Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Economic News

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 112K
  • Politics 
Anybody who actually cares about the economy should be planning to vote for the Dems for the next few cycles, if for no other reason than to reward them for pulling off something very few thought was possible.


Wednesday’s report comes after earlier data showed the economy added a whopping 254,000 jobs in September, inflation is a whisper away from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target and consumer confidence jumped this month by the fastest clip since March 2021, according to The Conference Board — all signs of a robust economy.

“I think we should declare a soft landing now,” said James Bullard, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in an interview with CNN earlier this month.

He’s one of several economists and officials who told CNN the economy has finally pulled off that scenario, in which inflation is tamed without a recession — an exceptionally rare achievement.
 
UNCatTech said:
When I was voting conservative, everyone of my conservative friends talked about the games played with money and how ultimately every cost is passed on to the end consumer.

I wonder what happened for them to forget this and change to believing the tariffs will have no cost to them.

I guess it's the same thing that changed their opinion regarding Russia.
Click to expand...
I remember being on boards 10-20 years ago and hearing Republicans saying Democrats don’t understand economics and they had a long discussion on the role of tariffs in the Great Depression.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread but I wanted to discuss the economy if Trump is elected.

He has promised cutting 1/3 of the federal budget. He has proposed eliminating income tax on favor of tariffs.

One thing Trump does is that he does a lot of crazy things that he promises to do. I don’t know his batting average but these are things we repeatedly were told he would never do.

If he was able to get changes through it would seem to me that we would be on a fast track to government insolvency, a loss of reserve currency status, and depression.

The more I think about it the more glad I am that I moved a significant chunk of 401k from an S&P Index fund to a conservative short term bonds plan. (I used to have a money market I could put it into.)

I will probably lose some gains but the downside risk is just too high right now.

Finally, I would love some economists to weigh in on this with an hour long special and then have a fund of $500 million to buy a prime time hour on Fox News. Make it so much that they couldn’t turn it down.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Not sure if this is the right thread but I wanted to discuss the economy if Trump is elected.

He has promised cutting 1/3 of the federal budget. He has proposed eliminating income tax on favor of tariffs.

One thing Trump does is that he does a lot of crazy things that he promises to do. I don’t know his batting average but these are things we repeatedly were told he would never do.

If he was able to get changes through it would seem to me that we would be on a fast track to government insolvency, a loss of reserve currency status, and depression.

The more I think about it the more glad I am that I moved a significant chunk of 401k from an S&P Index fund to a conservative short term bonds plan. (I used to have a money market I could put it into.)

I will probably lose some gains but the downside risk is just too high right now.

Finally, I would love some economists to weigh in on this with an hour long special and then have a fund of $500 million to buy a prime time hour on Fox News. Make it so much that they couldn’t turn it down.
Click to expand...
1. If you are worried about those effects, then short term bonds are going to take a beating. Worse, probably, than stocks.
2. He can't get rid of income tax without Congress' approval, which Congress will not do. For one thing, if there's no income tax, there's nothing to dangle in front of rich contributors. But tariffs are within Trump's control, which is why he likes them.
3. But yes, Trump's economic plans could be catastrophic.
 
superrific said:
1. If you are worried about those effects, then short term bonds are going to take a beating. Worse, probably, than stocks.
2. He can't get rid of income tax without Congress' approval, which Congress will not do. For one thing, if there's no income tax, there's nothing to dangle in front of rich contributors. But tariffs are within Trump's control, which is why he likes them.
3. But yes, Trump's economic plans could be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump has the power to unilaterally enact the kind of tariffs he is proposing:
 
SmilingJack said:
"I don't think" is doing some heavy work for you Cal. I'm thinking everyone "Didn't think he would win" back in 2016 and now my 35 y/o daughter has less rights than my mother. Forget what you think and look at what you know?
Click to expand...
Well, when you are dealing with legal interpretations, think is almost always the right verb.

The Supreme Court may well think something different.

What I "know" is that the constitution delegates trade with foreign nations to Congress, not the executive. See Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 3.

I also "know" that Congress has in turn delegated some of its foreign trade authority to the President to regulate trade "barriers" through tariff adjustments without Congressional approval. But has not delegated a general tariff power to the President; that still requires Congressional approval.

The "think" concerns what the Supreme Court would do if confronted with the question as to whether Trump was addressing a trade "barrier" or was seeking to impose non-barrier tariffs. Given that this Court has expressed concerns about the executive assuming too much power when not expressly delegated by Congress (see Looper Bright), I would "think" that any attempt by Trump to impose 100% tariffs on all countries without Congressional approval would be thrown out by the Court.
 
Murdoch's Wall Street Journal:

The Next President Inherits a Remarkable Economy

as I mentioned - the next POTUS starts on Third Base. Just as Trump did in 2016. Then Trump trashed and ran our economy into the ground, just like virtually every one of his business ventures.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next-president-inherits-a-remarkable-economy-7be2d059

Whoever wins the White House next week will take office with no shortage of challenges, but at least one huge asset: an economy that is putting its peers to shame.

With another solid performance in the third quarter, the U.S. has grown 2.7% over the past year. It is outrunning every other major developed economy, not to mention its own historical growth rate.
 


“… The Commerce Department reported that prices rose just 2.1% in September from 12 months earlier, down from a 2.3% year-over-year rise in August. That is barely above the Fed’s 2% inflation target and is in line with readings in 2018, well before prices began surging after the pandemic recession.

On a monthly basis, prices inched up 0.2% from August to September, up slightly from a 0.1% increase from July to August. …”
 
superrific said:
1. If you are worried about those effects, then short term bonds are going to take a beating. Worse, probably, than stocks.
2. He can't get rid of income tax without Congress' approval, which Congress will not do. For one thing, if there's no income tax, there's nothing to dangle in front of rich contributors. But tariffs are within Trump's control, which is why he likes them.
3. But yes, Trump's economic plans could be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Well 30% of the fund is treasuries. Given, I did portray a scenario where the government defaulted on its debts. Haha.

As for the corporate bonds, i would be higher on the list than equity holders in case of bankruptcy.

Not an expert but if things go south the first to fall would likely be the stock markets.

Anyway, not a lot of options so put it in the most conservative possible.
 
for those thinking Trump will improve their pocketbooks...

www.rawstory.com

'I did not see this coming': MSNBC hosts stunned by 'powerful' new Harris endorsement

A "powerful" endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris from a fiscally conservative publication has stunned the host and guest of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and anchor Mika Brzezinski both expressed surprise Thursday morning that the Economist...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
Calheel said:
I don't think Trump has the power to unilaterally enact the kind of tariffs he is proposing:
Click to expand...
Check out the Trade Act of 1974. That would be the statute he would use, I think. So many of the terms in that statute are vague and subject to interpretation, and it basically trusts the executive branch to follow the rules. Probably because we haven't had a pro-tariff president in a very long time and Congress probably thought no president would ever try to abuse the authority in favor of tariffs. There's more concern about the president reducing tariffs too far, IIRC.

I very, very, very much doubt the Supreme Court would interfere. I think they would very likely designate it as a political question; and if they didn't, they would not entertain any challenge for want of a right of action; and if all else fails, they will resort to the inherent power of the presidency. In a vacuum, I think I would probably agree with that, if there was any chance they would be there on principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top