency situations to gain some power, he can declare whatever he wants to be an emergency.
More winning
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
I’ve always thought that was problematic legislative language, in most any context.
If POTUS gets to unilaterally declare emergency situations to gain some power, he can declare whatever he wants to be an emergency.
There was that, yes. But IIRC, Santelli’s rant was touched off the prospect of mass forgiveness of distressed mortgages.
But, as far as trade goes, I think you’re right that trade just wasn’t much of an issue for them - because it didn’t play much role in the subprime mortgage meltdown that was the first domino to fall in what led to the TP.
Yep, that was the rallying point. Doesn't make the poll cited false. The amalgam of people who came together were also pissed at NAFTA, et al. and liked protectionism.
More evidence:
Tea Party May Throw Kink Into GOP Trade Policies -
Fuerst Ittleman is located in Miami and represents both domestic and foreign clients before the governmental and international agencies that regulate and influence international commerce and in the Federal and State courts that adjudicate these matters.
fidjlaw.com
Last edited:
Investors are stepping up bets the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates aggressively as President Trump's tariffs raise U.S. recession fears.
Derivatives markets now imply a more than 50% chance that the Fed cuts rates at its next meeting on May 6-7. That is up from 14% a week ago.
Prices now suggest it is more likely than not that the Fed will cut its key rate to a range of 3% to 3.25% or lower by year-end, implying at least five quarter-point reductions, according to CME Group data. A week ago, markets had priced in three quarter-point cuts.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Friday that the central bank didn't “need to be in a hurry" to cut rates. The prospect that tariffs could drive up prices will likely make the central bank more hesitant to ease aggressively
Conservatives: "Biden was the worst President ever."
Trump:
Trump:
The piece you linked was entirely speculative. They were saying that the movement was a blank slate on trade - which is my recollection too.
Wife and I have (had maybe) over 7 figures in the stock market and I am loving it. Don't be a PANICAN!!!
What are you loving? You lost 8-10% last week and you’ll lose another 5-10% today alone. So again, what do you love? When you respond, don’t just link a Twitter account. Provide and original thoughtful response. Explain how you love loving 6 figures that you have saved essentially overnight.
You really should stay out of any serious stock market conversation.
He's in the camp of thank you Trump. May I have another?
One, I'm in my early 40s so the stock market will easily recover for me. I'm also sitting on a pile of cash that will soon be invested. And tariffs have been needed for a long time. The stock market will eventually recover and we will have lower interest rates, lower oil prices, and jobs will come back home.
OK, but this doesn’t answer why you love losing 100s of thousands of dollars today. I don’t love it. I’m actually quite pissed. After all this Trump caused carnage, how long will it take us to get back to where we started?
Snipets:
“Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth,” Dimon wrote in the letter that touched on issues including the tax code, military security, healthcare costs and the country’s education system.
....
“The quicker this issue is resolved, the better because some of the negative effects increase cumulatively over time and would be hard to reverse. In the short run, I see this as one large additional straw on the camel’s back,” he wrote.
After negotiations, Dimon said he hoped the long-term effect of the tariffs will bring benefits to the U.S.
Dimon’s tone on tariffs has changed with Trump’s rollout of his tariff plans. In January, he didn’t appear worried about tariffs at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security, so be it. I mean, get over it,” he said in an interview with CNBC.
But by March, Dimon was expressing more concern about the effects of tariffs on companies, noting that “uncertainty is not a good thing” in an interview at a recent retirement summit.
Has that already been posted? If so, my apologies.
I just thought it was really well done.
I get the impression that Wall Street was blindsided by the magnitude of the tariff schedule. They knew something was coming, obviously. And they probably had pretty good reason to believe it would mirror 2017 -- where there was more noise than signal about trade protectionism.
Druckenmiller had some comments that I thought were interesting. Basically, if we had tariffs in the 10% range, they wouldn't be the end of the world and they're the lesser of two evils -- because we have to figure out ways to address our fiscal shortfall and tariffs are a way of making foreign countries pay some of them. But the subtext is that the tariff schedule Trump produced was way bigger than that.
Litquidity has been posting wild videos like that for years. I'll try and dig up a few other gems, but he’s used that clip before
I should add that I don't agree with Druck. I think 10% tariffs would also be deleterious.
We have zero hope of taxing our way to affording our shortfall on entitlements. Zero. That doesn't mean that additional revenues can't help to narrow that gap. After all, if it plays out the way I expect it to, they're going to just monetize most of it -- which is just an across-the-board tax in a different form.
But I think the top strategy needs to be harnessing enhanced returns over time -- which is why the proposed 2005 Social Security reform was such a tragic missed opportunity. We'd be in a *much* better position with Social Security if that had gone through.
Beyond that, they have to start implementing ways to pare benefit costs.
It's only a loss if you sell. The market will recover well before I need to cash out that's why I don't care about it going down. I do care about ensuring we have fair trade with China.
So you have wealth, don't need the money, and do not give a damn about the people that do? See, MAGA isn't about the little guy. It is about the wealthy guy wanting to be wealthier. Let the rest eat cake.
All of those losing their minds over the market should just sell and move on. If you cannot handle this you probably should not be in investments. Tariffs were always going to happen and of course there is going to be short term pain. People act like this just came out of nowhere.
LIke I said they just need to sell and move on. Some people are just way too emotion driven for the stock market. 30% of my accounts are always in cash no matter what for times like this. I see buying opportunities is what I see.
You don't give a damn about all the factory workers who don't have jobs or about all the child slave labor in Asia. Again, this will be fine. Let the master cook.
I did sell 7 figures back on Feb 20 and 21. Currently up over 200k on the move. The 200k doesn't excite me much now, but what a few clicks of the mouse can grown to in 20 years does.
Now will you finally share your big COVID win and the hot biotech you are big on? I'm big into AVXL. Come on Bailey. Show your work.
Unemployment isn't that high. Not sure we could even fill all these jobs with qualified workers. Too many in our workforce can't pass a drug test or be bothered to show up 40-50 hours per week
Well what do you know the markets just turned green. I wonder how many panic sellers unloaded it all in the last two days?
Nasdaq GIDS - Free Realtime Quote•USD
Follow
16,256.60
+668.81
(+4.29%)
Nasdaq GIDS - Free Realtime Quote•USD
NASDAQ Composite (^IXIC)
Follow
16,256.60
+668.81
(+4.29%)
But I thought the end of the world was near and the dow was going to 2000?
Ha ha ha, factory workers. Which person currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave said about striking UAW workers he would fire them all? You seriously think he gives a damn about workers? The same man who has admitted to using illegal labor building Trump Tower? What flavor is the kool-aid? Calling him "master" is proof you drink it.
Slave labor is a problem. But we didn't target slave labor. We targeted the world, minus Russia. We targeted islands of penguins. Do they practice slave labor?
We targeted Bangladesh, a country too poor to be called dirt poor. So they lose what few jobs they have. But the good news is we have gutted USAid to make sure we can do nothing but watch millions starve.
What the hell is wrong with targeting countries/industries? Explain why it has to be everyone, even nations we have a surplus with.
While I agree that emotions are a bad way to guide investment decisions, reacting to substantial policy changes isn't entirely emotional.
This is Donald Trump we're talking about here. Everything he's ever done is over the top - including long before he got into politics.
Markets spiked on comment from Hassett about a 90-day pause for all but China...reported by a guy (supposedly) named Walter Bloomberg.
Back down hard again after people realized that Walter Bloomberg is of no relation to the Bloomberg we all know.
LOL...what a shit show. If nothing else, it's all very entertaining.
The markets were overvalued by arguably the most in Human History. I've been 100% cash for years. I blame Trump term 1 and Powell for further pushing this bubble. Biden and Yellen were awful as well. If they didn't move to save that den of crap in SVB we would have had this crash much sooner.
Look at that worthless toilet paper market of Bitcon to tell you how crazy the markets are. Why should trillion dollar companies move dozens of percentage points on earnings? Efficient markets my ass.
We are living in a world of shit. Ponzis and casinos.
Hopefully they don't destroy the only thing we have left which is our reserve currency. If not, I'm waiting to buy when S&P is fairly valued around 3,000.
