Economic News Thread | Fed Quarter Point rate cut

[superrific]

I don't think Trump has the power to unilaterally enact the kind of tariffs he is proposing:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11400#:~:text=1934%20Section%20350(a)%20of,rates%20without%20further%20congressional%20action.

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.

 

[Calheel]

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.

Well, let's hope we never have to find out because Kamala wins in four days.
I am concerned that if Trump does win, he could also get the Senate and House. In fact, I think that is the most likely outcome if Trump does win.

 

[WBroylesH]

The Economis

for those thinking Trump will improve their pocketbooks...

'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

The Economist is about free markets, but it's also about stability and rationality and world order (all things necessary to make free markets work!). The thought that they'd endorse an agent of chaos (who supports tariffs) just because he's a "business man" is kookiness. This endorsement isn't really a surprise at all.

 

[superrific]

Well, let's hope we never have to find out because Kamala wins in four days.
I am concerned that if Trump does win, he could also get the Senate and House. In fact, I think that is the most likely outcome if Trump does win.

If Trump wins he will almost certainly have the Senate. In fact, it seems uncomfortably likely that the GOP will get the Senate anyway.

The House -- maybe. If he does win, the House is at least a 50/50 chance for the GOP and perhaps higher.

 

[superrific]

The Economis

The Economist is about free markets, but it's also about stability and rationality and world order (all things necessary to make free markets work!). The thought that they'd endorse an agent of chaos (who supports tariffs) just because he's a "business man" is kookiness. This endorsement isn't really a surprise at all.

They know that, but they are trying to make it newsworthy, hoping that people will pay more attention if it's shocking.

Also, it's called "The Economist." Most Americans don't know what that magazine actually is, but it sounds like it's about economics and if it's endorsing Kamala . . .

 

[MendotoManteo]

Of course still got my 401K, but I have been pulling out of the market with my personal investments the past 2-3 weeks. Largely because I anticipate a shit show no matter the outcome of the election. If Trump wins, then he'll eventually tank the economy. But mostly because, if he loses, he'll try to incite another insurrection and/or civil violence. Either outcome not good for the markets.

I didn't have a lot invested. Was down quite a bit until the rate cut when my uranium stocks surged. Came out ahead in the aggregate, so figured I'd get out while the getting good. I'll wait till at least a couple months after the inauguration of whoever to determine when and if I get back in.

 

[nycfan]

 

[heelinhell]

worst economy ever ?

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[rodoheel]

Don't worry - if Trump wins, his supporters will all be convinced that high inflation, high gas prices, and high unemployment persisted for the entire Biden term and immediately reversed the second Trump came back into power. Just like they all now believe that Biden was in office in 2020.

 

[Zoo_View]

In November 1984, it was “Morning in America.” Reagan won re-election with 545 Electoral Votes to Mondale’s 49; the popular vote was Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% Mondale.

In November 1984, unemployment was 7.1%, inflation was 4.3%, and the federal reserve discount loan rate was 9.0%. In November 2024, unemployment is 4.1%, inflation is 2.1%, and the Fed’s Discount rate is 5.0%. Republicans were anointing Reagan as the GOAT.

 

[HeelingAg]

worst economy ever ?

Remember all the "we predict a 100% chance of a recession"?

 

[JCTarheel82]

 

[nycfan]

US inflation rose slightly last month after 2 years of steady cooling but remained low

Inflation in the United States ticked up in October, driven by costlier rents, used cars, and air fares, a sign that price increases might be leveling off after having slowed in September to their lowest pace since 2021.

apnews.com

US inflation rose slightly last month after 2 years of steady cooling but remained low​

“… Consumer prices rose 2.6% from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Wednesday, up from 2.4% in September. It was the first rise in annual inflation in seven months. From September to October, prices edged up 0.2%, the same as the previous month. Excluding volatile food and energy costs, “core” prices rose 3.3% from a year earlier, the same as in September. From September to October, core prices rose 0.3% for a third straight month. Over the long run, core inflation at that pace would exceed the Fed’s 2% target. …”

 

[nycfan]

 

[heelinhell]

It's looking like more and more that the economy will suddenly become the greatest economy ever on January 21,2025

 

[Paine]

It's looking like more and more that the economy will suddenly become the greatest economy ever on January 21,2025

Consumer sentiment among Rs already up 30 pts since Election Day. Down 10 among Ds. independents remain unchanged.

Republicans See a Better Economic Outlook. Now It’s Democrats Who Don’t.

Consumer sentiment among Republicans has soared to its highest point since Donald J. Trump left the White House, while declining among Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

 

[superrific]

Consumer sentiment among Rs already up 30 pts since Election Day. Down 10 among Ds. independents remain unchanged.

Republicans See a Better Economic Outlook. Now It’s Democrats Who Don’t.

Consumer sentiment among Republicans has soared to its highest point since Donald J. Trump left the White House, while declining among Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

Hmm. Maybe people's personal finances weren't actually the problem? Some of our younger posters haven't quite learned how to speak MAGA.

"Economic anxiety" = Trump hates the same people I hate.
"Inflation is too high" = Trump hates the same people I hate.
"I can barely make ends meet" = Trump hates the same people I hate.

There are, of course, exceptions here and there, but if you look at what people do rather than what they (dishonestly) say, the picture is clear.

 

[Paine]

Hmm. Maybe people's personal finances weren't actually the problem? Some of our younger posters haven't quite learned how to speak MAGA.

"Economic anxiety" = Trump hates the same people I hate.
"Inflation is too high" = Trump hates the same people I hate.
"I can barely make ends meet" = Trump hates the same people I hate.

There are, of course, exceptions here and there, but if you look at what people do rather than what they (dishonestly) say, the picture is clear.

I’m capable of holding two thoughts in my head at the same time unlike you.

I’m not going to explain it to you for the 80th time.

 

[superrific]

I’m capable of holding two thoughts in my head at the same time unlike you.

I’m not going to explain it to you for the 80th time.

Have you considered the possibility that the problem is that your explanations are not persuasive? And maybe that's because they do not account for what has actually happened over the past decade.

Here's the thing. You've said that you're committed to "material analysis." That's an a priori choice you've made, and an ideological one at that. It's not based on anything empirical. So then, you use that framework to analyze everything, without care for whether the framework has adequate explanatory power.

This isn't a comment about you, per se. It's about the left in general. It was the only acceptable viewpoint for much of the 20th century, and it still maintains currency today. But it's just ideology. People choose their frameworks and then interpret events within that framework, as if that's the only or best way to look at things.

There are times when material analysis is perspicacious. I just do not see any evidence that it explains events in our world. Look at what milom wrote about his experience in Ohio. And the election results confirm that (as did all the other Trump electoral results).