My only regret is not putting on the short I told my wife a few weeks ago. But that was more DOGE related than tarrifs. I thought Trump would pull the string out a bit longer.
More winning
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Would you say that you're hopeful they're going to figure out how to keep our entitlement programs afloat without diluting the hell out of the dollar? Keep in mind: they're $175T underfunded over the 75 year window. And, sadly, that shortfall doesn't all hit 75 years from now.
I wish I could say that I was hopeful. But I'm not. Politicians are just as primarily driven by their self-interest as anybody else is. And there are very few who seem willing to take the professional risk that would be required to slay this dragon. It's far more expedient for them to keep up the illusion and let the politically-insulated Fed do the dirty work.
We've spent ourselves into a massive hole. That's our chief problem. We all know it -- but almost nobody wants to do anything about it.
No question I've been wrong. I should have pivoted with the SVB bailout which was completely illegal. But law doesn't seem to mean anything in this country. It's bad to stubborn with principles over logic.
Markets can remain irrational longer then any of us will be solvent.
I rather pounce when I see an opportunity I'm confident about or invest in myself. I won't become a billionaire with diversification.
he does not know what he is doing. bankrupt 6 times, 400 million from daddy, yet he is a businessman.
Thought same. So not sure if the great trader is currently 60 percent cash or if he's putting all his chips in now and going fully invested.
I'm pretty sure he and DBM make it up as they go.
BCC, without a doubt the psychological impact of all the banter about the tariffs has taken a toll on the stock market which may, or may not, be short lived.
The question in my mind is about the trade deficits (which Trump calls "being ripped off") and whether our new tariff strategy will actually reduce the trade deficits.
Finally, is having trade deficits as detrimental to both the rich and less wealthy Americans as Trump so ardently believes?
For decades I've wondered when our trade and budget deficits would catch up with us. Also, how should we deal with them? Finally, is Trump and his top-down executive branch approach the best and only way to deal with these deficits?
He's in the Bitcoin is a scam, ponzi, blah blah blah camp. @BradStevens would be proud of me. I gave him a homework assignment, but he hasn't done the work yet🤷🏻♂️
You haven't done the homework either
Last edited:
They have a few good points but the jobs Trump wants to bring back are the last jobs you want. Why do we possibly want to compete with Vietnam in making widgets and tshirts. We don't want slave labor and people making $1 per day. We will never compete with Bangladesh or the next cheapest place you move to. You want high tech manufacturing and well paying jobs. The strategy is mentally retarded. You don't reshore everything only the high value stuff.
To me the winning formula is automate, high paying jobs, and cheap junk from elsewhere. Export the expensive shit. Lower immigration is good for wages. E.g. I've read other countries agriculture is a lot more automated because they do not have a cheap illegal labor supply.
I'll pick up a few thousand BTC when futures are in backwardation and prices are negative. They can take it off my hands at fair value of $0.00.He's in the Bitcoin is a scam, ponzi, blah blah blah camp. @BradStevens would be proud of me. I gave him a homework assignment, but he hasn't done the work yet🤷🏻♂️
You have done the homework either
;)
Trade deficits and budget deficits are two entirely different things.
Having a trade deficit means we have a foreign investment surplus.
Maybe Trump should go around complaining that we are running a huge investment surplus... Too damn many foreigners want to invest in the US. Since it's the same exact thing.
All good questions. I'm not sure a trade deficit is always inherently good or bad. Each country is a little different and in many cases can't afford or don't need the products we produce.
Ours is now a service economy now for better or worse and you just don't flip the switch. I think this will take years to know the overall impact of this brash approach.
Awesome he just figured this out.
ackman is ever that opportunist and never the loyalist
All of your questions are good and interesting ones. But this one stands out to me right now.
Leaving Trump himself and his Tasmanian Devil act aside, I've completely lost faith that our normal institutions have the wherewithal to address this problem.
Is this "chainsaw" method the best way to deal with the twin deficits (also, I'm far more concerned about the budget deficit than I am the trade deficit)? Absolutely not. It's probably the worst way to deal with it...or at least the second worst.
But is it the only way to deal with it? Other than the only option that's worse than this...maybe.
One the stated goals of the Mara Lago doctrine is to weaken the USD. A weakened USD makes things more expensive here. How does that help resolve the budget and deficit issues here as well?
Because a dollar owed can be paid with a weak one or a strong one. They both count the same on the ledger.
If you're a debtor, you'd prefer to have more dollars (albeit with less purchasing power) than fewer ones (albeit with more purchasing power).
A weak dollar hurts lenders and savers...not borrowers and debtors.
Think about it. If you borrowed $250K on a mortgage back when that bought a lot of house -- wouldn't you rather be paying down that debt with a much weaker dollar where a comparable house would sell for a million?
If they materially weaken the dollar we will be heading towards a Venezuela or Iran situation. In my view any leader who advocates for a materially weak dollar is worthy of being charged with treason.
That being said, this wasn't really the point I was getting at in that response. The point I was getting at was that Congress, the institution that holds the purse strings, that makes expenditures, that raises funds through taxes, etc. isn't so much asleep at the wheel as they are politically paralyzed.
And it's not simply because of the breakdown in healthy working relationships across the aisle. To me, that's a symptom of our problem. It's why President Obama, when discussing the formation of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, said it would be necessary for Republicans and Democrats "to both step into the boat at the same time." He was right about that.
The debt crisis we have, sadly, looks to politicians like a golden political opportunity. And that's what motivates them more than anything else. So what has their choice been? For neither of them to step in the boat, knowing that the other one won't step with them and will, instead, use it as an opportunity to let the other guy commit political suicide.
So my point is that the way Trump is going about these things, for good or ill, is probably the only practical way they can be addressed. That said: his move on trade is badly misguided and will probably only make matters that much worse. I would much rather he use the political capital he's willing to burn up to go after the entitlement mess.
Let’s just say Trump wins his game of chicken & 6 months from now most countries have renegotiated tariffs to terms more favorable to the US. Assuming a market recovery within the next couple of years, does the US see any long term benefits?
DOW down 12% in a month. Winning.
Groceries still high, gas rising...more winning
Trump had the opportunity to be aa hero on two fronts
Tarriffs and Doge.
He screwed the pooch on both so the economy crashes and his legacy is even worse than it was.
Winning!
Groceries still high, gas rising...more winning
Trump had the opportunity to be aa hero on two fronts
Tarriffs and Doge.
He screwed the pooch on both so the economy crashes and his legacy is even worse than it was.
Winning!
Oh, we've had weak dollar policies in the past. As things stand right now, the USD is very, very strong against foreign currencies. In fact, when I was in the UK in December, it was easily the cheapest it's ever been for me. The USD has been trading about $1.30 for the Pound Sterling. I think the first time I visited there, it was closer to $1.75.
There are degrees of "weak".
Wall Street Titans Blast Trump’s Tariffs With Markets Roiled
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ump-tariffs-a-mistake-and-massively-in-excess
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ump-tariffs-a-mistake-and-massively-in-excess
Twenty, mentioned trade and budget deficits as both have haunted us for sometime. Otherwise, as you pointed out, they are unrelated for the most part.
As to foreign investment in America with the trade surpluses, do agree some of this does end up in our stock market. Some also is invested in our government securities to cover our budget deficits.
I do think it would be very good for us to get more favorable trade terms with our key partners. There's absolutely no question about that.
But that isn't the only important question here. Is what we're doing likely to bring that about? If so, will it be worth it? If not, then what?
I hit the city and I lost my band
I watched the needle take another man
Gone, gone, the damage done
What damage, assuming stock market recovers, or you don’t think it ever will?
Just for some data context, this is a long-term chart of the USD/GBP. It's how many dollars it takes to buy a pound. So...a lower number means a stronger dollar, relative to this particular currency.
The issue is that trump has no idea or understanding and his yes men won't tell him the truth.
What options will be limited? & what issues will be driven, beyond them being mad at us? Don’t most world markets/economies need the US as much as the US needs them? Will our dependence on unreliable partners like China be diminished?
Maybe. I'm not inside the room, let alone inside his head (can you imagine?).
You could be right. But we don't have a whole lot of choice but to wait and see how things play out. It's possible that Congress could step in and put restrictions on his Trade Promotion Authority. Last I looked, about 7 or 8 GOP Senators had signed on to the Grassley-Cantwell bill that would do that.
But they'll need 2/3 in both houses to override a veto. That translates into 14 GOP Senators and slightly over half of the House GOP.
I'd say that 14 Senators seems possible. In the House, I'm less optimistic.
