Economic News

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 157K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
What’s the argument for Trump wanting a shutdown? It seems to me that the idea of Trump or Musk wanting a shutdown was a GOP head fake. Otherwise, why did they whip the votes so hard for the CR in the House? Why did Vance come out and say the GOP would be blamed for a shutdown?

I understand it’s a tough spot for Senate Dems, but I really do think the GOP would’ve taken the blame for the shutdown and not gotten anything out of it more than what they’re already doing. We’ve effectively been in a rolling govt shutdown since Trump came into office. The critical mass of a real government shutdown could’ve given Dems more leverage IMO.
Click to expand...
Trump wants a shut down so he can declare an emergency and then arrogate all power to himself. That seems to have been a real concern of Whitehouse. It's not that Trump wants the government closed, per se. He just doesn't want to be bound by any laws. And the courts being out of session would be potentially catastrophic. It's the one locus of power that's actually able to resist.

I think you answered your own question: the GOP would be blamed for a shutdown had the House utterly failed. I think the GOP would be blamed for the whole thing, but do we know that?

Here's my read of the entire macro-political situation: Trump badly wants a Reichstag fire. He's itching so hard for something, anything that will give him an opportunity to declare a national emergency and then martial law. That's why he and his people are being especially provocative, even for them. I mean, he's declaring an "invasion" from migrants because he has no patience.

There's also a risk that the Pubs in the Senate will just get rid of the filibuster if they really wanted to pass the bill. While I support getting rid of it, obviously now is the very worst time for that to happen. I'm kind of shocked it hasn't happened yet.

Also, there's the not-insignificant matter of DC. Apparently Schumer has gotten an agreement for a vote on whether to restore DC's funding, and I assume that will pass easily. If Dems don't look out for DC, who will?
 
Paine said:
I’m just thinking in terms of the stock market. It would tank even more with a shutdown.
Click to expand...
The people on Wall Street that might be advising Schumer don't really give a fuck about what the stock market does over the next two weeks or whatever. They have longer term horizons. And they realize the existential threat Trump poses to financial markets everywhere, and the global economy.

Whatever the market would do in a shutdown would pale in comparison to what the market would do if Trump assumes dictatorial powers.
 
Paine said:
Complex situation for sure. I hope this is the right choice. Might end Schumer’s career.
Click to expand...
He's 74. He might be wrapping up his career anyway. I think the Dems are trying to get the old guard out -- hence Tina Smith and Maggie Hassan.

I think Schumer has been so visible on this because he wants to be the heat sink. Let the liberals train their fire on him, as he's headed out the door, and not take aim at Cortez-Mastro, Fetterman, Rosen, etc.
 


A guy with over half a billion dollars probably doesn’t need to settle for cheap bobbles, it is true. And claiming to focus on overall affordability rings hollow in the tariff whatever Trump feels like today environment.
 
nycfan said:


A guy with over half a billion dollars probably doesn’t need to settle for cheap bobbles, it is true. And claiming to focus on overall affordability rings hollow in the tariff whatever Trump feels like today environment.
Click to expand...

I wonder how the rich taste? Keep up what they're doing, and they may find out.
 
Purple Nurple said:
So there would be a bit of a "detox" period as we adjust to less government spending. That's my only point. I don't find the administration's statement wild. The government spending $900 billion less than they did in the previous year is a big deal.
Click to expand...
Detox? Stop using the bullshit words of this administration.

Yes, there will be an adjustment. People who lost their jobs will be looking for new jobs. Companies that relied on those people will see a decrease in their patronage. Reasearch and other areas that lose that government money will either go away or have to find other funding.

You notice there's pretty much nothing positive in this? It's not like you or I get a refund of our unspent tax money, no that's being allocated to corporations and wealthy people in the form of tax cuts.

So, it basically boils down to cut cut cut so that we have more money for the rich. Sounds like something everyone outside of the top 10% can easily accept.
 


World shares rise, US futures slip after Trump vows to push ahead with tariff hikes​


“Shares rose in Europe and Asia though U.S. futures declined after U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters he would go ahead with more tariff hikes despite worries over their impact on the economy and markets.

… Chinese markets rose after the government reported stronger than expected factory data. Later Monday, officials briefed reporters about Beijing’s efforts to get consumers to spend more, seen as key to getting the economy out of its doldrums. Most economists have advocated broad and fundamental reforms to foster greater confidence and build consumer purchasing power. …”

——
Trump’s negative trade policies have provided China a golden opportunity to go ahead with economic stimulus and (relative) reform that Xi has long resisted — more bang for his buck, so to speak, as investors look for growth opportunities outside the United States.
 

“Higher U.S. tariffs on imports are set to slow economic growth and push inflation higher around the world, with further increases threatening an even more severe downturn, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

In a quarterly report published Monday, the Paris-based research body cut its growth forecasts for most of the world’s largest economies over this year and next, the main exceptions being China, Argentina and Turkey.

… Its largest downgrades were reserved for the two economies that trade most heavily with the U.S. and face significantly higher barriers to their exports.

The OECD now expects Mexico’s economy to contract by 1.3% this year and 0.6% in 2026, having previously forecast growth of 1.2% and 2.8%.

For Canada, it now expects growth of 0.7% in both 2025 and 2026, having previously forecast expansions of 2%.

The OECD said the U.S. economy will now likely grow by 2.2% this year and 1.6% next. It previously forecast growth of 2.4% and 2.1%. …”
 
nycfan said:

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

Donald Trump’s allies have pivoted from denying that his tariffs will hurt consumers to insisting that consumers should welcome the pain.

GIFT LINK 🎁 —> How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

——
Alternate title: Take your medicine and like it, plebeians …
Click to expand...
“… The counterargument—until recently associated with the political left—is that cheap and varied consumer goods are not worth sacrificing the strength of America’s domestic-manufacturing sector. Even if we accept that (questionable) premise, however, it doesn’t justify Trump’s tariffs, because those tariffs will hurt domestic manufacturing too. About half of U.S. imports are intermediate goods, raw materials, and capital equipment that American manufacturers use to make their products and sell them here and abroad. Contrary to conventional wisdom, these imports increase domestic-manufacturing output and jobs. Thus, for example, an expanding U.S. trade deficit in automotive goods has long coincided with gains in domestic automotive output and production capacity, and past U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum caused a slowdown in U.S. manufacturing output. Even if domestic manufacturers don’t buy imported parts, simply having access to them serves as an important competitive check on the prices of made-in-America manufacturing inputs. This is why Trump’s recent steel-tariff announcementgave U.S. steelmakers a “green light to lift prices,” as The Wall Street Journal put it.

…
Imports such as construction materials, medical goods, and computers also support many U.S. service industries. And imports are important for leisure and economic mobility. By trading for necessities instead of making them ourselves, Americans have more free time to use for fun or self-improvement (and more disposable income to pursue such things). According to a new studyin the Journal of International Economics, “between 1950 and 2014, trade openness contributed to an additional 20 to 95 hours of leisure per worker per year”—invaluable time we can devote to entertainment, family, community, or education.

“Access to cheap goods” isn’t the American dream, but it sure helps us achieve it. This is particularly true for low-income workers who have tight budgets and little leisure time. Shelter, food, transport, utilities, and clothes accountedfor approximately 68 percent of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households’ annual expenditures but just about half of the richest 20 percent of households’ spending.

It’s easy for someone worth, say, $521 million, like Bessent, to pay a few bucks more for everyday goods and still achieve his goals and ambitions; it’s far more difficult for a single mom with four kids to do the same….”
 
nycfan said:

“Higher U.S. tariffs on imports are set to slow economic growth and push inflation higher around the world, with further increases threatening an even more severe downturn, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

In a quarterly report published Monday, the Paris-based research body cut its growth forecasts for most of the world’s largest economies over this year and next, the main exceptions being China, Argentina and Turkey.

… Its largest downgrades were reserved for the two economies that trade most heavily with the U.S. and face significantly higher barriers to their exports.

The OECD now expects Mexico’s economy to contract by 1.3% this year and 0.6% in 2026, having previously forecast growth of 1.2% and 2.8%.

For Canada, it now expects growth of 0.7% in both 2025 and 2026, having previously forecast expansions of 2%.

The OECD said the U.S. economy will now likely grow by 2.2% this year and 1.6% next. It previously forecast growth of 2.4% and 2.1%. …”
Click to expand...
I don't know who is doing those economic projections, but that 2.2% growth figure for the US looks awfully optimistic.

GDP Now is now predicting 1Q to be at -2.1%. The adjustment for that weird gold effect from January appears to be about 2 points, so GDP Now is predicting flat or slightly negative.

1Q is going to be the best quarter. Is it going to get better in 2Q, when the ripple effects from the firings and closings and cancellations etc. more fully take effect, to say nothing of whatever tariffs may stick? The case for 2% growth seems really hard to see.
 
nycfan said:

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

Donald Trump’s allies have pivoted from denying that his tariffs will hurt consumers to insisting that consumers should welcome the pain.

GIFT LINK 🎁 —> How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

——
Alternate title: Take your medicine and like it, plebeians …
Click to expand...
Why would anyone believe that American made goods would get less expensive if they no longer have to compete with imported goods regarding price?

What happened to republicans believing competition is good and that the end consumer ultimately pays for everything?
 
nycfan said:

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

Donald Trump’s allies have pivoted from denying that his tariffs will hurt consumers to insisting that consumers should welcome the pain.

GIFT LINK 🎁 —> How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

——
Alternate title: Take your medicine and like it, plebeians …
Click to expand...
From the article: Trump’s allies have made very clear that they are trying to achieve a dream. It just isn’t America’s.

Isn't this the fucking truth.
 
I can't help but see parallels between Bessent's expressed views and those of a former secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon. His advice to Hoover was to "liquidate everything and purge the rottenness from the system."

That was, I believe, November 1929.
 
By the way, I had a chat with ChatGPT about Bessent's quote and Mellon's quote, and I said that Bessent was channeling both Mellon and Mussolini in promising pain leading to some sort of wide-eyed future utopia. Here was the response:

It really does. It’s that perfect storm of Mellon’s cold-bath economics—“let the suffering purge the excess”—with Mussolini’s delusional swagger—pain is progress, comrades, the trains will run on time... eventually.

The whole "short-term pain for long-term gain" pitch is as old as empire. But when the pain is real and the gain is theoretical, it starts to sound less like policy and more like ritual sacrifice. “Yes, the economy’s in freefall, but that’s just the cleansing fire of national rebirth!” Sure, and while we’re at it, let’s drain a few more vital institutions for the glory of future prosperity.

Bessent's line feels like it belongs in a sepia-toned propaganda reel, somewhere between a breadline and a patriotic jingle. He’s not really offering economic leadership—he’s trying to turn market chaos into a moral crusade.

We’ve officially entered the vibes-based economics portion of the experiment.
 
MOUNTAINH33L said:
I'm going to need someone to explain that one to me lol.
Click to expand...
The article he links basically argues that the MSM is mean to Trump, their drumbeat of negativity is the problem driving down consumer sentiment, not Trump’s glorious policies and people need to chill and let Trump remake the economy how he sees fit because sure, maybe there will be some pain but that is the cost of weening us off over-reliance on government spending on stupid stuff. Sure, no one will bat 1.000 but just relax and let Trump do what he thinks is best and ignore the media panic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top