Which is one of the reasons the countries with high tariffs have had worse economy overall and specifically much worse than the US economy. The higher your tariffs the worse the protected industry and the whole economy.
This is assuming America is even capable of producing what it needs to generate jobs or investment. There’s no point in taxing coffee from Africa; America doesn’t produce competing coffee! There’s no point in tariffing specialized electronics from China that Apple needs; US literally doesn’t have the capacity to produce these and the investment to do so will be inefficient as American labor is better put to service and knowledge sector work to produce more Apple product designs (just one example).
This is just going to make the American economy more inefficient, less able to compete internationally, and devalue American interests globally, which means America will have less clout to privilege their citizens with.
> There will be more of a hit as we transition to domestic manufacturing, but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
That's not how it works. It protects inefficient companies, reduces competition, and lets them pocket more of consumers money. I'm sure they will 'share' it with their labor force.
The US is and has been fully employed without it, so it can't really add jobs. The US has plenty of investment, and it will cut foreign investment - many of those factories are owned by foreign companies. It shifts the workforce to less productive work which will hurt the economy as well.
It will keep money out of our economy too. Economics doesn't work by keeping money in your pocket.
> There will be more of a hit ... but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
Have you heard of 'trickle-down economics'? That was the theory that if we cut taxes on the wealthy, they will spend/invest more and it will 'trickle down' to everyone else. Guess what happened? Only the first step - the certain one - ever happened. The magical future never did.
It's the same here. It's just a hit for the benefit of a few; that's it. No economist thinks protectionism boosts the economy.
> In addition, other countries could simply loosen their restrictions and tariffs.
The DARVO idea that others are somehow blocking US investment - which dominates the world - has no foundation. Poor countries, of course, don't want their entire economy controlled by some trader on Wall Street.
> There will be more of a hit as we transition to domestic manufacturing, but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
I would be very surprised if this is the result, but I'm willing to be very surprised.
For now, though, the manufacturing company that I work for, as well as a couple of others I know about, are likely going to close their facilities in the US because of these tariffs. It's simply not economically feasible to pay a tax every time we ship materials from one plant to another in a different country.
If they can't operate efficiently in the US, then they're looking at just ignoring the US market entirely. The rest of the world is a plenty large enough market to address.
>you choose to purchase foreign over domestic, but you have that option.
where can i buy a domestic made iPhone?
>as we transition to domestic manufacturing
manufacturing is capital intensive and has low margins and thus is adversely affected by 2 things the most - unstable environment and high volume based taxes, which both has just significantly increased.
Taking it in the can? The US is the richest nation in the world! If you're #1 it's really hard to say other nations are taking advantage of you.
Americans have been taken advantage of, but it's not been other countries taking advantage of Americans, it's rich Americans taking advantage of poor Americans.
> Decades of USA taking it in the can trade wise appears to be over, for now.
Except that the US hasn't been. Global trade has made the nation wealthier than ever. People who aren't wealthy have been taking it in the can, of course, but that's not because of global trade and these changes aren't going to fix that.
All that's going to happen is that if you aren't already very wealthy, you're going to get poorer.
Convincing the entire world to use its currency and sell it things cheaply is apparently somehow bad for America? I think you're about to get a very expensive lesson in economics.
>> Dems just need to spin these tariffs as the largest tax increase in US history
And then what? From a quick look at the 2024 Democratic Party Platform:
"Democrats will make billionaires pay a minimum income tax rate of 25 percent, raising $500 billion in 10 years. We’ll end the preferential treatment for capital gains for millionaires, so they pay the same rate on investment income as on wages"
Tax increase.
"We’ll put an end to abusive life insurance tax shelters, and stop billionaires from exploiting retirement tax incentives that are supposed to help middle-class families save"
Tax increase.
"We’ll eliminate the 'stepped-up basis' loophole for the wealthiest Americans"
Tax increase.
"Democrats will close the 'carried interest' loophole"
Tax increase.
"we’ll increase our new stock buyback tax to 4 percent"
Tax increase.
"Trump doesn’t care: he slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, down from 35 percent. President Biden will raise that rate back to 28 percent"
Tax increase.
"And for those billion-dollar tax dodgers, the President signed a historic 15 percent corporate minimum tax into law"
Tax increase.
"He also reached a global minimum tax agreement with 140 countries"
Tax increase.
"Biden will double the tax rate that American multinationals pay on foreign earnings to 21 percent"
Tax increase.
"It means ending special tax breaks for corporate jets, and boosting fuel taxes on corporate and private jet travel"
Tax increase.
"We’ll also eliminate the so-called 'like-kind exchange' loophole that allows wealthy real estate investors to avoid paying taxes on real estate profits, as long as they keep investing in real estate"
Tax increase.
"It offers corporate landlords a basic choice for the next two years: either cap rent increases at 5 percent, or lose a valuable federal tax break"
Tax increase.
"We oppose the use of private-school vouchers, tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education"
Tax increase.
"Democrats will make Medicare permanently solvent, by making the wealthy pay their fair share in Medicare taxes"
Tax increase.
"To cover those costs, the law finally restored a vital 'polluter pays' tax that had lapsed 26 years before"
Tax increase.
"fight for a global minimum tax that ensures corporations pay their fair share"
Tax increase.
Spinning the tariffs as a tax increase will do what for the Dems, exactly? Democrats love taxes on corporations, do they not think the consumer bears much of the costs of those taxes?
And it's simplistic analysis like this is why people fall for stuff like this.
Equating a tax on Billionaires to a tax on every import! A tax on corporate jets - it's laughable that people can't see the most basic economic differences in these.
I remember when the GOP was the free trade party, and you had to look mercantilism up in the history books because it was dead. President McKinley, from the 1890s, is one of Trump's economic role models. https://fortune.com/2025/03/10/trump-william-mckinley-tariff...
I wonder how pre-MAGA GOP'ers are reconciling this new reality with their existing beliefs.
I remember when we had skilled helmsman that steered the US away from recession despite all the indicators like inverted yield curve screaming recession.
Hopefully all this will kill forever the idea that the GOP is the party of business. They’re the party of the rich, like the Democrats. When people say both parties are the same, this is what they’re talking about. Not the religion or social justice masks the parties try to hide behind.
It's pretty hard as an indicator to miss this, considering that it's one of the very rare times a government loudly and proudly declares it's going to intentionally cause a recession.
A lot of supporters of the trade restrictions don't care. They're working people who don't own a lot of stocks and all they've seen is their jobs sent overseas.
To them, it doesn't even matter if things get "worse" for a while. Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
> Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
Then they’ve failed to imagine how much more difficult their life will become under excessive tariffs.
It’s also eye-opening to watch so many people in my extended family and social network cheer on DOGE and tariffs right until they impact their own jobs. Lot of people out there didn’t connect the dots about how their own jobs were going to be impacted by tariffs.
It does matter if things get worse and it's very uncaring to say otherwise. The import taxes are going to make wealth inequality much worse and significantly hurt not just almost all American's but large swathes of the world too.
Plenty of his supporters are SMB owners or people that work in trades/factories. This is not a revolution of the indigent. What these people don't realize is even if they make 200K a year and drive an 85K financed F-250, they are effectively in the same class as someone making 50K a year managing a Dollar General. These people have no class awareness and they voted in a representative of the ultra wealthy intent on pillaging our economy. Some may believe that Trump will usher in some era of economic prosperity but they are wrong.
On the other hand Trump will deliver on another, implicit promise to them, which is inflict pain and suffering on a great deal of people they dislike for whatever reason.
> Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, who wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”
They don’t have to own stocks. If they like eating and buying household goods then this will affect them negatively. It will help very few people for a long time, even if it goes perfectly to plan.
I’d be extremely surprised if other countries meekly do what Trump wants. There are many options on the table, and change is more likely in a crisis.
> To them, it doesn't even matter if things get "worse" for a while. Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
Really? How do you even know that? You think another round of price hikes within the year is unimaginable, which what the economic consensus on immediate tariffs this high predicts?
The unemployment rate is 4%. The amount of liberation day tariff supporters is an order of magnitude higher than that. Pretending that things can't get worse is dangerous and stupid.
> A lot of supporters of the trade restrictions don't care. They're working people who don't own a lot of stocks and all they've seen is their jobs sent overseas
A lot of us were also in the market before the pandemic (aka before 4 years ago), so we remain in the green.
Personally, it's a win-win.
1. Based on past tariff action, the current tariffs will not be repealed by any future administration - there is plenty of harsh feelings amongst some of us Dems who were IRA adjacent to France and Germany's lobbying against the Green New Deal and calling it "protectionism".
2. This plus DOGE has caused short term pain as reflected in the NY by-elections leading to Stefanik's nomination to the UN being pulled.
3. Those of us with some sympathy for economic nationalism but don't caucus GOP have been vindicated, but have a messaging tool now as well.
4. We can finally take the UAW and ILA national leadership behind a shed and pull a metaphorical old yeller. There's no point trying to make peace with National when much of their local leadership leans GOP. Makes it easier to concentrate on AZ, NV, and GA - states where the demographic and union makeup is completely orthogonal to the UAW and ILA's cadre. Makes it easier to help the AFL-CIO as well.
5. Sullivan and Raimondo's doctrine has been vindicated. Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, Malaysia, and India have now been made much more cost competitive than China or transshipment via Vietnam or Thailand - either you reduce transshipment from China or your competitors in apparel, textiles, and electronics are subsidized. Vietnam already has sent their Dy PM to negotiate as we speak to reduce tariffs.
Europe also has no option but to diversify away from China as well. Either you fund a state selling intermediate parts to Russia in Ukraine, or start building domestic defense and industrial capabilities like that which existed before the 2000s (which they are now doing).
-----
Already, some of my peers from my previous life have started testing the waters for a Dem equivalent of the Tea Party. Lot of realignment coming in the next 2 election cycles.
> Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable
Horseshit. The most fervent Trump supporters are upper-middle class professionals who are bored with their lives. Hence the frequent boat parades for Trump. It's why the huge, expensive trucks are the ones flying the Trump flags. And practically all of them have 401ks, which means they are at least indirectly invested in stocks.
"minimum 10% tariff on all imported goods and materials" certainly sounds like a way to increase costs.
Increasing costs seems generally worse for an economy than decreasing costs.
I feel like most people could follow this logical chain of reasoning to a conclusion of "thus you have a elevated risk for an economic recession compared to the state of affairs before the tariffs."
“WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!),” Trump said in a social media post. “BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.”
“If Trump succeeds in forcing through mass deportations, combined with Elon hacking away at the government, firing people and reducing the deficit - there will be an initial severe overreaction in the economy…Market will tumble. But when the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy.”
There's a theory going around that the administration wants to crash the market so they can buy everything up for cheap, in a similar way to what happened in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
At the same time though it seems like the current president has always been pro tariffs even though they are almost always bad for a economy, the reason why the admin is applying a lot more of them is because almost everyone left in the admin's circle is a yes men.
It's both an interesting and tragic phenomenon that seems much broader:
Plausibly, fashion is primarily about sex, especially at the ages when humans are most sexually active. And possibly changes in fashion are really second-order effects of changes in sex:
The most shocking thing, researched and reported but I don't think people grasp the significance, is that young adults are having much less sex.
Sex is among the most fundamental human drives. People can't stop themselves, which is why IMHO it gets such attempts to restrict it, by law and custom and shame, across time and place (to varying degrees). You can be sitting there, clearly knowing you shouldn't do it, and it can be very difficult to stop. All those efforts to stop people, by cultures, religions, governments, parents, etc. have widely failed - people still have pre-marital sex, commit adultry, get drunk and screw, hire prostitutes, watch porn, etc. (I'm not judging.)
Incredibly, now something has actually managed to significantly reduce sexual activity - and among people who are perfectly free to do it. Has that happened before in history (serious question)? Where/when/who is it now happening for and not happening? Speculating on why is perilous without evidence - imho it's just disinformation. But whatever the cause(s), it's a signal of something very serious.
Wearing plainer clothes is possibly just a follow-on effect.
Anecdotally it’s the triple whammy of depression/anxiety, social isolation, and scarcity/precarity.
The precariousness I think is more of a factor as the long term poor have still managed to survive historically. The randomness and changing social safety nets and possibility of needing to migrate to survive is probably a big factor.
It feels like we’re all bracing for the end of the world all the time.
Procreation (or lack of it) is voting “no candidate”. It’s the only control anyone has over their life today.
And honestly, you should have been downvoted for calling them "low-information" voters. Not only is it condescending, you simply discounted them for being part of the "other" party. Perhaps they are very informed - maybe much more than you regarding the deficit, the economy, their frustrations, etc.
It is great to have a spirited debate, but to call people derogatory names simply because they don't share your viewpoint is the wrong path to take.
Anyone who isn't afraid of woke can see certain voters were demonstrably taken in by transparent demagoguery. There are consequences to actions and beliefs, criticism can happen, people are sometimes wrong and we can acknowledge that without pearl-clutching. "Low information" is specific and actionable, unlike "stupid". Sometimes one decision was better than the other and we can only progress by understanding that, despite any hurt feelings. Sorry, no participation trophies today!
I think it is foolish to think that just because it was easy to tear something down, it will be easy to build it back up.
People are pissed off about the tanking economy and the brain-dead tariff approach, even though Trump said he was going to do this.
We know what tariffs do, it has been proven over and over again. What conclusion am I supposed to come to, after witnessing the predictable clown-show since January? We lost 5% today.
Dems just need to spin these tariffs as the largest tax increase in US history (which is basically correct).
I’m curious to see how they are going to fumble this.
I wanted to argue...
then I couldn't
It's also a tax on everyone, to the benefit of large corporations which can now increase prices / decrease value), due to less competition.
Which is one of the reasons the countries with high tariffs have had worse economy overall and specifically much worse than the US economy. The higher your tariffs the worse the protected industry and the whole economy.
13 replies →
Even Mike Pence came out and said that.
Is this a sign republicans in congress may do something?
3 replies →
Coming right on the heels of the largest layoff in US history (which is still ongoing, depending on your definition).
How would they get the message out even if they had one? Republicans own the media.
Which media? Most "traditional" media is quite left leaning.
2 replies →
They won’t even need to spin it. People are going to feel it very quickly.
and done purely on Presidential authority without Congress.
Matt Levine on his column today went over this.
No taxation without representation!
[flagged]
This is assuming America is even capable of producing what it needs to generate jobs or investment. There’s no point in taxing coffee from Africa; America doesn’t produce competing coffee! There’s no point in tariffing specialized electronics from China that Apple needs; US literally doesn’t have the capacity to produce these and the investment to do so will be inefficient as American labor is better put to service and knowledge sector work to produce more Apple product designs (just one example).
This is just going to make the American economy more inefficient, less able to compete internationally, and devalue American interests globally, which means America will have less clout to privilege their citizens with.
3 replies →
> There will be more of a hit as we transition to domestic manufacturing, but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
That's not how it works. It protects inefficient companies, reduces competition, and lets them pocket more of consumers money. I'm sure they will 'share' it with their labor force.
The US is and has been fully employed without it, so it can't really add jobs. The US has plenty of investment, and it will cut foreign investment - many of those factories are owned by foreign companies. It shifts the workforce to less productive work which will hurt the economy as well.
It will keep money out of our economy too. Economics doesn't work by keeping money in your pocket.
> There will be more of a hit ... but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
Have you heard of 'trickle-down economics'? That was the theory that if we cut taxes on the wealthy, they will spend/invest more and it will 'trickle down' to everyone else. Guess what happened? Only the first step - the certain one - ever happened. The magical future never did.
It's the same here. It's just a hit for the benefit of a few; that's it. No economist thinks protectionism boosts the economy.
> In addition, other countries could simply loosen their restrictions and tariffs.
The DARVO idea that others are somehow blocking US investment - which dominates the world - has no foundation. Poor countries, of course, don't want their entire economy controlled by some trader on Wall Street.
> There will be more of a hit as we transition to domestic manufacturing, but it will generate jobs, investment, and keep money in our economy.
I would be very surprised if this is the result, but I'm willing to be very surprised.
For now, though, the manufacturing company that I work for, as well as a couple of others I know about, are likely going to close their facilities in the US because of these tariffs. It's simply not economically feasible to pay a tax every time we ship materials from one plant to another in a different country.
If they can't operate efficiently in the US, then they're looking at just ignoring the US market entirely. The rest of the world is a plenty large enough market to address.
Which restrictions and tariffs are these?
2 replies →
>> In addition, other countries could simply loosen their restrictions and tariffs.
You can keep your chlorine washed chicken. I’m sure most of the UK will be happy to pay 10% tariffs if it keeps those out.
1 reply →
>you choose to purchase foreign over domestic, but you have that option.
where can i buy a domestic made iPhone?
>as we transition to domestic manufacturing
manufacturing is capital intensive and has low margins and thus is adversely affected by 2 things the most - unstable environment and high volume based taxes, which both has just significantly increased.
3 replies →
[flagged]
Taking it in the can? The US is the richest nation in the world! If you're #1 it's really hard to say other nations are taking advantage of you.
Americans have been taken advantage of, but it's not been other countries taking advantage of Americans, it's rich Americans taking advantage of poor Americans.
1 reply →
> Decades of USA taking it in the can trade wise appears to be over, for now.
Except that the US hasn't been. Global trade has made the nation wealthier than ever. People who aren't wealthy have been taking it in the can, of course, but that's not because of global trade and these changes aren't going to fix that.
All that's going to happen is that if you aren't already very wealthy, you're going to get poorer.
Convincing the entire world to use its currency and sell it things cheaply is apparently somehow bad for America? I think you're about to get a very expensive lesson in economics.
>> Dems just need to spin these tariffs as the largest tax increase in US history
And then what? From a quick look at the 2024 Democratic Party Platform:
"Democrats will make billionaires pay a minimum income tax rate of 25 percent, raising $500 billion in 10 years. We’ll end the preferential treatment for capital gains for millionaires, so they pay the same rate on investment income as on wages"
Tax increase.
"We’ll put an end to abusive life insurance tax shelters, and stop billionaires from exploiting retirement tax incentives that are supposed to help middle-class families save"
Tax increase.
"We’ll eliminate the 'stepped-up basis' loophole for the wealthiest Americans"
Tax increase.
"Democrats will close the 'carried interest' loophole"
Tax increase.
"we’ll increase our new stock buyback tax to 4 percent"
Tax increase.
"Trump doesn’t care: he slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, down from 35 percent. President Biden will raise that rate back to 28 percent"
Tax increase.
"And for those billion-dollar tax dodgers, the President signed a historic 15 percent corporate minimum tax into law"
Tax increase.
"He also reached a global minimum tax agreement with 140 countries"
Tax increase.
"Biden will double the tax rate that American multinationals pay on foreign earnings to 21 percent"
Tax increase.
"It means ending special tax breaks for corporate jets, and boosting fuel taxes on corporate and private jet travel"
Tax increase.
"We’ll also eliminate the so-called 'like-kind exchange' loophole that allows wealthy real estate investors to avoid paying taxes on real estate profits, as long as they keep investing in real estate"
Tax increase.
"It offers corporate landlords a basic choice for the next two years: either cap rent increases at 5 percent, or lose a valuable federal tax break"
Tax increase.
"We oppose the use of private-school vouchers, tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education"
Tax increase.
"Democrats will make Medicare permanently solvent, by making the wealthy pay their fair share in Medicare taxes"
Tax increase.
"To cover those costs, the law finally restored a vital 'polluter pays' tax that had lapsed 26 years before"
Tax increase.
"fight for a global minimum tax that ensures corporations pay their fair share"
Tax increase.
Spinning the tariffs as a tax increase will do what for the Dems, exactly? Democrats love taxes on corporations, do they not think the consumer bears much of the costs of those taxes?
Well, tariffs are about as regressive as you can get, so I fail to see the contradiction with advocating higher taxes on the wealthy.
1 reply →
And it's simplistic analysis like this is why people fall for stuff like this.
Equating a tax on Billionaires to a tax on every import! A tax on corporate jets - it's laughable that people can't see the most basic economic differences in these.
I thought Dems loved taxes
Nobody loves taxes, including Democrats.
I still remember when Inverted yield curve was enough to predict recession. Good times.
I remember when the GOP was the free trade party, and you had to look mercantilism up in the history books because it was dead. President McKinley, from the 1890s, is one of Trump's economic role models. https://fortune.com/2025/03/10/trump-william-mckinley-tariff...
I wonder how pre-MAGA GOP'ers are reconciling this new reality with their existing beliefs.
I remember when we had skilled helmsman that steered the US away from recession despite all the indicators like inverted yield curve screaming recession.
Probably I'm wrong but if you can do stimulus ad infinitum there won't be recession, but you'll have inflation.
1 reply →
Hopefully all this will kill forever the idea that the GOP is the party of business. They’re the party of the rich, like the Democrats. When people say both parties are the same, this is what they’re talking about. Not the religion or social justice masks the parties try to hide behind.
It's pretty hard as an indicator to miss this, considering that it's one of the very rare times a government loudly and proudly declares it's going to intentionally cause a recession.
A lot of supporters of the trade restrictions don't care. They're working people who don't own a lot of stocks and all they've seen is their jobs sent overseas.
To them, it doesn't even matter if things get "worse" for a while. Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
> Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
Then they’ve failed to imagine how much more difficult their life will become under excessive tariffs.
It’s also eye-opening to watch so many people in my extended family and social network cheer on DOGE and tariffs right until they impact their own jobs. Lot of people out there didn’t connect the dots about how their own jobs were going to be impacted by tariffs.
29 replies →
It does matter if things get worse and it's very uncaring to say otherwise. The import taxes are going to make wealth inequality much worse and significantly hurt not just almost all American's but large swathes of the world too.
The unemployment rate is near historic lows. Apparently there’s plenty of jobs going round.
Not that that’s going to last if actual economic headwinds hit the economy.
1 reply →
Plenty of his supporters are SMB owners or people that work in trades/factories. This is not a revolution of the indigent. What these people don't realize is even if they make 200K a year and drive an 85K financed F-250, they are effectively in the same class as someone making 50K a year managing a Dollar General. These people have no class awareness and they voted in a representative of the ultra wealthy intent on pillaging our economy. Some may believe that Trump will usher in some era of economic prosperity but they are wrong.
On the other hand Trump will deliver on another, implicit promise to them, which is inflict pain and suffering on a great deal of people they dislike for whatever reason.
4 replies →
Agreed, Glenn Greenwald of all people had it pegged 8.5 years ago when Trump first won and with Brexit:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-... https://archive.ph/tfd39
I guess Vincent Bevins has the money quote:
> Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, who wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”
4 replies →
They don’t have to own stocks. If they like eating and buying household goods then this will affect them negatively. It will help very few people for a long time, even if it goes perfectly to plan.
I’d be extremely surprised if other countries meekly do what Trump wants. There are many options on the table, and change is more likely in a crisis.
> To them, it doesn't even matter if things get "worse" for a while. Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
Really? How do you even know that? You think another round of price hikes within the year is unimaginable, which what the economic consensus on immediate tariffs this high predicts?
The unemployment rate is 4%. The amount of liberation day tariff supporters is an order of magnitude higher than that. Pretending that things can't get worse is dangerous and stupid.
> Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable.
Yet.
Things can always get ~~worst~~ worse.
2 replies →
> A lot of supporters of the trade restrictions don't care. They're working people who don't own a lot of stocks and all they've seen is their jobs sent overseas
A lot of us were also in the market before the pandemic (aka before 4 years ago), so we remain in the green.
Personally, it's a win-win.
1. Based on past tariff action, the current tariffs will not be repealed by any future administration - there is plenty of harsh feelings amongst some of us Dems who were IRA adjacent to France and Germany's lobbying against the Green New Deal and calling it "protectionism".
2. This plus DOGE has caused short term pain as reflected in the NY by-elections leading to Stefanik's nomination to the UN being pulled.
3. Those of us with some sympathy for economic nationalism but don't caucus GOP have been vindicated, but have a messaging tool now as well.
4. We can finally take the UAW and ILA national leadership behind a shed and pull a metaphorical old yeller. There's no point trying to make peace with National when much of their local leadership leans GOP. Makes it easier to concentrate on AZ, NV, and GA - states where the demographic and union makeup is completely orthogonal to the UAW and ILA's cadre. Makes it easier to help the AFL-CIO as well.
5. Sullivan and Raimondo's doctrine has been vindicated. Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, Malaysia, and India have now been made much more cost competitive than China or transshipment via Vietnam or Thailand - either you reduce transshipment from China or your competitors in apparel, textiles, and electronics are subsidized. Vietnam already has sent their Dy PM to negotiate as we speak to reduce tariffs.
Europe also has no option but to diversify away from China as well. Either you fund a state selling intermediate parts to Russia in Ukraine, or start building domestic defense and industrial capabilities like that which existed before the 2000s (which they are now doing).
-----
Already, some of my peers from my previous life have started testing the waters for a Dem equivalent of the Tea Party. Lot of realignment coming in the next 2 election cycles.
2 replies →
> every economic headwind imaginable.
Freaking what? Are they food insecure? Facing a military onslaught. Come on.
19 replies →
> Their life is already meeting every economic headwind imaginable
Horseshit. The most fervent Trump supporters are upper-middle class professionals who are bored with their lives. Hence the frequent boat parades for Trump. It's why the huge, expensive trucks are the ones flying the Trump flags. And practically all of them have 401ks, which means they are at least indirectly invested in stocks.
1 reply →
sources? I can't find any Trump official that is claiming they are trying to intentionally cause a recession.
"minimum 10% tariff on all imported goods and materials" certainly sounds like a way to increase costs.
Increasing costs seems generally worse for an economy than decreasing costs.
I feel like most people could follow this logical chain of reasoning to a conclusion of "thus you have a elevated risk for an economic recession compared to the state of affairs before the tariffs."
I haven't announced I would post here therefore this post you are reading does not exist.
“WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!),” Trump said in a social media post. “BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china...
Or as Lord Farquaad put it: "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kaboom-elon-musk-predicts-...
They have been told many times and have stated that they accept that as a consequence.
Does he need to say the word recession? How direct does he need to be?
https://time.com/7266187/trump-recession-tariffs-us-economy-...
From five days before the election...
https://www.vox.com/politics/381637/elon-musk-donald-trump-2...
“If Trump succeeds in forcing through mass deportations, combined with Elon hacking away at the government, firing people and reducing the deficit - there will be an initial severe overreaction in the economy…Market will tumble. But when the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy.”
Musk replied, “Sounds about right.”
There's a theory going around that the administration wants to crash the market so they can buy everything up for cheap, in a similar way to what happened in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
At the same time though it seems like the current president has always been pro tariffs even though they are almost always bad for a economy, the reason why the admin is applying a lot more of them is because almost everyone left in the admin's circle is a yes men.
1 reply →
It's both an interesting and tragic phenomenon that seems much broader:
Plausibly, fashion is primarily about sex, especially at the ages when humans are most sexually active. And possibly changes in fashion are really second-order effects of changes in sex:
The most shocking thing, researched and reported but I don't think people grasp the significance, is that young adults are having much less sex.
Sex is among the most fundamental human drives. People can't stop themselves, which is why IMHO it gets such attempts to restrict it, by law and custom and shame, across time and place (to varying degrees). You can be sitting there, clearly knowing you shouldn't do it, and it can be very difficult to stop. All those efforts to stop people, by cultures, religions, governments, parents, etc. have widely failed - people still have pre-marital sex, commit adultry, get drunk and screw, hire prostitutes, watch porn, etc. (I'm not judging.)
Incredibly, now something has actually managed to significantly reduce sexual activity - and among people who are perfectly free to do it. Has that happened before in history (serious question)? Where/when/who is it now happening for and not happening? Speculating on why is perilous without evidence - imho it's just disinformation. But whatever the cause(s), it's a signal of something very serious.
Wearing plainer clothes is possibly just a follow-on effect.
Anecdotally it’s the triple whammy of depression/anxiety, social isolation, and scarcity/precarity.
The precariousness I think is more of a factor as the long term poor have still managed to survive historically. The randomness and changing social safety nets and possibility of needing to migrate to survive is probably a big factor.
It feels like we’re all bracing for the end of the world all the time.
Procreation (or lack of it) is voting “no candidate”. It’s the only control anyone has over their life today.
We were already in a deep recession for regular Americans starting in 2020. Double housing and transportation costs.
The market crash just spreads the pain to the investment class and retired boomers.
So, instead of striving for a better life, you are saying they took the approach if I'm going down I'm taking you with me?
Class warfare is as old as time. It's your mistake to wave aside human nature.
I got downvoted here the other day for saying Republicans are low-information voters.
My friends and countrymen: welcome to Trump's vision for the US. He is doing exactly what he said he would.
And honestly, you should have been downvoted for calling them "low-information" voters. Not only is it condescending, you simply discounted them for being part of the "other" party. Perhaps they are very informed - maybe much more than you regarding the deficit, the economy, their frustrations, etc.
It is great to have a spirited debate, but to call people derogatory names simply because they don't share your viewpoint is the wrong path to take.
Anyone who isn't afraid of woke can see certain voters were demonstrably taken in by transparent demagoguery. There are consequences to actions and beliefs, criticism can happen, people are sometimes wrong and we can acknowledge that without pearl-clutching. "Low information" is specific and actionable, unlike "stupid". Sometimes one decision was better than the other and we can only progress by understanding that, despite any hurt feelings. Sorry, no participation trophies today!
2 replies →
I think it is foolish to think that just because it was easy to tear something down, it will be easy to build it back up.
People are pissed off about the tanking economy and the brain-dead tariff approach, even though Trump said he was going to do this.
We know what tariffs do, it has been proven over and over again. What conclusion am I supposed to come to, after witnessing the predictable clown-show since January? We lost 5% today.