Jump to content

American companies that will benefit from tariffs?


Recommended Posts

Posted

These first few months must be Trump's kitchen sink quarter, right? Break it all in the transition phase, fix it once he's established?

 

At least that's my hope. In terms of what will break / how it will get 'fixed', that I am less certain.

 

To your point - Powell is going to stick to his mandate regardless. 

Trump knows this and is probably thinking, "OK - if you need a reason, I'll give you a reason".

And so yeah, if Trump goes and torpedoes employment, and can also reduce demand (i.e. reduce inflation), it will induce Powell to lower rates. Powell may drag his feet doing so, but I think he's committed to the playbook, regardless of who the President is.

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
3 hours ago, Fundmanagerthrwawy said:

Trump has now backtracked on both the Mexican and Canadian tariffs. Looks like he didn’t have balls to play the long game. Hopefully Canada and Mexico maintain their tariffs.

The tariffs for Canadian energy exports stay. Also the tariffs for USMCA covered goods are only delayed for a month. More drama to follow. I think in the end, the tariffs will be put in place.

 

Great stock market for traders.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The tariffs for Canadian energy exports stay. Also the tariffs for USMCA covered goods are only delayed for a month. More drama to follow. I think in the end, the tariffs will be put in place.

 

Great stock market for traders.

Possibly. I think, like his supporters, Trump is all bark. He'll claim this as a win though. 

Posted

This whole thing is much like it must have been, were you one of the major players in "The Big Short". Cannot see what will prevail, 'cause it has not happened yet;, therefore it will not. So when the pennies do eventually drop .....

 

Tesla shares are down 25% in 2 months, and vandalisation of anything Tesla is now a badge of honor. US foreign sales are down significantly since the last quarter, and all will start reporting in about another 9 weeks. How do you think that goes on the indexes? How do you think it goes if there are also tariff related layoffs all across the US, and some of them are sizeable? How does it go if Elons firings, also result in instances of delays in receiving benefits? 

 

The most effective way out of this is to burn down the bullys house, and we all know that Trump is thin skinned. One might be unable to speak out ..... but there are lots of ways by which one can discretely benefit should it not go well.

 

Very strange place ....

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Fundmanagerthrwawy said:

Possibly. I think, like his supporters, Trump is all bark. He'll claim this as a win though. 

 

Roy Cohn approves this message.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.f655000d908a6fce9b8121ae4d213ce9.jpeg

Edited by DooDiligence
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Trump is not all bark. He is grander plans this time.

 

Totally agree - Trump is going for it this time.....his grand unifying theory of the world has been consistent and unchanging since at least the mid-1980's and this is his last chance to make it happen.

 

I think it gets lost on people who think he's somehow all over the map on trade and international relations.....far from it. 

 

Trump developed an idea of the world in the early 1980's and it hasn't changed an iota since.

 

See Sept, 1987 NY Times Ad below that he took out (it could have been written yesterday.

 

Note that he’s always been a kind fatalist doomsayer around where the US is headed….1987 Donald ex-ante was clearly wrong on America’s economic prospects…perhaps he’s right this time 🤷‍♂️ 

 

image.thumb.png.9e0841a09a0aaf425c8d80765a06f543.png


 

Edited by changegonnacome
Posted
17 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Pay for protection sound to me like….

Is this such a bad idea? I hate the way it’s getting rolled out, but is the underlying theory flawed? Especially when we are running a 7% deficit, no one wants to cut social security, Medicare, or military spending. And the top 25% already pays about 90% of federal income tax and the majority of consumer spending. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

Is this such a bad idea? I hate the way it’s getting rolled out, but is the underlying theory flawed? Especially when we are running a 7% deficit, no one wants to cut social security, Medicare, or military spending. And the top 25% already pays about 90% of federal income tax and the majority of consumer spending. 

Yup. But again, we re dealing with a macro situation where people can’t even applaud a 13 year old cancer survivor because they’re too caught up in tribal thinking. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Lion said:

Is this such a bad idea? I hate the way it’s getting rolled out, but is the underlying theory flawed? Especially when we are running a 7% deficit, no one wants to cut social security, Medicare, or military spending. And the top 25% already pays about 90% of federal income tax and the majority of consumer spending. 

I agree but people under rate how important the “getting rolled out” is. Sometimes the execution is more important than the idea and while dems are being tribal republicans are being equally tribal by not questioning the execution which could bring the real demise

Edited by tnathan
Posted
2 minutes ago, tnathan said:

I agree but people under rate how important the “getting rolled out” is. Sometimes the execution is more important than the idea and while dems are being tribal republicans are being equally tribal by not questioning the execution which could bring the real demise

The issue comes down to

 

 Critics(right now)- objecting, obstructing, complaining, critiquing because “something” is being done. 
 

Critics(when their guy or people are in office)- do nothing and let the beast grow…

 

So sorry, I’ll take my chances with this experiment versus what the critics have enabled and allowed to happen. They coulda tried it their way, since they now seem to have all the answers, when they had control, but they weren’t interested in fixing anything then.

Posted

Like a few weeks ago Chuck Schumer posts something about how “we all know there’s waste that needs to be cleaned up, but this isn’t the right way”….well Chuckie, you’ve been here for what? 3-4 decades? You’ve had your chance for the input, we don’t care what you have to say anymore because you’re clearly part of the problem and now just looking to obstruct.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Red Lion said:


If you tossed cannabis and highly processed food in the mix this would probably have significant budget and public health benefits as well. 

 

I think you're onto something. We could single handedly revive Jack in the Box. They might need a liquor license though.

Edited by DooDiligence
Posted
40 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Like a few weeks ago Chuck Schumer posts something about how “we all know there’s waste that needs to be cleaned up, but this isn’t the right way”….well Chuckie, you’ve been here for what? 3-4 decades? You’ve had your chance for the input, we don’t care what you have to say anymore because you’re clearly part of the problem and now just looking to obstruct.

Like I agree with you. But you can hold two truths in your head at the same time ... (1) The dems (and frankly repubs for decades too) haven't done enough to cut / hold back government spending over the past decades and we need to do something about this (2) There are more effective ways of doing this than taking an axe to things that might actually be helpful and seriously jeopardizing alliances that took 100 years to build

Posted

I reject the premise - frankly it's not clear to me that government spending has grown "too much".

The only halfway developed countries with less gov't spending are...Mexico and India.

 

We are on par with Trump's favorites: Russia and China. 

And we do that with a military budget dwarfing everyone else - defending the free world (or at least, we did)

 

I mean, what is the alteriative suggestion? That we regress towards the model of Africa and spend 10% of GDP?

 

image.thumb.png.9c5b21accbb2d5f53a777dcfa3a6b4d4.png

Posted

I reject the premise - frankly it's not clear to me that government spending has grown "too much".

Below map shows gov't spending as a % of GDP.

The only halfway developed countries with less gov't spending are...Mexico and India.

 

We are on par with Trump's favorites: Russia and China. 

And we do that with a military budget dwarfing everyone else - defending the free world (or at least, we did)

 

I mean, what is the alteriative suggestion? That we regress towards the model of Africa and spend 10% of GDP?

 

image.thumb.png.9c5b21accbb2d5f53a777dcfa3a6b4d4.png

Posted

I really don’t have that much of a problem with defense spending. But all these agencies and organizations domestically? I don’t care what other countries are doing, we don’t need them prying into our lives here. Most have become de facto lobbyist organizations anyway. Like what good has the Department of Education or Energy done over the last 2 decades? 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...