And points and rotor buttons.
Tariffs Catch-All
- Thread starter BubbaOtis
- Start date
- Replies: 3K
- Views: 81K
- Politics
- Messages
- 5,114
I thought the professors at Trump U paid for the privilege of working with trump.
- Messages
- 19,812
The ‘TACO trade’ is the talk of Wall Street. Here’s one way to play it.
Tariff threats may still offer near-term opportunity but won’t determine market’s next big move, strategist says
“… Wall Street loves a catchy acronym, and the TACO trade, coined earlier this month by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, has captured the mood as investors and analysts attempt to make sense of the roller-coaster market action that has followed President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff threats and subsequent walk-backs.
It stands for “Trump always chickens out.” The idea is that investors have profited by buying the dip that has followed Trump’s tariff threats….”
- Messages
- 19,812
“… As market economist David Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research put it in a Wednesday note: “The question is, at what point will the President’s credibility become impaired because you only get so many tries at kicking the tariff can down the road … As for the markets, they are playing the role of dog in President Trump’s impersonation of Ivan Pavlov.”
…
Essaye said that while the TACO trade has worked, investors shouldn’t get complacent. Don’t look past the fact that the tariff burden is now higher and will slow growth and inflation, he said.
Investors can play the TACO trade in the short term by buying cyclical sectors, such as consumer discretionary
XLY
+2.95%
, tech
XLK
+2.38%
, financials
XLF
+1.76%
, and energy
XLE
+0.87%
, which tend to get hardest after tariff threats but tend to bounce back biggest, he said, recommending they spread a full position out over the course of a day or two after the initial threat.
What about a long-term play? The best bet there is to ignore the TACO trade, Essaye said.
“What will determine the next 15%-20% in this market isn’t Trump’s tariff talk. Instead, it’s the economy and whether it can hold up amidst tariffs, policy volatility, higher interest rates, no Fed rates cuts and pressure on consumer spending,” he said.…”
ChileG
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,649
Quoting as emphasis in case any of our MAGA lurkers are still clinging to the notion that Trump is some master negotiator and has a plan (or even a clue) in regards to the tariffs.
- Messages
- 19,812
He rants like a badly behaved child …
“… Biden. This country was dying. You know we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. I went to Saudi Arabia, the king told me, he said you’ve got the hottest [tries to say country, says kum], we have the hottest country in the world right now. Six months ago this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country people didn’t think was going to survive and you ask a nasty question like that. Uh It’s called negotiations and you set a number and if you go down you know if I set a number at a ridiculous high number and I go down a litttle bit you know a little bit they want me to hold than number you know 145% tariff, even I said that really got up. You know how it got? Because of fentanyl and all and many other things and you added it up. I said where are we now? We’re at 145% and I said wooo that’s high. We were very nice to China. I don’t know if they’re going to be nice to us but we were very nice to China. And in many ways I think we really helped China tremendously because you know they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with them … because of the tariffs. I knew that. But don’t ever say what you said. That’s a nasty question…”
Mulberry Heel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,145
"Nasty question" = a question that he can't answer because it's provably the truth. So instead he just deflects and rants for awhile and threatens the reporter to not ask him questions like that again. But MAGA is all up in arms because Scott Pelley at his Wake Forest commencement address pointed out the truth that Trump 2.0 is bullying his critics into silence and has become an authoritarian regime.
ChileG
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,649
I really wish one of the reporters close to requirement would retort with, “oh, stop being such a baby and just answer the question.”
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,402
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,513
I actually prefer knobs, physical buttons and switches to touchscreens for climate and audio controls so there might be a silver lining.
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,402
EyeballKid
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 467
This seems fairly big.
Occasionally, I drive my Dad’s newer Acura rather than my older Accord.
The Accord has proper controls - dials and knobs and on the radio, push buttons for 6 stations. I can jump from WUNC (91.5 FM) to WCHL (97.9 FM) without looking. I can change the AC/heat, radio volume, set the cruise control, etc. without looking.
The Acura has a screen the size of an iPad that seemingly controls everything. I have to look at it to do most things.
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,402
There Will Be Tweets
I have been waiting for this ruling. The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade, not the executive. And although Congress has slowly let the executive usurp that power, it is good to see that the courts will not let the constitution be a meaningless document. Let's see if this case (and the related cases) make it up to the Supreme Court.
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,402
Imagine the faces of Stephen Miller and Peter Navarro watching the tariffs get paid back with interest.
- Messages
- 19,812
“… The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs are put in a standstill.
The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.
Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points, or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.
The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states brought against the Trump tariffs.…”
uncgriff
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 618
Yeah. Congress has capitulated every which way they can but when push comes to shove I can't see them voting to actually enact these tariffs.
- Messages
- 19,812
“… the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first place, and even if it was interpreted to, it “would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to impose tariffs,” according to a statement.
The court concurred in its ruling that Trump lacked the authority to declare a national emergency in order to impose those tariffs.
“IEEPA does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders,” the panel of judges said in their order Wednesday. “The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”
… The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the tariffs are a political question – meaning it’s something that the courts can’t decide.
But the plaintiffs said IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs.
“If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is,” Somin said in April….”