481 Comments
User's avatar
Gilgamech's avatar

Trump’s actions are based on a decent of body of academic work. The formula linking to balance of trade is rational and smart. This is a multi stage plan with short, medium and long term effects and tactics. Sure it’s unorthodox. But orthodoxy was not working. It was driving the world off a cliff.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Here’s a good explainer which further expands on each of the points Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant made in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

https://open.substack.com/pub/amuseonx/p/the-great-interest-reset-trumps-strategy

Expand full comment
Joseph Little's avatar

Brilliant.

Add to my list before:

13. Bring investment ($) into the US. That reduces interest rates on US Fed Govt debt.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

'a decent of body of academic work'

You mean in economics, commonly known as 'the dismal science'?

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

Unfortunately there is truth in that. Economists are heavily influenced by fashion and politics. They sway with the breezes. You can interview 20 bona fide economists and they might advise 20 different ways.

Expand full comment
Patrick Crebbin's avatar

"The New Confessions by an Econimic Hit Man" by John Perkins details how economists fix the numbers to work out to whatever the agenda dictates. Usually the CIA is involved in directing the agenda, which may be the case with the current fear porn.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Old joke.

A mathematician, an economist and a statistician are asked “what is 2+2”?

Mathematician says 4

Economist says it’s somewhere between 3 and 5

Statistician says “what do you want it to be”?

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

Sad. Fuzzy “authority.”

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Think Piketty

Then think of Modern Monetary Theory, which isn’t a theory, it’s an alibi for leftists who just want to borrow and spend with abandon.

Like our Trudeau Liberals who have run up more debt and then some in 9.5 years than all govts since confederation in 1867 put together.

Borrowing and setting on fire becomes “investments”.

Same as hiring unneeded civil servants with borrowed money is not job creation, it’s a structural deficit.

Always watch for bastardization of language.

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

You mean like, “Inflation Reduction Act?” Translates to giveaways to bro’s. I try to explain how bureaucracy is akin to leeching as opposed to creating tangible value for a living.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

A sterling example of the opposite of "creating tangible value for a living" would be coming up with the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.

For non-US citizens, this was (purportedly) an Act of Congress that decreed including a separate piece of paper, with any and every government communication to a citizen, declaring the existence of said Act.

Expand full comment
Alan Hodge's avatar

Economists sway with the times because economics is a gig, not a science. Pfft for all their bullshit.

People have been building walls around their cities since the Chaldeans ruled Mesopotamia. They learned the necessity from their enemies.

"Hey! Take the walls down, let's all be friends! Meantime, send your daughters out, we'd like to get to know them!"

Expand full comment
Dolce Far Niente's avatar

Hi Tard!

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

I just read the article. The economists seem to base their arguments on the same principles as the Woke Left:

"Unequal outcomes are due to discrimination"

In other words, if there is a trade imbalance between nations, it must be because the nation with the trade surplus is discriminating against the other nation in some unknown way. Therefore, we must enact tariffs to compensate for the discrimination.

This is exactly the reasoning that the Woke uses to enact DEI in hiring, firing, and promotions. The Woke are wrong and so are these economists.

Sometimes nations produce better products or cheaper products, and it has nothing to do with unfair trade practices.

Expand full comment
Matthew McWilliams's avatar

Tariffs are discrimination, just economic rather that social. It's discrimination no matter who is doing it. Other countries tariff U.S. imports and subsidize their own export sectors to bolster production and employment in their own countries. As has been explained, this goes beyond simply placing tariffs on incoming U.S. goods. Other countries promote exports by giving special treatment to their exporters, such as the EU rebating producer VAT taxes on exports. I.e. they discriminate in favor of themselves.

These policies have a dual effect, they disadvantage U.S. exports to our trading partners and disadvantage U.S. producers for the domestic market as imports to the U.S. are quite literally subsidized. Using slave labor, as China does makes matters even worse.

If your goal is to promote domestic production in the U.S., whether you intend to export or not, the current state of affairs is not going to accomplish your goals. Keep in mind that the policies pursued by other countries have the same goal of promoting production in their countries. So why it is a big deal that Trump is finally doing the same for the U.S. is quite confusing to me.

I think it is just people throwing a hissy fit over the fact that the jig is finally up.

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

Discrimination as in “being discriminating.” Like when you choose real aged cheddar over cheez whiz.

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

I remember back in the early '80s, when Japan was a powerhouse. Japanese executives and government officials were often quoted in financial magazine articles as not understanding our low barriers to foreign imports. They purported to act in their own self-interest, and couldn't understand why we didn't do the same. So they dumped their steel upon us until they wiped out our steel producers.

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

Quite. Like haggling at a Chinese wet market. They can’t understand why we westerners don’t haggle back.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Trump’s tariffs are FAR higher than any of the average tariffs of our trade partners.

The average tariffs of our trading partners is well under 5% and typically under 1%. If those can be eliminated, that would be great, but they will not have much of a positive impact on the US economy.

It is certainly not worth a recession.

Expand full comment
Matthew McWilliams's avatar

Which countries only charge a 5% tariff on U.S. goods imported to their country? Which countries only charge 1%? You are also forgetting that many of these countries, particularly in Europe also charge a VAT tax, which, while not a "Tariff" has the same effect. Further, these countries subsidize their export sectors, which provides an effective discount over domestically produced goods.

You seem to be trolling here, rather than trying to add to the conversation.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Here is a list of the average tariff rates by national:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/tariff-rates-by-country/

VAT is not a tariff and many of the nations that are getting hit by tariffs have no VAT.

Yes, some countries subsidize exports, but that is not what is driving the trade deficit or Trump’s policies.

I am not trolling.

I am trying to add to the conversation by pointing how self-sabotaging these tariffs are for the Trump administration, the Republican Party and the American nation.

The next 12 months is the best chance to get out of our current problems and these tariffs are sabotaging it all. One recession and the Democrats are back in power.

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

Despite the existence of VAT taxes across the pond then, the tariffs inequality has no effect on equal trade, for example.

Expand full comment
Chixbythesea's avatar

Thanks for the warning. In other words, it is a waste of time.

Expand full comment
Tubthumping's avatar

It's correcting 'DEI'.

You do know that Ricardian Comparative Trade Theory only applies when both capital and labor are not mobile, right?

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No, you correct DEI by eliminating it directly.

The tariff levels have no impact on DEI whatsoever.

You do not need to be a Ricardian economist to know that tariffs are bad.

Expand full comment
Ken Kunda's avatar

What is bad is unfair trade, which is what we have had for many years now. Immediately following WWII this was necessary to get Europe back on their feet but it has become like an addictive drug. Time to break the addiction.

Expand full comment
Alias Doe's avatar

If tariffs are so bad, why is every other country tariffing the US?

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

As I have repeated in multiple threads, this is to placate certain narrow economic interests at the expense of the rest of the nation. Average tariff levels of our trading partners is well under 5% and typically under 1%.

Expand full comment
Freedom Lover's avatar

I am not disagreeing that tariffs are bad. Nukes are bad too. Fires. Hummer is bad if used to hit electronics or over your head. Many medications are REALLY bad .... Yet we take them ... ;)

Expand full comment
RiverHollow's avatar

I came here to laugh at you.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Can you link to this "decent of body of academic work" who is in favor of 20-40% tariffs?

I don't think there are many...

Expand full comment
Flippin’ Jersey's avatar

Economics is to science as phrenology is to science.

Expand full comment
SomeDude's avatar

even head bumps are more predictive of real world outcomes than fiat economics...

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

It appears our trade policies are being created by head bumps.

This is just a cope in refusing to admit that anyone who knows anything about tariffs and trade know that they do great damage.

Expand full comment
SomeDude's avatar

can't be much worse than the head bumps that have been setting foreign trade policies since WWII which are only favorable to the foreigners.

need to go back to 1912 standards where the federal government ran on tariffs and trade taxes without directly thieving from people's incomes

Expand full comment
SaHiB's avatar

Funny way to say Bretton-Woods give the "United States" (actually the Zio Federal Reserve Deep State) an exorbitant privilege. A tariff is a national sales tax, and ought to be combined with interstate excise, and uniform! Tariffs and Excises only for Revenue! Any other sort embezzles people's earnings.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Just wait.

Wait for layoffs and higher prices to start.

Expand full comment
Dolce Far Niente's avatar

So all the tariffs levied against the USA, some of them over 100% or 200%, have obviously critically damaged the countries who have instituted them? The ones who have trade surpluses?

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

There is no major trading partner with the USA that has average tariffs "over 100% or 200%". Average tariffs are typically under 5%, and most are under 1%.

That is why they call it a "free trade regime."

Expand full comment
Diane Weber's avatar

The Keynesians said they knew everything and now we know they knew nothing. We all thought FDR's policies ended the Depression, now we know they made it much worse. In my opinion, what Trump's doing is worth a shot.

At the very least, Trump's policies will bring back manufacturing and industry to the US, will encourage large foreign companies to build factories here (that's already happening), and promote self-sufficiency -- think: Russia.

And screw the globalists. Bring back nation states!

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No, at the very least Trump's tariffs will cause a recession that ends up losing the Republican trifecta. And that will end the best chance in a decade to make things better.

There are so many other ways to create long-term economic growth and job growth that do not involve such serious risks of short-term pain.

I outline some of them here:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/priorities-for-the-second-trump-administration

Expand full comment
Paul Loewen's avatar

Or trepanation?

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

You would describe economics as a body of knowledge usually gained by bot education and experience. Those who require a deep economic understanding to excel in life are usually those who excel in the field.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

So then why should we care about "a decent of body of academic work?"

Expand full comment
Flippin’ Jersey's avatar

Where did I indicate I cared about that? Economics “experts” are weathermen, sometimes predicting correctly, sometimes not, but never admitting being wrong.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

See the original posters comment:

"Trump’s actions are based on a decent of body of academic work."

Expand full comment
SomeDude's avatar

not sure they're included in such an "august body" of academic work, but who was it again that was responsible for advising the US businesses suck up foreign-applied tariffs while the same government was not applying anything even vaguely reciprocal, in the name of post-wwII recovery?

Expand full comment
Freedom Lover's avatar

Yes, correct. And yet many countries use them against us. Why would they employ tariffs if tariffs are bad for them?

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Indeed there are not many, which is why it is an UNorthodox view rather than the orthodox view.

Start with Bessant’s interview with Tucker.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Links?

And an interview with Tucker is not " a decent of body of academic work."

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Oh sorry I thought you might actually be genuine in wanting to understand. Clearly you just want to try to score points.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Not interested in scoring points.

Expand full comment
kertch's avatar

Read Tree of Woe's post. He covers it in greater detail. Remember, if you're not well read, it's not our problem.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No having read a post that you do not even bother to link written by an author that I have never heard of does not make me "not well read."

Expand full comment
kertch's avatar

I just gave you one. Tarrifs are the big topic of the day. Surely this isn't the only post you've read. If it is, then read some more. On this particular topic, you're not well read.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

So how is "not many" the same as " a decent body of academic work."

You are being very dishonest.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

You’re being obtuse. Go grab a dictionary.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

I do not need a dictionary to see that "not many" and " a decent body of academic work" contradict each other.

Nor to notice that in some posts you say free trade is the goal (through concessions) while in others you claim that free trade is terrible.

The reality is that the average tariffs of our trading partners is well under 5% and most are well under 1%. Any lowering of tariff rates by our trade partners will have very little impact.

Expand full comment
Joseph Little's avatar

Another thing to say: I think the “experts” are right, that a high tariff regime, where lots of countries raise lots of tariffs on “all” products forever. Hmm. That would not be good.

To put it simply, Trump’s tariffs force them to make a deal toward more balanced trade (tariffs, NTBs, Industrial Policy).

The US has a huge wonderful market. FOMO. They want a piece of it. As exporters. Hence: they want a deal.

But if not, they can invest in the US.

Or, if not, they can pay high tariffs, which is great revenue for US.

Right now, I think the question is how good a deal for the first 4 or 5 countries. For us and for them. Later countries, if we do it right, get a less good deal.

The overall result will be a combination of More trade, lower tariffs and NTBs in general, and more investment in the US. And also a bunch more tariff revenue from those too dumb to make a deal.

Bear in mind that each country is competing with every other country to get a slice of the American market. Most countries will be rational actors and make a deal.

Expand full comment
Joseph Little's avatar

You are right that the tariff rate is not the whole story. To put it simply, we want balanced trade, that is, roughly, imports = exports.

Tariffs have some effect on that. And you must look at tariffs on the goods the US wishes to export, or needs to export more of.

But often it is NTBs (non-tariff barriers) and Industrial Policy (or similar), that affects our ability to export to country X.

Think of NTBs and Industrial Policy as rigging the system in favor of Country X’s businesses, so that imports (from US) cannot sell much in Country X.

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

I am simply because they can be negotiated to bring 2 nations to the table, and a deal that satisfies both.

Expand full comment
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

I'm usually willing and able to defend Trump if only because his enemies are so crazed, but whilst it's tempting for people who anticipate an outcome they like to try and reverse engineer a cunning plan out of this, that's neither possible nor intellectually honest.

There is no cunning plan. There is no rational and smart formula here. If these things existed then the announcement wouldn't have made false and incredibly confusing claims about tariffs levied by other countries. The numbers on the poster Trump held up claimed to be a listing of half the tariff charged by other countries, but this is totally wrong and this has confused some Americans into a huge level of surprise: "did anyone know country X was levying such huge tariffs on us?" Well no, because no such tariffs exist.

These numbers come from an entirely different formula that wasn't documented, it had to be guessed. If Trump actually understood what he was talking about and had a plan, he'd have just explained it. There's no reason to see 4D chess here except desperation, given that it's not necessary, and Trump doesn't go in for such games anyway.

The reality here is puddle-deep: for decades Trump has viewed countries selling more than they buy as an unfair deal. Why he believes this is an open question and I have seen little or no analysis of it - it's one area where Eugy could contribute because it's a study of history and there are primary sources - but it's the clear root of today's moves. He's also obsessed with tariffs and thinks they're a magical kind of tax that makes people richer - again, WHY he believes this is the most important question of the moment but nobody is properly digging into where this belief came from.

So "trade imbalance is bad" + "tariffs are good" = "use tariffs to fix trade imbalance". Except this seems to get muddled up in Trump's mind because tariffs are usually retaliatory, and so we have this bizarre narrative in which countries with low tariffs are claimed to have high tariffs and vice-versa.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Not correct. There is a plan and it would have been not just reckless and stupid but illegal to disclose it in advance.

Expand full comment
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

Please substantiate any of those claims.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Please do your own research.

Expand full comment
Dr. Hubris's avatar

"Trump’s actions are based on a decent of body of academic work. "

Ha, ha! Oh, you were serious...

Expand full comment
james (seenitbefore)'s avatar

Only problem is: do we have a sufficiently well educated work force to on-shore our manufacturing; public education is not producing job skill. We must really ramp up blue collar job skills to enable the return of manufacturing. I hope so.

Expand full comment
Alex Eckelberry's avatar

Watch this video from two leading conservative economists and tell me what sound economics are behind this. It's pure populist protectionism. It doesn't work and will quite possibly destroy our economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auwx-VobZBk

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

So two establishment suits pronounce a fatwa on Trump for the heresy of challenging their cosy consensus that’s been bankrupting America for 30 years. Cool!

Expand full comment
Alex Eckelberry's avatar

The Milton Friedman episode was in the 70s.

The bankrupting of America started under Paul Volker in the 80s - that's what created the rust belt. Monetary policy has played a major part.

Expand full comment
Suzie's avatar

Hah! Everyone’s an economist now! And that can only be a good-ish thing, since most people never seemed to give one hoot about how the big boys in the back rooms have been rigging the system for nigh unto 80 years.

The Chief thing Trump’s tariff offensive will bring into sharp relief is the utter and almost incalculable fakery that has been baked into the US and other nations economies for decades.

What’s that saying, “the Truth hurts” - at first.

But it also heralds a new beginning upon which to build a more honest footing.

So don’t panic because the alternatives are even more frightening. Pray much and buckle up.

Expand full comment
Jana Crawford's avatar

And learn to garden and grab some laying hens. I'll be storing up some wine as well.✌🏼☦️

Expand full comment
Handsome Pristine Patriot's avatar

I haven't seen it, but was told of a woman that was bemoaning the fact that a US paper mill had to start up because of tariffs on the type of paper it used to produce. There are some who just can't understand.....anything.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No, there are much better alternatives that do not involve tariffs. And if we do that, we can avoid that short-term pain that keeps Democrats in a minority in the federal government. Tariffs will do the opposite.

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/priorities-for-the-second-trump-administration

Expand full comment
Henrybowman's avatar

Well, the people in charge for the past 40 years could have used any of these.

Nobody did anything... until now.

As someone else posted, Man tager hvad man hafver = You use what you have.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

What is your point?

I am very glad that Trump is implementing a portion of my proposed reform agenda, but tariffs threaten to eliminate all that progress by bringing the Left roaring back.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

Don't forget that you can't go wrong doing the opposite of whatever Cramer is currently screaming about on CNBC

Expand full comment
Uselogic's avatar

For 30+ years

Expand full comment
PatriotInGibraltar's avatar

1. Military conflicts elsewhere aside, the USA is at war with Davos/Brussels/City of London. Almost everything we are seeing from the Trump administration is aimed at bolstering our defensive position in this economic battle space, and weakening the Globalist bankers who really run the world.

2. The tariff move is not only long overdue, but most importantly cannot be viewed in isolation of these other moves Trump is making in his Herculean attempt to not only pull the US financial system out of the fire, but weaken the elements abroad that put America in such dire straits to begin with.

3. The tariff blowback is going to look like child's play in a few months when the EU makes its big move. Ursula and Christine have already told us what is coming: first, capital controls, locking the euro inside the Continent; next, a "bail in" of customer funds held in banks to fund the new war footing (Ursula called it "mobilizing unused savings" (!)), and finally putting all Europeans under the CBDC regime that Christine just announced is coming this October.

What we are seeing is not carnage. That's just around the corner. And wait until the Bank of England collapses.

Expand full comment
Andrew Marsh's avatar

I fear you are correct. Still, we do have the utterly spineless Rodney K Starmer at the helm. By the way, which way is 'East'?

Expand full comment
Jana Crawford's avatar

Finally, a excellent comment.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Trust the Plan - Q

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

"Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face"

- Mike Tyson

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

And in this case it’s the EU getting punched in the face.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No, it is the American people who are getting punched in the face.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

No, they are not, you hysterical man. Take a deep breath and talk to us in two weeks time.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

I am not hysterical.

I am happy to get back to you in two weeks, but first convince me that you are open minded enough to bother.

What information within two weeks would convince you that the Trump tariffs were a mistake?

EDIT: I notice that you refuse to answer this question despite obviously writing actively in this thread.

Expand full comment
The Big Ugly's avatar

Right now inflation is down to 1.22%. We finally had a jobs report where more American workers obtained jobs than illegal immigrants and government workers. Gas prices are going down which affects the cost of everything. The stock market is not the economy.

If the things mentioned above reverse, then we can talk about the tariffs being a mistake. Btw, the tariffs are such a mistake, why does every country in the world put tariffs on American made products?

Expand full comment
Wesley B's avatar

Realistically, let's say it becomes economically viable to build a factory and produce cars in the US b/c he puts tariffs on cars coming in from Europe. Europe was charing US 10% on car exports while the US was charging only 2.5% on European imports. So let's be honest, that was disproportionate. The factory won't be built in 'two weeks'. In fact, just the financing probably won't be complete in 2 weeks. Maybe a month. Then two months for design/procurement. Then a year for construction and so maybe 1.5 years from now, you see cars being produced in the US and high-paying jobs for your working-class neighbourhood folk. So in two weeks, we won't see much progress made on a 1.5 year event. You're thinking relatively small scale and about the immediate future.

Expand full comment
Eudemonia's avatar

How many friends do you have which are not part of the professional or owning class?

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

All my neighbors.

I live in a working-class neighborhood full of pickups, RVs, and boats.

They are going to be the victims of this tariff policy because they spend a higher percentage of their income of consumer goods.

Expand full comment
Wesley B's avatar

Really? I don't think so. As an example, my friend is a mechanic and he says business has never been better -- because people don't want to buy new cars, they can't afford it. So they want to repair the ones they have. Plumbers? Pretty sure toilets will still leak, as will the hot water tanks. Air conditioning units? They'll still need servicing and breakdown. The areas that might be hit might be new construction but even that....it depends a lot. If interest rates go low to keep the economy going during the tariffs, the low interest rates will drive housing.

The stock market crash? 80% of it is owned by the top 1% of the population. 98% by the top 10%. The bottom 50% own zero. I think the bottom 50% are the type to spend all their money on consumer goods, so they won't be seeing their millions or even billions in stocks half in value, simply because they do not have millions or billions invested. Maybe 100k.

If the net effect is $50/hr manufacturing jobs come back to the country though, and their wage goes up $20/hr, they might not care so much about using 30% on their 100k investment as they'll make it back in the first year. I kid but the manufacturing returning though, will have a year or two year lag time. This will be some hardship....hopefully, good gains/returns/positive economic outlook is seen by 4 years from now when Vance goes to run so he can continue the progress into the future.

Expand full comment
Eudemonia's avatar

Sounds like you live in a neighborhood with mostly older/retired people if they have those assets.

Working class people who still are raising families have been *pummeled* in the face over the past 4 years by the increase of housing and food. If the tariffs cause rent and groceries to increase substantially, I agree with you that Trump will face backlash in 2028.

Expand full comment
Dolce Far Niente's avatar

You have misspelled "parasite class".

Expand full comment
Joe's avatar

And deal with the pain. This too shall pass.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

Given that the stock market is the playground for the globalists, let them SUFFER.

The top10% own 90% of all stocks! Its a racket where the house always wins, until now!

Expand full comment
Cynthia M's avatar

I understand what you're saying, but those of us who have managed to save (not yet a million) over the years with never more than $80k gross income, this will hurt us. I'm willing to wait it out and trust Trump knows what he's doing, but if the market doesn't eventually come back, we little guys are screwed.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

Wait a few weeks. You will be fine. The market is just throwing a hissy fit because Orange Man broke their precious rules.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Bullshit.

Americans of all economic classes want a growing economy. The idea that investors are just doing this for ideology is ridiculous.

My guess is that majority of them voted for Trump.

Wake up!

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

The markets are all juiced up and way way too high.

What is happening is the money is going into the 10yr treasury (reducing yields). Mortgage rates down

Oil prices down

Inflation down

It's about time main street got some love. The western world is far too financialized. Producing what exactly?

Expand full comment
Aja's avatar

Cmon. We produce lots of exported fiat and inflate it around the world .

Expand full comment
NAB's avatar

Right there with ya', Cynthia. I'm trusting Trump. What we had before couldn't last. I want my kids to have a chance at the American Dream.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Sorry, but most retirees have a large percentage of their life savings in stocks. And these tariffs look like they are keeping the Canadian Liberal party in power.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

Hard to say. You have to understand CDN media is ALL in on Carney and keeping the govt media funding in place. Its a Harris style psyop to prop up a fake suit. Main st Canada is so screwed that the RCMP issued a report warning of unrest when we find out how poor we are.

What is also happening is the socialists (NDP) have a DEI WEF leader who imploded and his voting block is going red to keep Conservatives out of power. It's a bit fishy.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

And Trumps' tariffs have nothing to do with it?

Please...

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

10 years of zero economic growth? That’s not from big orange. Nor is our falling in the world’s happiness index.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Yes, and despite that Canada appears set to re-elect the Liberals who played a huge role in that economic stagnation.

Just look at the polls before and after Trump. It is not the only cause, but it is an important cause.

When nations feel threatened, they tend to rally around the incumbent party

Expand full comment
NAB's avatar

I love how Trump is to blame for Canada's problems now.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

No, I did not say that. I said his tariffs appear to be increasing support for the Liberal party just before the election. That is a major setback for the Right.

Just look at the polls before and after Trump threatened to make Canada the 51st state and increase tariffs. It is not the only cause, but it is an important cause.

When nations feel threatened, they tend to rally around the incumbent party.

Expand full comment
Rick Olivier's avatar

Retirees who don't understand diversifying shouldn't be in the "market".

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

A well-diversified investment portfolio includes a significant investment in stocks. Taking pleasure at the economic suffering of others is not what we should be aiming for.

Expand full comment
Rick Olivier's avatar

please. read some history. the market goes up the market goes down. you're beginning to sound like a wall street shill.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

My overall argument against Trumps’ tariffs is not about the short-term impact of the stock market. Read my other comments.

How can you not morally object to comments like” let them SUFFER?”

And I write history books for a living, so yes, I have “read some history.”

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/my-books

Expand full comment
NAB's avatar

No one is taking pleasure in their economic suffering. Many of us are watching our own accounts plummet the last few days but we also have financial plans - based on risk tolerance, age, and other considerations - which are tailored to our individual needs. Retirees should have most of their money in low-risk vehicles - not high risk, volatile stocks.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

On the contrary. I have seen multiple comments in this thread from people delighting in the fact that others are losing money in the stock market.

Expand full comment
NAB's avatar

They need better financial advisors. Retirees likely aren't buying individual stocks but have them in funds which are usually controlled for risk. IF they have the majority of their accounts in volatile stocks, then their financial advisors are doing them a disservice.

Expand full comment
Riri's avatar

The top 10% are mostly retirement funds.

Expand full comment
AEIOU's avatar

Individually maybe. But this will absolutely wreck a lot of pension funds, particularly state/city/university that are overcommitted anyway for political “promise the sky” reasons and are based on pretty… hopeful projections in re: annual market gains.

If you were cynical about it you might say those are all democrats anyway, and screw the bureaucrats and professors (DISAWOW!!!!! 😂) but that's still a lot of consumer confidence evaporating.

Also it's not only those pension plans.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

It will wreck pension plans because no dip in the Dow ever came back up again. Take a look at a 2 year chart. This is a storm in a teacup.

Expand full comment
AEIOU's avatar

They come up again when the risk becomes mitigated or better understood to not be so bad. E.g. systemic confidence in the GFC came back when the US and EU made clear that they wouldn’t allow more Lehmans. Think it would have magically come back if that hadn’t happened, just because a day or two passed?

This “dip” (totally not a rational reaction to supply chain costs suddenly going up 10-70(?!)% and volatility just exploding through the roof since others will react, and nobody knows how just yet, just a dip due to animal spirits or whatever) will end when the risk is mitigated (i.e. the whole stupid thing is replaced).

Or it will end nominally when ZIRP (or even NIRP) comes back. GLHF with that. Reading recommendation: The Mandibles (Shriver).

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

If it is a "storm in a teacup," then why do you favor it?

Are you a Democratic operative?

Expand full comment
Aja's avatar

I think he is being facetious…

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

It is hard to tell. He keeps contradicting himself with every comment.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

That is the same nihilistic and vengeful bullshit of the Woke Left.

A lower stock market hurts everyone. The fact that it hurts some people you do not like more does not make it a good thing.

Expand full comment
Dave S's avatar

No to tariffs. Period. By any country. If the EU & US can actually pull this off, this would be fantastic.

Expand full comment
FLR's avatar

One issue is agriculture. Here you have infinite tariffs with excuses like biosecurity (not for the EU but Australia/NZ are serious offenders on this front.) For the EU it is pure protectionism and a political hot potato.

Expand full comment
Dave S's avatar

Agriculture is definitely a hot potato and probably everywhere. If it's not a protectionist tariff, it's a gov't subsidy or something.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

The US needs to dump it's corn subsidy that mostly goes to Cargill, Heinz, Tyson etc. Not helping main st and fattening us all.

Expand full comment
JayBee's avatar

And it is a figleaf to address such issues with tariffs.

The only honest way to deal with 'standards etc.' is to prohibit an import. And to prohibit the import of the same or another product by that exporting country.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

My guess is those will only be increased in this tariff war. Meanwhile the American economy could easily slide into recession, guaranteeing the Democrats win in 2026 and 2028.

Expand full comment
Ivan Kaltman's avatar

How about China, no tariffs from them either? The whole reason Clinton let China into the WTO was to open their market to us. Instead trillions of wealth and nearly our entire industrial base went to China.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

The current fat **** premier of Ontario claimed that Canada would zero all tariffs if Trump did the same (on CNBC I think)

He's a LIAR and he knows IT! We will never EVER reduce our insane dairy tariffs that protect Quebec wealthy diary farmers who screw us all with their protected market.

Expand full comment
Richard Bicker's avatar

Canadian government could offer the Quebec dairy industry DIRECT price supports. It would likely take some finessing with trade pacts, but it's possible. Would allow countervailing tariffs between the two countries to wind down to zero. The trade deficit (on which Trump's tariffs levels are based)would, however, likely remain as an issue to be worked on by both countries.

Expand full comment
ron's avatar

Direct price supports are exactly the kind of thing that Trump is focused on.

Expand full comment
UnvaxxedCanadian's avatar

Tariffs in all but name. New Zealand had a similar market to Canada. Once they ditched it they are now a world leader in dairy and diary products.

We prop up the lazy dairy farmers and stifle quality and innovation. IE very Canadian.

Expand full comment
Richard Bicker's avatar

Two points:

First, Trump is extremely sensitive to names. What things (and people) are called is important to a master marketer. I'm still a little surprised Trump II (the man's administration) has bobbled the marketing on this latest MAGA plan.

Second, the Canadian government could (rightfully) claim that they saved the dairy industry from immediate and permanent destruction. With a graduated price support system (say, over the next 5 years), the industry could be modernized and rationalized to stand on its own, and Trump II could claim credit for dealing with a long-term trade irritant. Win-win, Trump's second favorite outcome (the first is left as an exercise for the reader...viz. Conan the Barbarian).

Expand full comment
Dominic Stockford's avatar

Umm...

The EU has been tariffing everybody else for years. Imposing them on the UK was one of their threats against the UK to try to stop us leaving - I'm not sure why they would genuinely remove tariffs now?

Expand full comment
Rob Shouting Into The Void's avatar

Good in theory but it would decimate the car industry on both continents Chinese cars are not just better but way cheaper

Expand full comment
FLR's avatar

Better? You get what you pay for. Chinese EVs are down right dangerous.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Typical tariff levels of our biggest trading partners is well under 5%. Not ideal, but far better than what Trump is proposing and likely will get out of this.

Expand full comment
KHP's avatar

I've read a list of Canada's various tariffs against US products. What in the world are you talking about?

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Look up the average tariff rate for Canada on American goods...

The tariffs are almost always zero percent.

Expand full comment
cabystander's avatar

Non tariff barriers are the killer.

Canada's explicit tariffs are fairly low, their non tariff barriers very high.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Convince me that "non-tariff barriers' by Canada have a significant impact on the trade deficit.

Expand full comment
RiverHollow's avatar

For whose benefit?

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

It would be awesome and that is one possible good outcome. There are multiple good endings to this.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

So it sounds like you actually are in favor of "free trade" after all , in agreement with so-called "regime economists."

If you believe that driving our trading partners' tariffs from well under 5% to zero, then you are taking a huge risk with the material well-being of the American people (and the rest of the world).

Why risk it?

The enemy of the good is the quest for perfection.

The only good ending is that Trump rapidly repeals his tariffs.

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

None of the regime economists are actual free traders except when they’re having a hissy fit at Trump.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

You change your opinion in the span of 5 minutes more than just about anyone I have ever seen.

Now the "regime economists" are not actual free traders...........

Expand full comment
Pnoldguy's avatar

The tariffs come on, raise, lower, go away so often it must be an accounting nightmare. Plus an added benefit is it drives liberals mad and the media takes their eye off the DOGE bomb for a short while until the next move.

Expand full comment
INGRID C DURDEN's avatar

Yesterday I called my family in Belgium. A 30 minute rant about how 'your nutcase' is wrecking the world. As if it was not wrecked yet. There was even mentioned how in the 30s children had to be named German names!!! never heard of that, and when checking the lists of names of the 30s, no evidence found. May be just another trump from years ago LOL.

He will ruin us all and he will ruin you! When I tell them I am carefully convincing people here, that indeed, Trump is not 'the savior' I get warned not to post anything against him because I probably will end up in prison. Obviously they realize indeed, that freedom of speech (especially in Europe) is a thing of the past.

I think trying anything different from what it was is better than continuing the downward spiral, even if for a few months, things will be though. Will we be able to buy cognac in the next few months? I don't know. I probably will have to get used to American Whiskey... blah !

Expand full comment
Flippin’ Jersey's avatar

My hot take: it’s been 3 business days, THREE! How about everyone calms the F’ down and waits to see what happens? Chicken Little was calmer than the MSM is right now. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

panic porn is their product and raison d'etre

permanent hysteria is good for business

Expand full comment
Harley Smedlapp's avatar

All of the Cassandras with public platforms are weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth. It's what they do best, following their unwritten credo:

"When in danger or in doubt,

Run in circles, scream and shout."

As usual (to quote the Immortal Bard), " 'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Expand full comment
The Real Mary Rose's avatar

That's what makes me do the opposite: Not panic. Because these people shriek about everything. They're the boy who cried wolf. Then again, if something serious DOES happen, we'll be ignoring them - lol.

Expand full comment
Tareq I. Albaho, PhD's avatar

There is a cute video going around France that we should all drink 20% more wine/cognac/champagne "for the fatherland" to absorb the impact of reduced exports to the US.

Expand full comment
Jules's avatar

My son who lives in the greater Munich area said that during rush hour, he is seeing more men on the train drinking beer. That used to be very rare.

More empty bottles left on the platforms too.

Expand full comment
Ryan's avatar

That's interesting, because I keep hearing about how alcohol consumption and social drinking are way down in the US

Expand full comment
Henrybowman's avatar

There's a good thesis for somebody in determining the correlation between socialism and alcohol consumption.

Expand full comment
Rikard's avatar

But what about the climate!?

With less global trade, there's fewer emissions, and with less consumption there's less garbage and less energy-expenditure on extraction of raw materials and production.

Shouldn't all the politicos and corpos and whorenalists be rejoicing?

Expand full comment
Random's avatar

I am just here to simply enjoy the mayhem.

Give me excitement. Entertain me.

Expand full comment
The Real Mary Rose's avatar

Seriously. We're helpless to do anything about it while the PTB run the show. May as well get out the popcorn and a soda and have a laugh. While we can.

Expand full comment
Random's avatar

Exactly. People panic and go nuts over everything.

Just make some peace with the world and your short life on it, and do be enjoying the ride!

Expand full comment
CK's avatar

The US economy will recover after if we stop importing goods from China, we will get them elsewhere. Will China’s economy recover with zero exports to the US? No, it will crash.

China has little to no leverage here. The US market is very lucrative, other countries should have to pay for access to the US market.

Expand full comment
Andrew Marsh's avatar

I humbly suggest China has bought quite a lot of funny bonds from the USA. Removal of China will be amusing, just ahead of the financial collapse. Oh - and the rest of the world will get some pain as well. Great plan.

Expand full comment
Rikard's avatar

Japan owns a lot more of the US debt (1.1 trillion last year) than does China. I think it's something like 22% of the US national debt that is owned by foreign nations, mainly US Treasury bonds as such.

By memory, about half the US national debt has been owned by central banks historically, and the rest by independent investors and private companies, but my numbers are likely outdated to some degree.

Sweden was in a similar spot in the early 1990s, with a huge national debt. It took a couple of lean years to sort it out and pay it down to manageable levels; I think that's Trump's goal, to prevent the US to go into default and the inevitable "let's print money to get out of debt"-shenanigans likely to result from it.

Expand full comment
Andrew Marsh's avatar

I do think this is a race against time, where a 'run' is engineered to execute disaster. Smaller economies like the UK sit fully immersed in the water, barely afloat. Our Glorious Dear Leader Starmer just does not see the urgency.....

Expand full comment
Rikard's avatar

If UK is a smaller economy, then what about my nation?

2.9T USD vs 0.5T USD

On the other hand, we're a) not an island and b) our population is ca 10.5 million rather than 68 million.

Am I assuming correctly that domestic production of food is a hot topic in the UK at present? It is here, what with us only being self-sufficient on carrots and sugar-beets at present...

Expand full comment
Andrew Marsh's avatar

Our Government think food comes from supermarkets and land is for growing solar panels or houses. The farmers are far from happy, yet the urban politicians continue as if farming does not exist at all - or its full of people who should be taxed to oblivion, then the land built over.

Expand full comment
Danielle's avatar

I think this is the WEF/UN plan. Farmers everywhere are struggling with idiotic green policies and red tape. All for control of the food.

Expand full comment
ron's avatar

China has cut its U.S. bond holdings in half over the last few years.

Expand full comment
Andrew Marsh's avatar

Now that's worrying. Let's hope they are just playing games.

Expand full comment
RioRosie's avatar

I don't know what to make of this. I can hardly balance my checkbook.

I'm not checking my 401K. I'm avoiding the televised hand-wringing.

I guess I'm in the camp of DO SOMETHING. TRY ANYTHING.

For four years, Americans have had a senile Leader of the Free World, a giggling total wingnut who's a heartbeat away from him, a Congress of blatant liars, and a collection of media hacks.

Trump LOVES being the center of attention and thrives in an environment of chaos--b/c it gives the world a terrible case of indigestion.

If you like "Let's buy Greenland," you're going to LOVE "Tariff everything!"

Expand full comment
Wesley B's avatar

My 'Hot Take' as the hip young people would say is the top 1% own 85% of the stock market. The top 10% like 98%. The bottom 50% own 0%. So this whole "OMGGGG The Stock Market is CRASHINGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in the media is a reflection of the views of the top 1% and not the majority.

The irony here is the top 1% is largely a house of cards and all the "profits" they've earned recently during the pandemic where their wealth went up like 40% and the bottom 50% went up 4%..... Additionally, for decades before that, the top 1% made money by shipping jobs overseas and decimating American manufacturing. So its natural, they won't make the same insane levels of profit if they are paying American workers, American wages and quite frankly, the average bottom 50% American is okay with that. They'd love to be able to work a factory job and make $50/hr and on one salary, own a house and support a wife and two kids; like the boomers had in the 60-70s.

The bottom 50% doesn't care much if the lose 4% of their net worth if it evens the playing field and billionaires are brought down a peg and lose that unearned 40% bullshit-covid-policy profit where they literally had the government shut down their small businesses. They only care if they still believe in CNN, MSNBC and the media. The giant tanking of democratic support in the polls, even among democrats, suggest even that narrative of the bought-n-sold-for party is starting to wane. Nobody believes the narrative of oppression like they used to. They are all starting to think about individual accomplishments and their own friends/local tribe. Not group identities as much.

Expand full comment
NAB's avatar

𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒅 40% 𝒃𝒖𝒍𝒍𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒕-𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒅-𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒚 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒖𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔.

Amen.

Expand full comment