Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging the lousy economics of these blanket tariffs, it seems like there will be very disparate impacts across different industries. Those that will benefit directly must:
- have short, domestic supply chains;
- have inelastic demand relative to price;
- be able to get domestic production up and running relatively quickly.

Any thoughts on winners and losers here? A potential winners might be the domestic wine & beer industry - South American and Australian wines have gobbled market share based on low cost. Seems an easy reach to produce more domestic wine. Furniture might be another. The Carolinas used to produce large quantities before cheap Chinese imports took away their market.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a furniture factory up and running?

I’d love good quality American furniture again.

There’s plenty of good quality American furniture available. Why aren’t you buying it?

Because good quality furniture is extremely expensive.

I think that this is probably their point. A global economy benefits everyone. Donnie, as usual, has a child’s understanding of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging the lousy economics of these blanket tariffs, it seems like there will be very disparate impacts across different industries. Those that will benefit directly must:
- have short, domestic supply chains;
- have inelastic demand relative to price;
- be able to get domestic production up and running relatively quickly.

Any thoughts on winners and losers here? A potential winners might be the domestic wine & beer industry - South American and Australian wines have gobbled market share based on low cost. Seems an easy reach to produce more domestic wine. Furniture might be another. The Carolinas used to produce large quantities before cheap Chinese imports took away their market.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a furniture factory up and running?

I’d love good quality American furniture again.

There’s plenty of good quality American furniture available. Why aren’t you buying it?

Because good quality furniture is extremely expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging the lousy economics of these blanket tariffs, it seems like there will be very disparate impacts across different industries. Those that will benefit directly must:
- have short, domestic supply chains;
- have inelastic demand relative to price;
- be able to get domestic production up and running relatively quickly.

Any thoughts on winners and losers here? A potential winners might be the domestic wine & beer industry - South American and Australian wines have gobbled market share based on low cost. Seems an easy reach to produce more domestic wine. Furniture might be another. The Carolinas used to produce large quantities before cheap Chinese imports took away their market.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a furniture factory up and running?

I’d love good quality American furniture again.

There’s plenty of good quality American furniture available. Why aren’t you buying it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging the lousy economics of these blanket tariffs, it seems like there will be very disparate impacts across different industries. Those that will benefit directly must:
- have short, domestic supply chains;
- have inelastic demand relative to price;
- be able to get domestic production up and running relatively quickly.

Any thoughts on winners and losers here? A potential winners might be the domestic wine & beer industry - South American and Australian wines have gobbled market share based on low cost. Seems an easy reach to produce more domestic wine. Furniture might be another. The Carolinas used to produce large quantities before cheap Chinese imports took away their market.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a furniture factory up and running?

I’d love good quality American furniture again.

There’s plenty of good quality American furniture available. Why aren’t you buying it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging the lousy economics of these blanket tariffs, it seems like there will be very disparate impacts across different industries. Those that will benefit directly must:
- have short, domestic supply chains;
- have inelastic demand relative to price;
- be able to get domestic production up and running relatively quickly.

Any thoughts on winners and losers here? A potential winners might be the domestic wine & beer industry - South American and Australian wines have gobbled market share based on low cost. Seems an easy reach to produce more domestic wine. Furniture might be another. The Carolinas used to produce large quantities before cheap Chinese imports took away their market.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a furniture factory up and running?

I’d love good quality American furniture again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I realize I’m looking for logic where there is none. But even if we accept the idea that the goal of these tariffs is to re-industrialize the US…and even if we accept that tariffs on foreign manufacturing might make companies re-invest in U.S. factories…

Then why the heck are we putting tariffs on bananas and coffee? We are never going to be able to grow these things at any scale in the US. It’s GOOD to import these things — it means we have them, when we otherwise wouldn’t.

Can someone help me find even a crappy rationale that someone *might* believe where this made sense?

It is a negotiation to get the other country to reduce its tariffs. If you place tariffs on things they don't export, they have no incentive to reduce tariffs.

How is it both a negotiating tactic, and also the mechanism to bring in $600 billion to offset tax breaks for millionaires? It can't be both.

And also apparently a means to re-shore manufacturing, which can’t happen when you wipe out the stock market and won’t happen when the policy changes from one day to the next.

+1

“What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large,
long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?

I don’t know of one who will do so.”
- the VERY Trumpy Bill Ackman

Even Ackman's changed his mind.

“This isn’t what we voted for”.

It’s EXACTLY what they voted for - a completely unhinged individual who has been touting tariffs for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I realize I’m looking for logic where there is none. But even if we accept the idea that the goal of these tariffs is to re-industrialize the US…and even if we accept that tariffs on foreign manufacturing might make companies re-invest in U.S. factories…

Then why the heck are we putting tariffs on bananas and coffee? We are never going to be able to grow these things at any scale in the US. It’s GOOD to import these things — it means we have them, when we otherwise wouldn’t.

Can someone help me find even a crappy rationale that someone *might* believe where this made sense?

It is a negotiation to get the other country to reduce its tariffs. If you place tariffs on things they don't export, they have no incentive to reduce tariffs.

How is it both a negotiating tactic, and also the mechanism to bring in $600 billion to offset tax breaks for millionaires? It can't be both.

And also apparently a means to re-shore manufacturing, which can’t happen when you wipe out the stock market and won’t happen when the policy changes from one day to the next.

+1

“What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large,
long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?

I don’t know of one who will do so.”
- the VERY Trumpy Bill Ackman

Even Ackman's changed his mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I realize I’m looking for logic where there is none. But even if we accept the idea that the goal of these tariffs is to re-industrialize the US…and even if we accept that tariffs on foreign manufacturing might make companies re-invest in U.S. factories…

Then why the heck are we putting tariffs on bananas and coffee? We are never going to be able to grow these things at any scale in the US. It’s GOOD to import these things — it means we have them, when we otherwise wouldn’t.

Can someone help me find even a crappy rationale that someone *might* believe where this made sense?

It is a negotiation to get the other country to reduce its tariffs. If you place tariffs on things they don't export, they have no incentive to reduce tariffs.

How is it both a negotiating tactic, and also the mechanism to bring in $600 billion to offset tax breaks for millionaires? It can't be both.

And also apparently a means to re-shore manufacturing, which can’t happen when you wipe out the stock market and won’t happen when the policy changes from one day to the next.

+1

“What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large,
long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?

I don’t know of one who will do so.”
- the VERY Trumpy Bill Ackman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I realize I’m looking for logic where there is none. But even if we accept the idea that the goal of these tariffs is to re-industrialize the US…and even if we accept that tariffs on foreign manufacturing might make companies re-invest in U.S. factories…

Then why the heck are we putting tariffs on bananas and coffee? We are never going to be able to grow these things at any scale in the US. It’s GOOD to import these things — it means we have them, when we otherwise wouldn’t.

Can someone help me find even a crappy rationale that someone *might* believe where this made sense?

It is a negotiation to get the other country to reduce its tariffs. If you place tariffs on things they don't export, they have no incentive to reduce tariffs.

How is it both a negotiating tactic, and also the mechanism to bring in $600 billion to offset tax breaks for millionaires? It can't be both.

And also apparently a means to re-shore manufacturing, which can’t happen when you wipe out the stock market and won’t happen when the policy changes from one day to the next.

+1

“What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large,
long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?

I don’t know of one who will do so.”
- the VERY Trumpy Bill Ackman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Massive crashes in futures market already this evening and seeing it in other economies around the world. Prepare tomorrow 4/7 for a major market crash.

Aaron Parnas reporting better than any news network.

Even FOX is saying that futures are in deep red territory. I think we’re cutting through “correction” territory like a hot knife through butter.

And the tariffs have only been in effect for less than a week. There is still more to come. :(

We still have EU retaliatory tariffs to look forward to later this week. And the 34 percent China tariffs haven't even kicked in yet. The market is going to continue to collapse until Congress passes a veto proof bill to take back their authority on tariffs. And repeals them. Even then, investment is still going to crumble because no one has faith and trust in the US now. And money hates uncertainty.

I saw that Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill for this. Not sure how effective if will be if it gains traction.

the House won't take it up so it is a non-starter

Isn’t that where Meeks’s discharge petition comes in though? Of course the House needs to be in session and I’m not sure if they are coming back before Easter.

But I think even then the Senate needs 67 votes to override a veto. So that requires 30 Republicans, which is not happening. Meanwhile, Asian markets are sinking. It's amazing what a handful of Republicans can do to crash the global economy.

Why 30? There are 47 democrats in the Senate. So “just” need 13. Four are already there. And that was Thursday. If tomorrow is as crippling as is expected some more should come over.

Pp. Bad math. Need 20 to come over. So. Harder. Not impossible???

Congress doesn't need to override a veto. They only need a simple majority. The ability to regulate trade is a pure Legislative Branch constitutional power. The GOP gave this power to Trump and can take ot away anytime they want.