National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett: "Right now, 130 countries — 130 countries — have responded and we're negotiating with them." pic.twitter.com/aLNmtnp1lD
— DOGE NEWS- Department of Government Efficiency (@realdogeusa) April 14, 2025
BREAKING: Trump says he'll announce new chip tariffs "over the next week," per Axios.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 14, 2025
BREAKING: Nvidia, $NVDA, says it will manufacture American-made AI supercomputers in US for first time now
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 14, 2025
Howard Lutnick:
— DOGE NEWS- Department of Government Efficiency (@realdogeusa) April 14, 2025
"If we just run gigantic trade deficits and sell our soul to the rest of the world, eventually we are going to be the worker for the rest of the world." pic.twitter.com/cJXxu2lBpq
Assassin said:BREAKING: Nvidia, $NVDA, says it will manufacture American-made AI supercomputers in US for first time now
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 14, 2025
Trump doesnt care about the politics, the news cycle or anything in that realm. He's actually trying to save us from what Joe Biden did to this country. We were about to go into bankruptcy and needed a major reset.Trump is exactly where he needs to be at exactly the right timeATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
The most trained parrot of all.Assassin said:Trump doesnt care about the politics, the news cycle or anything in that realm. He's actually trying to save us from what Joe Biden did to this country. We were about to go into bankruptcy and needed a major reset.Trump is exactly where he needs to be at exactly the right timeATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
It's chaotic for sure. Buy the dips and sell the rallies.ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
What Trump cares about is ratings. The twists and turns are not a bug, they are a feature. Actually, the feature.Assassin said:Trump doesnt care about the politics, the news cycle or anything in that realm. He's actually trying to save us from what Joe Biden did to this country. We were about to go into bankruptcy and needed a major reset.Trump is exactly where he needs to be at exactly the right timeATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
AgreedATL Bear said:Automation is the only solution. Problem is we don't have the volume of engineers and technicians necessary to pull it off yet. The skill gap is the real time lag for execution. Maybe redirect the department of education to this function and include not just students, but adult job skill training.BearFan33 said:Robots may be able to fill that gap. Apple could build that here. But we will see.boognish_bear said:Tim Cook explains why Apple chooses China for manufacturing.
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) April 11, 2025
Can America replace this? pic.twitter.com/MKu0OSydyv
You called his ideas stupid not him. There is a difference.J.R. said:I didn't call you stupid. Just cuz you are a BU grad as I am (undergrad) hardly makes one smart. I know lots of BU folks who are brilliant and plenty who are not.ScottS said:First, don't call me stupid. I am a Baylor grad. Next, don't think for me. Nobody wants prices to increase.J.R. said:
just stupid and foolish. All you Trumpians want prices to increase. It is painfully simple. Tariffs are a tax on the consumer, period. Yall can rationalize any way you want. Bad for Mercans. He will blink again. He's getting a ton of heat.
Nobody is arguing what you guys are saying. I don't think there is ANYONE on here that agrees with Biden or that the spending has to stop.Assassin said:Trump doesnt care about the politics, the news cycle or anything in that realm. He's actually trying to save us from what Joe Biden did to this country. We were about to go into bankruptcy and needed a major reset.Trump is exactly where he needs to be at exactly the right timeATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
We need to by-pass the last tech and move to the next. We will NOT catch up to China in manufacturing under the present tech, so invest in the next and force the paradigm shift. I am not sure Trump has anyone that will push the envelope in that direction. The one guy who thinks that way and has influence is running around with a chain saw and more concerned with X than new tech. Musk seems to have lost his old visionary skills and is in protecting what he has.Waco1947 said:AgreedATL Bear said:Automation is the only solution. Problem is we don't have the volume of engineers and technicians necessary to pull it off yet. The skill gap is the real time lag for execution. Maybe redirect the department of education to this function and include not just students, but adult job skill training.BearFan33 said:Robots may be able to fill that gap. Apple could build that here. But we will see.boognish_bear said:Tim Cook explains why Apple chooses China for manufacturing.
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) April 11, 2025
Can America replace this? pic.twitter.com/MKu0OSydyv
ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
Imagiine thinking we don't already build our weapons domestically. Ironically we are a net exporter to the world of military equipment. And I agree we should do more, Let's build more naval ships, let's manufacture more tanks, fighters, missiles, etc. But people keep saying we have to curb the MIC and gut the DoD. You can't have both because it's a very narrow customer base.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
Imagine the rise in cost of living if the US ever found itself at war with China or India and we have zero control over our supply chains.
A rise in cost of living is worth it if it strengths national security and the future of the nation.
Fed Chair Powell’s term ends in 13 months, yet new Fed Chair candidates are already being discussed.
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 14, 2025
The Trump Administration knows economic weakness is coming from tariffs in 2025.
This sets up perfectly for 2026 to be the year of interest rate cuts and economic stimulus, with… https://t.co/CaDeXLl6xj
ATL Bear said:Imagiine thinking we don't already build our weapons domestically. Ironically we are a net exporter to the world of military equipment. And I agree we should do more, Let's build more naval ships, let's manufacture more tanks, fighters, missiles, etc. But people keep saying we have to curb the MIC and gut the DoD. You can't have both because it's a very narrow customer base.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
Imagine the rise in cost of living if the US ever found itself at war with China or India and we have zero control over our supply chains.
A rise in cost of living is worth it if it strengths national security and the future of the nation.
Military Industrial ComplexWaco1947 said:
What is MIC?
Breaking: There is no longer a "likelihood" of a recession; it's either coming or here, according to CEO and investors I speak to. Here's their logic: Companies clearly cut back on spending in run-up to the tariff war. When it hit, they went into full retrenchment mode. Now amid…
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 13, 2025
That and $8 will get you a coffee from a Barista with the same level of Economic knowledge as Gasparino.boognish_bear said:Breaking: There is no longer a "likelihood" of a recession; it's either coming or here, according to CEO and investors I speak to. Here's their logic: Companies clearly cut back on spending in run-up to the tariff war. When it hit, they went into full retrenchment mode. Now amid…
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 13, 2025
My friend, mentor, and Nobelist Milton Friedman on the trade deficit:
— Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) April 13, 2025
“The trade deficit is not a deficit in another sense. It’s a capital surplus.” pic.twitter.com/XBXjbDLwWb
I'm with you on semiconductors and certain pharma. But you should know we still produce a good amount of pharma here. Regardless, tariffs don't bring those back. Other approaches can, like investment in upskilling, plant support, R&D and innovation.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Imagiine thinking we don't already build our weapons domestically. Ironically we are a net exporter to the world of military equipment. And I agree we should do more, Let's build more naval ships, let's manufacture more tanks, fighters, missiles, etc. But people keep saying we have to curb the MIC and gut the DoD. You can't have both because it's a very narrow customer base.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
Imagine the rise in cost of living if the US ever found itself at war with China or India and we have zero control over our supply chains.
A rise in cost of living is worth it if it strengths national security and the future of the nation.
I'm not talking about tanks and missiles.
I am talking about antibiotics and computer processors.
About 300 abattoirs in the United States still have not had their export licences renewed to export beef to China — and it seems Australia is filling the gap. https://t.co/JhBxcKdslj
— ABC News (@abcnews) April 12, 2025
upskilling, plant support, R&D and innovationATL Bear said:I'm with you on semiconductors and certain pharma. But you should know we still produce a good amount of pharma here. Regardless, tariffs don't bring those back. Other approaches can, like investment in upskilling, plant support, R&D and innovation.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:Imagiine thinking we don't already build our weapons domestically. Ironically we are a net exporter to the world of military equipment. And I agree we should do more, Let's build more naval ships, let's manufacture more tanks, fighters, missiles, etc. But people keep saying we have to curb the MIC and gut the DoD. You can't have both because it's a very narrow customer base.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:
Even if you are Trump's biggest fan, and if you believe in the need for economic realignment or stronger trade enforcement, can any of you not at least acknowledge the erratic, unpredictable nature of these efforts? The harm inflicted on bond markets and borrowing costs? The arbitrary picking of tariff winners and losers? The economic volatility being stoked without any clear roadmap for resolution?
Businesses, the same ones we want to invest, hire, and build in America, aren't operating in a vacuum. They're operating in a climate where their supply chains are and will continue to be disrupted or taxed on a whim, where trade policy shifts overnight, and where geopolitics is being used like a reality show plot twist. How exactly are companies supposed to plan multi-year investments, expand production, or hire workers in that environment? We've already seen them hesitate or delay precisely because of this unpredictability. And the much touted "Trillions of investment in the U.S." being paraded on the talk shows? No one is putting pen to paper on those plans until this is settled.
What continues to amaze me in this conversation is the sheer number of contradictions embedded in this approach. Contradictions that aren't just theoretical, but they break down in the real world.
We're told tariffs will both raise revenue to offset income tax cuts and drive down imports. But basic economics says you can't have both. If tariffs "work", and consumers stop buying foreign goods, then the tax revenue dries up. And if consumers don't stop buying foreign goods, you're simply raising their cost of living to fund government spending. Not to mention how this conflict plays out with shifting manufacturing. That's not strategy, that's regressive taxation dressed in a populist flag.
We're told we want foreign companies to build here, but depending on who's speaking for Trumpworld, that's either a brilliant win for American jobs or somehow proof that foreign influence is invading domestic industry. Which is it?
Strong economies don't thrive on improvisation. They thrive on stability. And what we're experiencing right now isn't a strategy designed to strengthen the U.S. economy for the next generation. It's a political tactic designed to win a news cycle. And there's a world of difference between the two.
Imagine the rise in cost of living if the US ever found itself at war with China or India and we have zero control over our supply chains.
A rise in cost of living is worth it if it strengths national security and the future of the nation.
I'm not talking about tanks and missiles.
I am talking about antibiotics and computer processors.
Congress is too interested in their own Investment Portfolios.Waco1947 said:
We may produce a good number of pharmaceuticals here but that production has not brought down costs. Congress is at fault.
BREAKING: The White House has said that 130 countries are currently in negotiations for new trade agreements with the United States.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 15, 2025
More unintended consequences.boognish_bear said:Breaking: There is no longer a "likelihood" of a recession; it's either coming or here, according to CEO and investors I speak to. Here's their logic: Companies clearly cut back on spending in run-up to the tariff war. When it hit, they went into full retrenchment mode. Now amid…
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 13, 2025
Now they have to finish them. Getting them to the table is great, now "Finish". What is the outcome of these deals? How are we better off based on them? What protections to IP are in place now? How about some answers, not just sound bite tweets.boognish_bear said:BREAKING: The White House has said that 130 countries are currently in negotiations for new trade agreements with the United States.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 15, 2025
Mothra said:More unintended consequences.boognish_bear said:Breaking: There is no longer a "likelihood" of a recession; it's either coming or here, according to CEO and investors I speak to. Here's their logic: Companies clearly cut back on spending in run-up to the tariff war. When it hit, they went into full retrenchment mode. Now amid…
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 13, 2025
