President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#32,353
#32,353
BowlBrother85 said:
www.forbes.com

Trump’s Tariffs Were Much More Damaging Than Thought

Research on the impact of Donald Trump’s trade policy finds to the extent a president manages the economy, Trump managed it poorly.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

^^^^ Forbes from 2021 ^^^^

You shouldn't just consider inflation, and inflation alone, when analyzing the impact of tariffs .... but Trump's tariffs did lead to an increase in prices.
Click to expand...
This article looks at stock prices…..are stock prices higher today than when PT took office? Yes, in fact it reaches new highs on a weekly basis.

Increase in prices? Prices are down in everything since January.

Still do not understand your logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#32,354
#32,354
Buddy’s Bandit said:
This article looks at stock prices…..are stock prices higher today than when PT took office? Yes, in fact it reaches new highs on a weekly basis.

Increase in prices? Prices are down in everything since January.

Still do not understand your logic.
Click to expand...
You evidently think that everything is instantaneous .... and there is zero lag time between an announcement of the imposition of tariffs and when they will have an impact on the price of that particular material/good. That is ridiculously simplistic.
 
Last edited:
#32,357
#32,357
Buddy’s Bandit said:
This article looks at stock prices…..are stock prices higher today than when PT took office? Yes, in fact it reaches new highs on a weekly basis.

Increase in prices? Prices are down in everything since January.

Still do not understand your logic.
Click to expand...
www.ainvest.com

The Tariff Lag: How Inflationary Pressures Are Set to Surge in 2025 and What Investors Should Do

The Tariff Lag: How Inflationary Pressures Are Set to Surge in 2025 and What Investors Should Do
www.ainvest.com
 
#32,363
#32,363
McDad said:
Considering tariffs are inflationary, are all other business and corporate taxes also inflationary?
Click to expand...
Yes, they likely are but arguably our country's biggest problem is the deficit. If tariffs can help with that fairly painlessly, that's a good thing. We do need to raise more revenue as well as cutting spending
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol and USF grad in TN
#32,364
#32,364
Sea Ray said:
Yes, they likely are but arguably our country's biggest problem is the deficit. If tariffs can help with that fairly painlessly, that's a good thing. We do need to raise more revenue as well as cutting spending
Click to expand...
Do you have a threshold of inflation you consider to be painless when under and painful when over?
 
#32,366
#32,366
McDad said:
Do you have a threshold of inflation you consider to be painless when under and painful when over?
Click to expand...
The present inflation is painless. Compared to the potential consequences of an increasing deficit, even more inflation could be tolerated. How do you see it?
 
#32,367
#32,367
Sea Ray said:
Democrats had control of the Justice Department 6 months ago. Why didn't they release it?

This isn't a partisan issue. Neither party wants it out there
Click to expand...
There is one big difference here ..... Trump and Bondi pledged transparency with the Epstein files. They said that they would make these files public (after the appropriate redactions had been made). Democrats made no such promise.
 
#32,368
#32,368
Sea Ray said:
The present inflation is painless. Compared to the potential consequences of an increasing deficit, even more inflation could be tolerated. How do you see it?
Click to expand...
I don't have a threshold. I am aware about 2%-3% inflation per yr on average is considered normal. So, painful threshold has to be a few (several?) ticks up from that baseline. From a gut feeling, I would think the painless range has to be fairly narrow...say from 3% to 6%. Even as we approach 6%, wages cant keep up and lending becomes much more expensive. That's painful for many. But I suspect it would also depend on pace of change and what goods and services are affected most.
Feedback?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and Orangeburst
#32,369
#32,369
McDad said:
I don't have a threshold. I am aware about 2%-3% inflation per yr on average is considered normal. So, painful threshold has to be a few (several?) ticks up from that baseline. From a gut feeling, I would think the painless range has to be fairly narrow...say from 3% to 6%. But I suspect it would also depend on pace of change and what goods and services are affected most.
Feedback?
Click to expand...
lets say donuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#32,371
#32,371
BowlBrother85 said:
There is one big difference here ..... Trump and Bondi pledged transparency with the Epstein files. They said that they would make these files public (after the appropriate redactions had been made). Democrats made no such promise.
Click to expand...
So it is only covering for pedo's if you promote you will release it? That's an interesting take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#32,373
#32,373
Sea Ray said:
The present inflation is painless. Compared to the potential consequences of an increasing deficit, even more inflation could be tolerated. How do you see it?
Click to expand...
Since we are talking inflation, I'll share a thought I've shared before.

From my basic knowledge of economics, it seems there are 3 things that cause the most inflation.
- increased prices
- increased money supply (decreased purchasing power)
- increased velocity of money

If that is true, then the opposites should have a deflationary impact:
- lowered prices
- decreased money supply
- decreased velocity of money.

Even though I am an absolutist when it comes to lower taxes, it is true to say that increased personal taxes during times of rapid inflation would slow or reverse inflation.
 
Last edited:
#32,374
#32,374
Sandman 423 said:
So it is only covering for pedo's if you promote you will release it? That's an interesting take.
Click to expand...
That's an irrational post, based on what I said.

Who said anything about "covering for pedo's?" Not me, and I don't think that is what is happening here.

The most likely explanation, is that some well-known donors to both parties, socialized with Jeffrey Epstein, and the release of these files could unfairly tarnish their reputations. Simply associating with the man, doesn't necessarily mean that there was complicity or knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

Nevertheless, Pam Bondi over-promised and under-delivered. She deserves some heat over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top