Political Posts

[cubsfan]

10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion Cubs.

 

You too @Buckeye Have a great weekend.

[no_free_lunch]

Just now, cubsfan said:

 

I think we're going to go through a rough period.

 

It would have been far worse under Kamala Harris and a continuation of a socialist leaning administration. Civil liberties - in the shitter. Prosecute your political opponents - until you jail them. Censor Free Speech - guaranteed. Parents rights - continue to erode. Endless wars with absolutely no plan - feed the meatgrinder in Ukraine - millions dead. Lunatic universities pesecuting Jews and Conservatives - more of the same. 

 

The alternative was the direction of the country.  Now we have a legitimate chance to reverse ALL of this.

 

On the economy - whoever inherited this mess was sure to get torched. Kamala campaigned on wealth taxes, large tax increases, and bigger, bigger, bigger government. Endless government to adjudicate just about everything.  

 

 

Agree.  We have been talking for over a decade that the US market is way overpriced, or at least parts of it.  There will be opportunities ahead, just as long as we do not panic.   As a Canadian I am a bit worried but thats a separate thing, I think the US will do great.  There is going to be a huge domestic investment boom, it has already started but most are ignoring it for political reasons.

[Ulti]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-roots-of-trumps-global-trade-war-with-martin-wolf/id1038108799?i=1000701917432
 

Podcast is from 4-2. Martin wolf is the FT  chief economics commentator . He discusses, among other topics, that the trade imbalances with other countries ,that the US is targeting, is no accident.

 

 

[dwy000]

9 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Agree.  We have been talking for over a decade that the US market is way overpriced, or at least parts of it.  There will be opportunities ahead, just as long as we do not panic.   As a Canadian I am a bit worried but thats a separate thing, I think the US will do great.  There is going to be a huge domestic investment boom, it has already started but most are ignoring it for political reasons.

Domestic investment boom?  What's that based on?  The idea that companies are going to spend billions to onshore manufacturing of cheap goods due to tariffs that are likely to change on a daily basis is a tough premise.  If anything, I think investment will stagnate for a while until there is more stability and certainty of outlook.  If you're say, a homebuilder, do you just pay up for imported goods and hope it works out or do you pause for a while to see if tariffs get changed or dropped?  

 

Of course if you're Canadian that may be more realistic as they onshore stuff purchased from the US. 

Edited April 6, 2025 by dwy000

[Spekulatius]

6 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

If memory serves, Trump had a first term.  Might have to check with some sources but we survived and prospered.

Trump 2.0 and Trump 1.0 are completely different . Prior experience does not apply. 

[Mephistopheles]

So are the tarrifs a negotiating tactic or are they meant to create American jobs?

[dwy000]

9 minutes ago, Mephistopheles said:

So are the tarrifs a negotiating tactic or are they meant to create American jobs?

A negotiating tactic to get what?  Canada had free trade.  Mexico had free trade.  EU was fairly close to free trade.  China had targeted tariffs.  What exactly is the end game?

[73 Reds]

9 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Trump 2.0 and Trump 1.0 are completely different . Prior experience does not apply. 

Nah, same guy, same aspirations.  The beauty of what we created is he can't go too far even if that is his intent.  The pendulum doesn't allow for it.  Thanks to social media, 24/7 non-news and a lot of conspiracy theorists reality sometimes takes time to set in.  How often are initial reactions (to nearly everything) completely wrong?  Or only right for as long as it takes to take a bow.  Put in proper perspective, this is far less threatening than pandemics, military conflicts or even typical economic woes that happen because of extended periods of speculation, overindulgence, or bad monetary policy.  The US has far greater issues to be concerned with, starting with a lost 10+ years of college grads that have been so greatly indoctrinated into counterproductive thinking that I wouldn't hire any of them unless they demonstrate an ability to overcome having been brainwashed.             

[dwy000]

20 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Nah, same guy, same aspirations.  The beauty of what we created is he can't go too far even if that is his intent.  The pendulum doesn't allow for it.  Thanks to social media, 24/7 non-news and a lot of conspiracy theorists reality sometimes takes time to set in.  How often are initial reactions (to nearly everything) completely wrong?  Or only right for as long as it takes to take a bow.  Put in proper perspective, this is far less threatening than pandemics, military conflicts or even typical economic woes that happen because of extended periods of speculation, overindulgence, or bad monetary policy.  The US has far greater issues to be concerned with, starting with a lost 10+ years of college grads that have been so greatly indoctrinated into counterproductive thinking that I wouldn't hire any of them unless they demonstrate an ability to overcome having been brainwashed.             

How do the massive tariffs help achieve this?

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

How do the massive tariffs help achieve this?

Classic Trump.  Opening salvo.  Even for Trump haters, how is it that anyone can believe that we're done and moving on.   

[LC]

Trump tariffs in a nutshell: short-term thinking that destroys long-term American assets.

 

Trump administration orders half of national forests open for logging

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/05/trump-administration-orders-half-national-forests-open-logging/

 

And as a bonus, it comes with the standard Trump-rationale: high-school level thinking which experts dispute:

Rollins added that, of the land that fell under the directive, almost 67 million acres were determined to be at a “very high” or “high” wildfire risk, and almost 79 million acres were experiencing “declining forest health” from insects and disease.

But forestry experts often suggest the removal of undergrowth that doesn’t yield timber, and they warned during similar efforts in Trump’s first term that you can’t log your way out of fire danger...Removing large, fire-resistant trees also gives way to young trees that are more susceptible to fires.

 

In other words, this does nothing to prevent forest fires (only YOU can do that!)
It will serve to destroy a long-lived asset
And it is only 'necessary' because of value-destructive tariffs on lumber producing (ex-)partners

[dwy000]

Ok. Opening salvo to what?  Whats the end game?  We literally had free trade with Canada and Mexico and nearly free trade with most of the rest of the world.  What is the end game that justifies the chaos, turmoil and economic pain at home?

[cubsfan]

6 minutes ago, LC said:

Trump tariffs in a nutshell: short-term thinking that destroys long-term American assets.

 

Trump administration orders half of national forests open for logging

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/05/trump-administration-orders-half-national-forests-open-logging/

 

And as a bonus, it comes with the standard Trump-rationale: high-school level thinking which experts dispute:

Rollins added that, of the land that fell under the directive, almost 67 million acres were determined to be at a “very high” or “high” wildfire risk, and almost 79 million acres were experiencing “declining forest health” from insects and disease.

But forestry experts often suggest the removal of undergrowth that doesn’t yield timber, and they warned during similar efforts in Trump’s first term that you can’t log your way out of fire danger...Removing large, fire-resistant trees also gives way to young trees that are more susceptible to fires.

 

In other words, this does nothing to prevent forest fires (only YOU can do that!)
It will serve to destroy a long-lived asset
And it is only 'necessary' because of value-destructive tariffs on lumber producing (ex-)partners

 

Oh here we go. I must be listening to AOC again - we don't have enough trees.

[Sweet]

12 minutes ago, LC said:

Trump tariffs in a nutshell: short-term thinking that destroys long-term American assets.

 

Trump administration orders half of national forests open for logging

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/05/trump-administration-orders-half-national-forests-open-logging/

 

And as a bonus, it comes with the standard Trump-rationale: high-school level thinking which experts dispute:

Rollins added that, of the land that fell under the directive, almost 67 million acres were determined to be at a “very high” or “high” wildfire risk, and almost 79 million acres were experiencing “declining forest health” from insects and disease.

But forestry experts often suggest the removal of undergrowth that doesn’t yield timber, and they warned during similar efforts in Trump’s first term that you can’t log your way out of fire danger...Removing large, fire-resistant trees also gives way to young trees that are more susceptible to fires.

 

In other words, this does nothing to prevent forest fires (only YOU can do that!)
It will serve to destroy a long-lived asset
And it is only 'necessary' because of value-destructive tariffs on lumber producing (ex-)partners

I live in an area where there is little forest cover.  One thing I always notice and appreciate about the US is the amount of wildlife and trees there are.  Terrible to lose that.  

[Spekulatius]

52 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Nah, same guy, same aspirations.  The beauty of what we created is he can't go too far even if that is his intent.  The pendulum doesn't allow for it.  Thanks to social media, 24/7 non-news and a lot of conspiracy theorists reality sometimes takes time to set in.  How often are initial reactions (to nearly everything) completely wrong?  Or only right for as long as it takes to take a bow.  Put in proper perspective, this is far less threatening than pandemics, military conflicts or even typical economic woes that happen because of extended periods of speculation, overindulgence, or bad monetary policy.  The US has far greater issues to be concerned with, starting with a lost 10+ years of college grads that have been so greatly indoctrinated into counterproductive thinking that I wouldn't hire any of them unless they demonstrate an ability to overcome having been brainwashed.             

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.

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

I think there is something to it. I think Trump’s current proposed tariff rates are too high, but something close to 10% for most makes sense for a while. A consumption tax partly paid for by foreigners

 

And China probably deserves much higher rates than everyone else thanks to Xi, their persistent manipulation of currency/IP theft/and many other such abuses they’ve gotten away with over the years.

Edited April 6, 2025 by Dalal.Holdings

[Spekulatius]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

I live in an area where there is little forest cover.  One thing I always notice and appreciate about the US is the amount of wildlife and trees there are.  Terrible to lose that.  

We’ll, Trump put higher tariffs on Canadian lumber, so I guess the thinking is that we can just cut our own instead.

[Spekulatius]

2 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

 

 

He talks about 10% tariffs  but what Trump has enacted is way higher than that. That interview was from January. He probably has a massively different viewpoint right now.

[dwy000]

5 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

 

 

So again, what's the end game?  Because while Druckenmiller is saying this, nobody in the administration is saying this.  And this supposes a policy that will survive Trump. Also it assumes no retaliation. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Just now, Spekulatius said:

He talks about 10% tariffs  but what Trump has enacted is way higher than that. That interview was from January. He probably has a massively different viewpoint right now.

Yes as I edited I think Trump’s proposed rates are way too high. I do think China deserves much higher rates though and we should work on decoupling from china over the long term as long as Xi and the current CCP regime is in place.

[Gregmal]

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?

[Sweet]

10 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

I think there is something to it. I think Trump’s current proposed tariff rates are too high, but something close to 10% for most makes sense for a while. A consumption tax partly paid for by foreigners

 

And China probably deserves much higher rates than everyone else thanks to Xi, their persistent manipulation of currency/IP theft/and many other such abuses they’ve gotten away with over the years.

Druck was so pissed off at the editing that he logged into to post this:

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

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.

[dwy000]

1 minute 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?

While you may joke, without an actual explanation that anyone with any credibility can explain to the public, it really does just look stupid.

 

If you want people to understand why they're being asked to suffer with higher prices and economic turmoil they need an explanation of how it benefits America.  And that hasn't been done 

[Dalal.Holdings]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

Druck was so pissed off at the editing that he logged into to post this:

 

 

Lol, didn’t see that. I do think the endgame of this administration is lowering the rates towards 10% for countries for “good behavior” (UK starts there).

I don’t think China will get down to 10% during this administration though…