Economy Update April 6th (Futures down 4% - Nasdaq projected to open down 25% from February highs)

[mkess101]

Is that really true though? If anything the US has been moving towards free trade for decades which is specifically what Trump was railing against as a candidate. Its one of the unique attributes of his campaigns and presidency. Biden to some extent assimilated some of that economic populism as evidenced by his scrapping of the acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel as well as imposing tariffs on certain Chinese goods like solar panels and electric cars but I think its fair to say that protectionism has been popularized by Trump after over half a century of free trade pllicy by the US.

Again read the article I linked, he ran on 10%-20% tariffs across the board as well as 60% on China. And what we've seen from his are 10% tariffs across the board with higher ones on countries like China, if anything in the case of China he went soft compared to what was promised on the campaign trail. Its true that even based on his campaign promises the tariffs he announced were radical but idk why anyone wouldn't expect him to impose broad tariffs when it was his signature economic policy. You could ask him about childcare and he'd bring up tariffs as a solution.

There's also the aspect of timing. All at once, every nation.

I mean, there's a reason that even supporters of his that are billionaire economic powerhouses and dialed into the global economy like you and I can't be (Bill Ackman) are taken aback by what he's doing, right? This is a guy who publicly supported him, donated who knows how much to his campaign, and is privy to way more than most and he's saying "Whoa...what the hell???"

And me as a non supporter that DIDN'T vote for him I "shoulda seen this coming"? C'mon man.

 

[Islam Imamate]

There's also the aspect of timing. All at once, every nation.

But again that's what he ran on and we're not talking about some minor throwaway comments here, it was his primary, maybe only, economic policy on the campaign trail and he came back to it over and over again. Why do you think he wasn't going to do what he said he was going to do?

I mean, there's a reason that even supporters of his that are billionaire economic powerhouses and dialed into the global economy like you and I can't be (Bill Ackman) are taken aback by what he's doing, right? This is a guy who publicly supported him, donated who knows how much to his campaign, and is privy to way more than most and he's saying "Whoa...what the hell???"

People like Ackman are negatively polarized against the Dems so they'll tell themselves whatever lies and distortions they must to justify their support for Trump. Basically if you asked these people before the election why they supported Trump despite broad tariffs being such an obviously dumb policy they'd say that its so obviously dumb that of course Trump wouldn't actually go through with it. And now look at where that thinking has gotten us.

And me as a non supporter that DIDN'T vote for him I "shoulda seen this coming"? C'mon man.

Of course, it was his signature policy behind mass deportation. Did you not expect him to deport immigrants either?

 

[AdamWarlock]

this didnt age well

it was sarcasm

 

[mkess101]

But again that's what he ran on and we're not talking about some minor throwaway comments here, it was his primary, maybe only, economic policy on the campaign trail and he came back to it over and over again. Why do you think he wasn't going to do what he said he was going to do?

People like Ackman are negatively polarized against the Dems so they'll tell themselves whatever lies and distortions they must to justify their support for Trump. Basically if you asked these people before the election why they supported Trump despite broad tariffs being such an obviously dumb policy they'd say that its so obviously dumb that of course Trump wouldn't actually go through with it. And now look at where that thinking has gotten us.

Of course, it was his signature policy behind mass deportation. Did you not expect him to deport immigrants either?

Huh? Ackman backed and supported Dems every election up until 2024. That's hardly being "polarized against the Dems".

And that's kinda the point. He's a billionaire with more access than we have by a mile and he looked at it and assessed "yeah tariffs will be part of his negotiations etc" (or some variation of it) but he won't do anything truly reckless. Which is similar at least to how I viewed it.

Like...why is "it was a main focal point of his campaign!" supposed to resonate anyway? Is your assertion then that Trump is a guy who's shown to be true to his word? Keep promises? Or has he generally shown to embellish, distort, etc? Wondering why rational people wouldn't take claims (and again, even YOU acknowledge that what he's currently doing is beyond the scope of what he stated his intentions were) at face value? Really?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Huh? Ackman backed and supported Dems every election up until 2024. That's hardly being "polarized against the Dems".

Ackman has been, in his words, bullish on Trump since 2016

And that's kinda the point. He's a billionaire with more access than we have by a mile and he looked at it and assessed "yeah tariffs will be part of his negotiations etc" (or some variation of it) but he won't do anything truly reckless. Which is similar at least to how I viewed it.

Like I said it was wishful thinking that Trump wouldn't impose tariffs despite saying over and over again that he would.

Like...why is "it was a main focal point of his campaign!" supposed to resonate anyway? Is your assertion then that Trump is a guy who's shown to be true to his word? Keep promises? Or has he generally shown to embellish, distort, etc? Wondering why rational people wouldn't take claims (and again, even YOU acknowledge that what he's currently doing is beyond the scope of what he stated his intentions were) at face value? Really?

The support for tariffs is one of the few things we can say Trump has been very consistent on going back decades before he even entered politics and he imposed them in his first term despite the fact that he was restrained far more by people who knew better at the time.

The tariffs he imposed are in some ways beyond the scope of what he promised but they're much in line with the general idea of a broad trade war to reduce trade deficits. Like I said it was his signature economic policy on the campaign trail to the point that he even mentioned it when asked about bringing down the cost of child care, how could you not expect him to do the thing he said he was going to do over and over and over again? So yes you obviously should've seen this coming from a mile away and citing Ackman's poor judgement here doesn't change that.

 

[Scott Stapp]

The first term we had this thing called CV-19 which was a 1 in 100 year pandemic. When that happens ... spending goes way up. It's funny that I had to educate you on that simple fact.

Why are you against an open free and fair trade policy for the USA?

Kindly, eat a dick.

 

[mkess101]

Ackman has been, in his words, bullish on Trump since 2016

Like I said it was wishful thinking that Trump wouldn't impose tariffs despite saying over and over again that he would.

The support for tariffs is one of the few things we can say Trump has been very consistent on going back decades before he even entered politics and he imposed them in his first term despite the fact that he was restrained far more by people who knew better at the time.

The tariffs he imposed are in some ways beyond the scope of what he promised but they're much in line with the general idea of a broad trade war to reduce trade deficits. Like I said it was his signature economic policy on the campaign trail to the point that he even mentioned it when asked about bringing down the cost of child care, how could you not expect him to do the thing he said he was going to do over and over and over again? So yes you obviously should've seen this coming from a mile away and citing Ackman's poor judgement here doesn't change that.

So 2016 and 2024? And Ackman has funded and supported Dems every other election. Like I said that's not really being "negatively polarized" against the Dems. If it is, I wish someone would be that negatively polarized against me to support me and fund my campaign.

And I don't think Ackman, me, or anyone else thought he'd just eschew everything he said about tariffs and forget them (as I previously stated). There's a long way between what he's doing now and levying some tariffs to address what he deems as an unfair trade imbalance.

And quite honestly, this forum is a good example of why what he's doing now is "beyond the scope of what he said". Meaning, if you or anyone else that was vehemently pro Harris had forseen the scenario we now see happening, it would've been way more a prominent discussion here. Yes, his economic policy was discussed of course. But nobody was taking what he said and posting here saying "Do you people understand what this means??? He's going to bombard the world with tariffs that will crash the stock market within days and have even some of his billionaire supporters saying he's in danger of creating an economic financial nuclear winter!! He's going have us worrying about a global recession to rival 2008 within 6 months of being in office due to his views on tariffs!!!"

Nobody here was saying that, and if they'd forseen anything like this you won't convince me that wouldn't have been the lead.

 

[Madmick]

This is why only the legitimate fiscal conservatives have routinely objected to Trump's administrations on this board.

As I said over and over during his first term, he wasn't a genuine conservative. He outspent the Democrats. He's no Milei.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So 2016 and 2024? And Ackman has funded and supported Dems every other election. Like I said that's not really being "negatively polarized" against the Dems. If it is, I wish someone would be that negatively polarized against me to support me and fund my campaign.

Yes he's been a Trump supporter since Trump entered politics in 2016. Ackman supports long shot candidates on both sides of the aisle, in 2016 he actually wanted Bloomberg to run who he supported in 2020.

And I don't think Ackman, me, or anyone else thought he'd just eschew everything he said about tariffs and forget them (as I previously stated). There's a long way between what he's doing now and levying some tariffs to address what he deems as an unfair trade imbalance.

He ran on across the board tariffs of 10%-20% with higher tariffs on China so what he's done is very much within the framework of what he campaigned on even if it does exceed it in some ways. Its not like the stock market would've appreciate the original plan either.

And quite honestly, this forum is a good example of why what he's doing now is "beyond the scope of what he said". Meaning, if you or anyone else that was vehemently pro Harris had forseen the scenario we now see happening, it would've been way more a prominent discussion here. Yes, his economic policy was discussed of course. But nobody was taking what he said and posting here saying "Do you people understand what this means??? He's going to bombard the world with tariffs that will crash the stock market within days and have even some of his billionaire supporters saying he's in danger of creating an economic financial nuclear winter!! He's going have us worrying about a global recession to rival 2008 within 6 months of being in office due to his views on tariffs!!!"

Nobody here was saying that, and if they'd forseen anything like this you won't convince me that wouldn't have been the lead.

Well for one Harris was talking about it


And certainly I mentioned it so I don't think its fair for you to act like some of us didn't see this coming.

This is not a defense of Trump's proposed tariffs to be clear, its still a monumentally retarded policy. The fact that a viable candidate for president is advocating for abolishing the income tax in favor of tariffs is a serious indictment of the country.

Trump calling for 20% tariffs across the board would massively increase inflation beyond its typical fluctuation, you know that but will obfuscate in defense of Trump.

You don't even understand how taxes are applied and yet you're so certain Trump will be better for you. Oh but you're definitely not a Trump supporter

Are we pretending that policy is some strong suit of Trump or something? Harris' campaign seems to have far clearer policy goals than the Trump campaign and the policies we do have from Trump like 10-20% tariffs on all foreign goods is very bad.

Ah yes Trump's traditional strong suit, policy details like 20% tariffs across the board and the Muslim ban.

Well to be clear I did not say this or even come close to implying this so idk where you got that from. Yes Harris is an imperfect candidate but she is better than Trump who has even worse policies like 20% tariffs across the board which would be disastrous right now. I also don't trust Trump on foreign policy matters in general and Israel and Ukraine in particular. He has a deep affinity for the likes of Putin and Bibi and that is a turn off.

Well tbh I expected you to vote Trump either way but setting that aside its normal for there to be big, nonsensical promises to the base before moderating once in office. Trump is advocating for 20% tariffs IIRC and that would be a disaster and its not even among his most outlandish election promises(i.e. Muslim ban).

Personally the angle that I was most passionate about was the democracy one, Trump carried out a sinister scheme to steal the election culminating in Jan 6th and yet no one seemed to care and acted like he was just any ole candidate and that bothered me.

But either way the reality is neither the WR nor the general electorate care at all about policy details nor "preserving democracy", all the threads in the lead up to the election were about transgenders and illegal aliens and whatnot. That is why a man who ran on the idea of a global trade war, who couldn't shut up about it and would bring it up when asked about unrelated matters like childcare, not only gets elected but then does the thing he said he'd do over and over again and people for some reason act surprised. I guess its too much to ask the general electorate and karate forum posters to know even the one or two signature policies of the two major candidates, just too high of a bar I suppose.

 

[mkess101]

Yes he's been a Trump supporter since Trump entered politics in 2016. Ackman supports long shot candidates on both sides of the aisle, in 2016 he actually wanted Bloomberg to run who he supported in 2020.

He ran on across the board tariffs of 10%-20% with higher tariffs on China so what he's done is very much within the framework of what he campaigned on even if it does exceed it in some ways. Its not like the stock market would've appreciate the original plan either.

Well for one Harris was talking about it


And certainly I mentioned it so I don't think its fair for you to act like some of us didn't see this coming.






Personally the angle that I was most passionate about was the democracy one, Trump carried out a sinister scheme to steal the election culminating in Jan 6th and yet no one seemed to care and acted like he was just any ole candidate and that bothered me.

But either way the reality is neither the WR nor the general electorate care at all about policy details nor "preserving democracy", all the threads in the lead up to the election were about transgenders and illegal aliens and whatnot. That is why a man who ran on the idea of a global trade war, who couldn't shut up about it and would bring it up when asked about unrelated matters like childcare, not only gets elected but then does the thing he said he'd do over and over again and people for some reason act surprised. I guess its too much to ask the general electorate and karate forum posters to know even the one or two signature policies of the two major candidates, just too high of a bar I suppose.

That's a well thought out post...but as with everything it's a matter of degrees. And I didn't say his economic policy was never mentioned (duh), I said it wasn't the lead. Which you clearly agreed with. Even you were more focused on the democracy angle. And that's not wrong, but the point I'm making is look at the forum right now. The threads about the economy are forefront and everything else is back burner. People are wondering if we are gonna get plunged into a great recession again. That's the main concern and any mention of economic ruin like that in the lead up to the election were throwaway lines at best.

 

[nostradumbass]

Might want to update your little graphic instead of using one from halfway through Biden's term. Debt went from $27.8T to $36.2T at the end of his term.

 

[Sinister]

Right wing pundits rignt this second:

"Ugh guys, its ONLY money...what are you so worried about?"

Donald Drumpf: "DoN't Be WeAk AnD sTuPiD!!"

 

[ermac88]

This is why only the legitimate fiscal conservatives have routinely objected to Trump's administrations on this board.

As I said over and over during his first term, he wasn't a genuine conservative. He outspent the Democrats. He's no Milei.

The biggest con he's pulled off is convinced a susceptable portion of the population that he is "conservative"

Look how most opposition to him is labeled "left", even on here.

Support for Nato, US allies/trading partners, support for the constitution, support for the democratic process is "left" simply because its anti-thetical to trump


He's somehow convinced christian conservatives, he's a religious and pious man, who rapes, praises Epstein and condemns priests who say we should be accepting and show compassion.

 

[Sinister]

The biggest con he's pulled off is convinced a susceptable portion of the population that he is "conservative"

Look how most opposition to him is labeled "left", even on here.

Support for Nato, US allies/trading partners, support for the constitution, support for the democratic process is "left" simply because its anti-thetical to trump


He's somehow convinced christian conservatives, he's a religious and pious man, who rapes, praises Epstein and condemns priests who say we should be accepting and show compassion.

Dont let anyone gaslight you into this "true fiscal conservatism" nonsense, especially if they are drawing a comparison between Trump and a guy who is openly using the Military to crush protests in his Country, which is ONLY becoming attractive to foreign investors as a potential mine/plantation.

This is just standard issue capitalism. At every turn the donor class had been able to monetize the crashes, elect their reactionary candidates who push further deregulation, litigate elections they lose to oppress democracy, and rake in more money. Business as usual. Anyone claiming to be a true small Government conservative, or a true libertarian, at this point...is like a Christian who is a good person. They think them being good is a validation of the ideology, as opposed to the ideology being bad because people can use it to justify horrible sh*t, and them being good is in spite of it.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

wow...did you not check the dates or are you intentionally lying?

 

[Scott Stapp]

wow...did you not check the dates or are you intentionally lying?

Might want to update your little graphic instead of using one from halfway through Biden's term. Debt went from $27.8T to $36.2T at the end of his term.

Do you know how fiscal years work? The debt has to be approved by the president. You're counting the previous year's pile-on to the next administration. Biden is not responsible for the interest payments on debt Trump and every president before him created. It was not his spending, nor debt. That's not how it works.

Trump and Biden: The National Debt | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

The national debt is on course to reach a record share of the economy under the next presidential administration, due in part to policies approved by Presidents Trump and Biden during their ti

www.crfb.org

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's a well thought out post...but as with everything it's a matter of degrees. And I didn't say his economic policy was never mentioned (duh), I said it wasn't the lead. Which you clearly agreed with. Even you were more focused on the democracy angle.

I just showed you that Kamala mentioned it multiple times and so did I, in fact it was my go-to example of Trump's bad policy so more than one it was in fact the lead I went with given how obvious bad of an idea it was even at the time.

And that's not wrong, but the point I'm making is look at the forum right now. The threads about the economy are forefront and everything else is back burner. People are wondering if we are gonna get plunged into a great recession again. That's the main concern and any mention of economic ruin like that in the lead up to the election were throwaway lines at best.

Well yeah now that Trump's gone through with the tariffs it's front page news but then so what? What are you arguing exactly, that because you didn't see this coming no one else did? Even though it was in fact mentioned multiple times beforehand by the opposing candidate as well as in the forum by posters like myself?

 

[mkess101]

I just showed you that Kamala mentioned it multiple times and so did I, in fact it was my go-to example of Trump's bad policy so more than one it was in fact the lead I went with given how obvious bad of an idea it was even at the time.

Well yeah now that Trump's gone through with the tariffs it's front page news but then so what? What are you arguing exactly, that because you didn't see this coming no one else did? Even though it was in fact mentioned multiple times beforehand by the opposing candidate as well as in the forum by posters like myself?

I was here. The fact the tariffs were brought up hardly shows they were a focal point of the opposition to Trump. And I'm not really sure what you're arguing to be honest. You may have thought about them. Maybe some others did but PLENTY on the left that vehemently opposed Trump and post here a lot more than I do never mentioned them at all. Meaning they also weren't focused on them. Holding me to a different standard seems...a little suspect.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I was here. The fact the tariffs were brought up hardly shows they were a focal point of the opposition to Trump. And I'm not really sure what you're arguing to be honest. You may have thought about them. Maybe some others did but PLENTY on the left that vehemently opposed Trump and post here a lot more than I do never mentioned them at all. Meaning they also weren't focused on them. Holding me to a different standard seems...a little suspect.

Agreed. I mostly remember Kamala saying Dumpf was a fascist. There wasnt much discussion on his economic policy.

 

[HereticBD]

I was here. The fact the tariffs were brought up hardly shows they were a focal point of the opposition to Trump. And I'm not really sure what you're arguing to be honest.

He's not arguing. He's nagging. Being a nagging woman is his thing now. He'll go for pages and pages with this petty shit, and it will never end, because you will never satisfy his narcissism. You MUST agree with him, or else he'll just keep nagging.

Don't engage. Just let him spaz.