patrick.net

He didn't even do the primary,

WookieMan says

He didn't even do the primary,

WTF are you talking about?

He was on all of them. Only lost in two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

I hope Trump can show for 2025 that the deficit is not greater than $1.9 trillion as it would be the first time since 2000 that the deficit did not increase (adjusted for inflation).

It is accomplished.

55% Tariffs on CHYna, 10% on us.

This means nothing, they can still undercut us even at 55% and nothing about all the IP they steal. They are playing long game.
This will not change the trade deficit at all.

This means nothing, they can still undercut us even at 55% and nothing about all the IP they steal. They are playing long game.

Canada dumps their plans for a Digital Services Tax hours after Trump threatens tariff response.

So much for ‘TACO.’ The New York Times ran a story this morning headlined, White House to Start Notifying Countries About Tariffs, Trump Says. The 90 day pause is up. Countries that haven’t made deals yet will find out today what the next phase looks like.

President Trump said early this morning that he is set to resume the tariffs that he initially imposed in April on dozens of countries, before he’d paused them for three months to allow time to negotiate individual deals. The 90 day hiatus runs out this Wednesday.

“So we’re going to start sending letters out to various countries starting tomorrow,” Trump said yesterday, right after the OBBBA passed. “They’ll range from maybe 60 or 70 percent tariffs to 10 and 20 percent tariffs.”

Some countries, like China, Britain, and Vietnam, have already made deals. “Talks with other world leaders,” the Times reported, “have so far yielded little, despite efforts from Japan, Malaysia, India and the European Union.”

Trump said tariffs would generate revenue. He said the U.S. could weaponize its trade imbalance. He said deficits weren’t permanent. He said we could balance the budget despite dire predictions about the budget-busting OBBBA. But the arrogant experts laughed and laughed, the journalists skeptically scoffed, Democrats sneered and scolded, invoking inflation apocalypse, but now —unexpectedly!— the Treasury’s running a surplus. ...

Haha, the New York Times couldn’t bring itself to report the news at all. Instead, it warned that the markets are getting dangerously over-optimistic. We need more pessimism, they say...

Instead of reporting on Trump’s historic, tariff-fueled budget surplus, Eeyore and the New York Times are warning darkly about too much winning. Not collapse— prosperity panic. The new concern is that investors are responding too positively to Trump’s economic wins. That the real problem is: optimism. “This dynamic,” the Times gloomily reported, “is still emblematic of a market that is starting to get carried away with itself.”

“Don’t get too excited,” the Times sniggered.

For years, the expert class smirked —loudly and repeatedly— at the very idea that tariffs could possibly generate any meaningful revenue, let alone contribute to a budget surplus. Their line was consistent: tariffs are taxes on consumers, not tools of statecraft. They claimed tariffs would simply be passed along to U.S. buyers, hurt American manufacturers, and net no real fiscal benefit.

Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, the D.C. think tank crowd, and even a handful of Republican budget hawks, all lined up to dismiss the idea as “economically illiterate,” “19th-century isolationist thinking,” or just “Trumpian delusion.” ...

They wouldn’t listen. They didn’t believe. And now they’re afraid it’s working too well. Oh, corporate media, what would we do for entertainment without you? ...

https://x.com/loganclarkhall/status/1943857444326654220




... Tucker linked tariffs to ‘surprising’ budget surpluses, ‘unexpected’ job gains, and falling prices that defy gloomy tariff predictions. "Japanese automakers announced this week that they are slashing auto prices for imports coming into the United States,” Tucker explained, “because of the tariffs and the money that the tariffs brought into the United States."

Listen to the whole thing. You’ll love it.

and falling prices

Tariffs that the exporters don't eat actually cause demand destruction, which is disinflationary.

If tariffs work then stocks have to go down, no? Less profit if companies eat tariffs

Only for companies which produce in China and similar places.

Stocks of companies which produce in the US should do fine, or even go up as a result of less competition.

Bd6r says

If tariffs work then stocks have to go down, no? Less profit if companies eat tariffs

Intuitively - In the aggregate yes, but individual results will vary greatly. Hard to see how the QQQ's/ mag 7 could be effected by tarriff's in any meaningful way. However, my dividend players (SCHD) are probably gonna lag - just like they've done for the last 20 years.

Also note the same argument vis a vi tariffs was said for inflation - but that hasn't happened yet either.

Still, average investors' choices are either stocks or bonds (I refuse to call gold or crypto investing) and bonds suck.