Political Posts

[Blake Hampton]

I don’t personally think people are scared enough yet.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Just now, Blake Hampton said:

I don’t personally think people are scared enough yet.

 

It will take time to break the "buy the dip" habit

[Blake Hampton]

Oil broke $60.

[Gregmal]

VIX is already near 50. That a pretty definitive indicator that a lot of people are quite scared. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

People might be shocked to learn how little this administration cares about the stock market... 

 

Quote

 

The top 10% of Americans own 88% of equities—88% of the stock market. The next 40% owns 12% of the stock market. The bottom 50% has debt.
 

 

This administration doesn't care much about that top 10%. That's why they are bragging about bringing oil prices down. I guess in that respect, they resemble Bernie Sanders. 

 

Amazing because a lot of foreigners have piled into U.S. stocks as well lately

 

Edited April 6, 2025 by Dalal.Holdings

[Blake Hampton]

14 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

VIX is already near 50. That a pretty definitive indicator that a lot of people are quite scared.

We will see.

[Parsad]

50 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

That’s wrong. Ships are highly critical for national defense and take decades to build out infrastructure to create a viable shipbuilding industry.
 

China has replicated U.S. AI capabilities overnight with Deepseek without free access to Nvidia GPUs. Whatever edge U.S. companies seemingly had with AI evaporated overnight.

 

Technology is easily replicable for China as it has shown with stolen IP over and over again.

 

Building ships, tanks, etc from the raw materials and layers and layers of supply chains (“the machine that builds the machine”) is not something that can be done overnight. Once a country loses the ability to do something like that, it becomes near impossible to regain it, especially in times of crisis and war.

 

 

 

 

Take a look at the market capitalization of the top 5 technology companies globally and the profits they make...all American and they gross about a third of California's total GDP.  With that type of money, you can buy all the ships you want.  

 

Future wars won't be fought on the seas...they'll be fought by cyberattacks, drones, robots, missiles, etc.  As long as the U.S. has enough ships to cut off key shipping lanes, which they do, then they are good.  

 

Rather than worry about ship-building, they are better off just buying the Panama Canal or increasing their position in Greenland...as they are doing.  As well as hammering China by tariffs.  They just have to be careful about outlier events from these changes in policy.

 

Cheers!

[Castanza]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

You have too much trust in checks and balances that Trump tries to bulldoze over. Given the lack of resistance so far has emboldened him to push the envelope much further than deemed possible.

I agree Trump 2.0 is a different guy and the checks and balances have been under threat since Clinton. Presidential powers have been growing rapidly and executive orders and politicization of the judiciary are threats to the checks and balances. 
 

Bruce Ackerman touched in this topic in 2010 in his book “The Decline and Fall of The American Republic” 

 

 

“The system is also promoting different personality types to the White House. Nominees of major parties are no longer absolutely required to convince a broad range of senior politicians of their fitness for the job. While establishment support is generally an asset, the winning candidate may owe his presidency more to the media consultants and movement activists who've sustained his momentum throughout his lengthy presidential campaign. Charisma, counts more. Season judgment counts less. A career of political achievement is always nice, but a successful career in the movies or television may be even better.”

Predictions:

 

“I predict that one, the evolving system of presidential nominations will lead to the election of an increasing number of charismatic outsider types who gain office by mobilizing activist support for extremist programs of the left or the right. Two, all presidents, whether extremists or mainstream, will rely on media consultants to design streams of sound bites aimed at narrowly segmented micro-publics, generating a politics of unreason that will often dominate public debate. Three, they will increasingly govern through their White House staff of super loyalists, issuing executive orders that their staffers will impose on the federal bureaucracy even when they conflict with congressional mandates. Four, they will engage with an increasingly politicized military in ways that may greatly expand their effective power to put their executive orders into force throughout the nation. Five, they will legitimate their unilateral actions through an expansive use of emergency powers. Six, and assert mandates from the people, in quotes, to evade or ignore congressional statutes when public opinion polls support decisive action.

And seven, they will rely on elite lawyers in the executive branch to write up learned opinions that vindicate the constitutionality of their most blatant power grabs. These opinions will publicly rubber-stamp presidential actions months or years before the Supreme Court gets into the act, and they will generate heated debate amongst the broader legal community. With the profession divided, and the president's media machine generating a groundswell of support for his power grab, the Supreme Court may find it prudent to stage a strategic retreat, allowing the president to displace Congress and use his bureaucracy and military authority to establish a new regime of law and order.”

 

I’d say he’s getting pretty close with those estimates. And if it’s not Trump, the trajectory is the same. No system is perfect and there are always cracks. I think a lot of people have gotten killed into the “American will always be too dog” mindset. Maybe for a long time that will be true…..but history isn’t kind to those opinions. 

[Gregmal]

40 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

We will see.

It’s not really a we ll see thing. Historically there’s been very few times VIX has approached these levels.

[Ghost]

On 4/5/2025 at 4:55 PM, cubsfan said:

 

It's so interesting that you think you know everything about me.

 

In my younger days, I considered myself quite liberal, although I always believe in hard work and accountability.  Until about 15 years ago - I NEVER cared about politics.

 

In the 90's I voted Clinton for his 2nd term. Thought he was an very good President although he was a snake. Ok, good President, but flawed. Can't win them all.

 

In 2008 I was heads & tails over Obama - such a wonderful speaker with a great heart, that was all about "we are all Americans".  Wow, 3 years after electing him - he turned into the most divisive President I remember. All identity politics. All about racial inequality.  I couldn't believe it, but he did what he needed to do after the disastrous 2010 mid-terms where he lost tremendous support in the house, senate and local elections. 

 

In 2016, I didn't vote, cause I was disgusted with Hillary and Benghazi. I could not stand Trump

since I thought like most here: he's in it for himself. He's not a serious person.  6 months into his first term - I was totally sold. He did what he said he would do. He was about the forgotten working class. His methods are crude - and like Clinton - he's a flawed individual. He's definitely a fighter, which the RINO's have never had the courage to take the fight to the other party.

 

I think he'll be a historic figure. So I did a total 180 on Trump, and a few of my buddies still remind me about 2016 and how wrong I was. It doesn't matter to me - I want what's best for the country.

 

You want to talk about Fox news, whatever - I could give a shit.

 

The truth is, in 2016, the media made me hate Trump totally. 

Only his actions could change my opinion.

 

But actions mean something. Obama talked an awesome game - It's just he did not possess the moral courage to make the country better - he made it WORSE in terms of race relations.

 

Obama blew a totally golden opportunity to become one of the greatest Presidents in USA history.

He had it ALL teed up. The country adored him. Barrack took the easy way out - and ushered in the most divisive politics in my generation - and good old Joe from Scranton gave him his 3rd term.

 

WHAATT!!!.   That has to be the biggest unexpected comment ever.. Cubsfan supported Obama and Clinton and hated Trump...hot damn...didn't see that coming.  

Well done Cubsfan for being open minded.

 

As I have said before I don't agree with many of Mr. Trump's policies, but he is getting a heck of a lot done in just a few months  (for better or worse)

 

[alpha]

1 hour ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

It will take time to break the "buy the dip" habit

 

Quote

Retail investors bought $4.7 billion in stocks on Thursday, the highest level over the past decade, JPMorgan (JPM.N), opens new tab said in a note on Friday.

 

Retail investors don't seem to be scared yet!

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/retail-bought-stocks-largest-level-over-past-decade-jpmorgan-says-2025-04-04/

[Jaygo]

3 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

It’s always funny hearing economists say all Tariffs are bad and all free trade is good. They never consider the tails for one: if the U.S. can’t build ships anymore. If China manipulates its currency and engages in massive subsidizing of its export industries.

 

You almost never hear economists, pundits, etc talk about these manipulations that China has engaged in everyday for the last 2-3 decades.

 

The US cant build ships anymore because of many things and none of them are China related. Americans are great at building things that are profitable until they find out they can make more profit by getting others to do it for them. Sadly the best and brightest go towards making the most profit and that happens to be financialization of everything and they love making fun of the Europoors who actually build amazing stuff. Spain, known for beautiful women, sandy beaches, old churches and Iberian ham makes a better car for its domestic market than any sub 50k American cars ive been in. Why? Because SEAT prides itself in quality and a fair price VS 3$ dollars X 200,000 axles means I can spend more at Ricks with the big boss next Q. 

 

These tariffs are are brilliant in many ways because it may just get everyone head of of their asses.

 

Adam Smith said that if two countries can trade their expertise they will both benefit. He never said get your adversarial trading partners to build your bullets for you if you so you can make an extra penny. American corporations sold out the American people, it has nothing to do with China, Canada or Cambodia. 

 

 

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

 

WHAATT!!!.   That has to be the biggest unexpected comment ever.. Cubsfan supported Obama and Clinton and hated Trump...hot damn...didn't see that coming.  

Well done Cubsfan for being open minded.

 

As I have said before I don't agree with many of Mr. Trump's policies, but he is getting a heck of a lot done in just a few months  (for better or worse)

 

 

Hahaha - That's good. You'll be happy to know I gave up my Klan membership too.

[Jaygo]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

With that type of money, you can buy all the ships you want. 

 

That's where the problem lies. Money doesn't talk so loud during a conflict. Nobody needs Google in Cold war 2 or WW3. Amazon on the other hand would be highly valuable as they are the logistics masters. If there was a hot war with China the USA would start running out of material pretty quick.

 

China can out manufacture almost every country on earth combined. The only way the US could hope to reach that ability is through a long, painful road to rearmament by onshoring all production to the Americas and get Canada and Mexico digging and assembling and the central Americans making the cheap shit like textiles. 

 

I have a deep seated fear this may be the play here and not just Trump being a twat.

 

The above fear is is not my expectation as I believe China is far more rational, peaceful and just wants to keep the populace busy enough not to revolt.

 

 

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

If he believes this, he's fully gone off the deep end

[lnofeisone]

4 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Why are you guys so confused? I thought you all had it figured out. Trump, and Musk, and Lutnick, and Bessent, et al are just stooooopid, and the tariffs are just stoooopid 1d level thinking and there’s nothing more to it. Why keep struggling to “figure it out”. Thought you guys already knew it all?

We already know that Trump, Musk, Lutnick, and Bessent lack the academic rigor to correctly compute tariffs and consulting support to put them in a logically structured table. 

 

Has this trio (Musk - who accomplished very little of his state goal by way of DOGE - is on his way out and will probably lay low for a while) expressed what they are trying to accomplish? Or by them revealing it, they will show their hand, and they can't do it? Be serious, Greg. We are about to experience 15% market losses in 3 days. If this were Biden, you'd be one of the first to proclaim his stupidity and need for transparency. I've read so many of your posts on market ruthlessness in the face of dumb management moves. But now, with markets selling off, your carte blanche-"they got a game plan and they are playing more than 1D chess"- is surprising from someone (you) who reads the room incredibly well. 

[lnofeisone]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

 

WHAATT!!!.   That has to be the biggest unexpected comment ever.. Cubsfan supported Obama and Clinton and hated Trump...hot damn...didn't see that coming.  

Well done Cubsfan for being open minded.

 

As I have said before I don't agree with many of Mr. Trump's policies, but he is getting a heck of a lot done in just a few months  (for better or worse)

 

Damn @cubsfan - you voted more liberal than me. I still think Trump 1.0 and 2.0 are idiots. Yes, he is getting "a lot" done, but so little of it is of any value, and most of it will either be detrimental or reversed. What's worse, when Dems retake the Senate or the House and the executive branch, they will push so hard left. It will be impossible to do any business....like it is right now. The reason will be different, but the outcome will be the same. 

[nwoodman]

4 hours ago, dwy000 said:

I didnt watch all the way through but this was like having a consultant talk to you.  Tons of talking with lots of buzzwords and absolutely nothing of substance. 

 

His argument for tariffs is the "reindustrialization of America" and saying that trade policy isn't fair.  Nobody is investing hundreds of $bns to reindustrialize based on policy that will change in 3 years, 3 months or 3 weeks. And do we really want to manufacture shoes and t-shirts instead of putting that investment into software, AI, health and quantum computing?

 

And he ties it to the tax cuts. So effectively we are putting a consumption tax in place to fund income tax cuts. What was that about benefitting the middle class again?

 

Punishing American consumers for decades of other countries feeding our addiction to cheap goods is not a long term fix 

I am not saying it is great policy its just coming from the author it seemed semi rational. I came at this from a perspective it was completely nuts and have been working up from that point.  

 

I can see a scenario if there was some clever considered participants it could be accomplished but this is a matter of expediency.  Hence the markets shitting  dual bricks of economic knock ons and governance.  Its worth ranking against the alternatives and its obvious its a timeframe decision:

 

 

 

[gary17]

Sorry if this has already asked, but I was wondering if the tariffs are charged on the cost of the product or the MSRP of a product ….for example if an iPhone cost $500 and retail for $2000 is the 25% car charged on the $500 or the $2000? 

[Gregmal]

25 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

We already know that Trump, Musk, Lutnick, and Bessent lack the academic rigor to correctly compute tariffs and consulting support to put them in a logically structured table. 

 

Has this trio (Musk - who accomplished very little of his state goal by way of DOGE - is on his way out and will probably lay low for a while) expressed what they are trying to accomplish? Or by them revealing it, they will show their hand, and they can't do it? Be serious, Greg. We are about to experience 15% market losses in 3 days. If this were Biden, you'd be one of the first to proclaim his stupidity and need for transparency. I've read so many of your posts on market ruthlessness in the face of dumb management moves. But now, with markets selling off, your carte blanche-"they got a game plan and they are playing more than 1D chess"- is surprising from someone (you) who reads the room incredibly well. 

I’m no fan of the tariffs as I’ve said before. What Trump is doing is just as reckless as what Powell did two years ago. They both thought they were being heroes and both situations ultimately come to pass, but they’re playing games with peoples lives which is shitty.
 

The tone from the WH about people near retirement not caring is total BS as well. Same tonedeafness as Jerry’s “there will be pain” speech and cavalier attitude towards job losses. Powell cost people their jobs and now Trump is gonna too. Trump is citing deficits which we all agree need to be addressed, and Jerry cited a “mandate” even though he didn’t seem to understand the cause of any of it. 
 

But what are we gonna do? All I know how to do is make money off the table that’s set for us. Just have to embrace the chaos that these egomaniacs create.

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, gary17 said:

Sorry if this has already asked, but I was wondering if the tariffs are charged on the cost of the product or the MSRP of a product ….for example if an iPhone cost $500 and retail for $2000 is the 25% car charged on the $500 or the $2000? 

Cost 

[gfp]

3 minutes ago, gary17 said:

Sorry if this has already asked, but I was wondering if the tariffs are charged on the cost of the product or the MSRP of a product ….for example if an iPhone cost $500 and retail for $2000 is the 25% car charged on the $500 or the $2000? 

 

As I understand it, sort of neither.  The tariff is charged to the importer on the declared value of the goods.  Essentially that is the "wholesale" value, not the manufacturer's cost ($500 in your example) or the retail MSRP ($2000 in your example).  Apple could import iPhones to a US entity that paid a wholesale price and distributed the products to carriers, Best Buy, and Apple's own retail operation.  I think Apple ultimately gets a carve out here and I think quite a few of the numbers in the famous chart Trump brought out to the rose garden will not be the actual numbers.  We'll see!

[lnofeisone]

8 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I’m no fan of the tariffs as I’ve said before. What Trump is doing is just as reckless as what Powell did two years ago. They both thought they were being heroes and both situations ultimately come to pass, but they’re playing games with peoples lives which is shitty.
 

The tone from the WH about people near retirement not caring is total BS as well. Same tonedeafness as Jerry’s “there will be pain” speech and cavalier attitude towards job losses. Powell cost people their jobs and now Trump is gonna too. Trump is citing deficits which we all agree need to be addressed, and Jerry cited a “mandate” even though he didn’t seem to understand the cause of any of it. 
 

But what are we gonna do? All I know how to do is make money off the table that’s set for us. Just have to embrace the chaos that these egomaniacs create.

Ok. We agree on both points here. Going to be a wild ride for sure. 

[lnofeisone]

13 minutes ago, gary17 said:

Sorry if this has already asked, but I was wondering if the tariffs are charged on the cost of the product or the MSRP of a product ….for example if an iPhone cost $500 and retail for $2000 is the 25% car charged on the $500 or the $2000? 

It's cost + shipping + importer markup. There are also numerous games available to play. Look up Nike's EU dispute on how they valued the cost. Nike's probably one of the best when it comes to tax and tariff navigation. 

[backtothebeach]

6 minutes ago, gfp said:

As I understand it, sort of neither.  The tariff is charged to the importer on the declared value of the goods.  Essentially that is the "wholesale" value, not the manufacturer's cost ($500 in your example) or the retail MSRP ($2000 in your example).  Apple could import iPhones to a US entity that paid a wholesale price and distributed the products to carriers, Best Buy, and Apple's own retail operation.  I think Apple ultimately gets a carve out here and I think quite a few of the numbers in the famous chart Trump brought out to the rose garden will not be the actual numbers.  We'll see!

Reminds me of all these Shark Tank products, that cost $20 retail in the US, and when asked what their landed cost is, they say $2.57. At 10% tariff on imports does definitely not translate into a 10% price hike for the end consumer.