Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 137K
  • Politics 
So China says Trump administration is reaching out to them thru third parties for negotiations? Sounds like Trump is begging for a deal........any deal. That's how China will see it. Who would have thunk?

Didn't the Treasury Secretary claim that China had to be the one to deescalate?
 
BlueSmoke said:
So China says Trump administration is reaching out to them thru third parties for negotiations? Sounds like Trump is begging for a deal........any deal. That's how China will see it. Who would have thunk?
Click to expand...
If Trump really wants a deal they'll probably take it as their own economy is no doubt hurting, but if they really wanted to humiliate and hurt him then they could likely hold out a good deal longer than we could, given that they're a dictatorship and can still trade with the rest of the world.
 
BlueSmoke said:
So China says Trump administration is reaching out to them thru third parties for negotiations? Sounds like Trump is begging for a deal........any deal. That's how China will see it. Who would have thunk?

Didn't the Treasury Secretary claim that China had to be the one to deescalate?
Click to expand...
Xi should require that trump kids his ass. Because that's what leaders do.
 
aviationa2z.com

Ryanair Can Cancel $30 Billion Boeing Order for 330 Planes Amid US Tariffs

Ryanair (FR) threatens to cancel its massive $30 billion order for 330 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft as tensions escalate over proposed US tariffs.
aviationa2z.com aviationa2z.com

Ryanair Can Cancel $30 Billion Boeing Order for 330 Planes Amid US Tariffs​

Boeing contracts typically don't include specific tariff provisions, as the industry has operated without them for decades.
 
mynameisbond said:
Yeah, that's not happening. Trump can't admit when he's wrong or made a mistake. He has to find some way to turn this into a win. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
So far, it looks like Trump just plans to BS his way through this by lying about the impact of the tariffs, the state of the economy, the price of eggs, etc., etc. And that will undoubtedly work with his base, who only want to absorb and repeat anything Trump tells them, no matter how absurd or incredible. Trump's problem now is that he's the party in power and not the challenger, and a huge percentage of Americans reflexively hold anything that happens against the party in power, regardless of whose fault it is. And that's even more true where it REALLY IS the fault of the party in power, which is clearly what's happening now. So I agree with you Trump won't back down completely, but he also won't be able to turn it into a win, except in the eyes of his gullible, fact-resistant base. His approval numbers are likely to settle in the high 30s and I'll be very surprised if they move much from there over the next few years, barring a 9/11 style incident.
 
mynameisbond said:
Yeah, that's not happening. Trump can't admit when he's wrong or made a mistake. He has to find some way to turn this into a win. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to turn it into a win. If anything happens he will lie and call it a win even if the US gets fucked.

And who will believe him, you ask? The cult will.

This cult:

1000003790.jpg
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Really hard to make sense of that graph. The reverse color and choice to show bigger trade deficits as lower on the graph is confusing.

Plus unless I am reading it wrong, it is purporting to show trade deficits but then graphing them as negative numbers which would be a surplus.
Click to expand...
That's how these graphs work. They always depict trade deficits as negative and surpluses as positive. And the shading (i.e. reverse color) is used because it helps cross-country comparisons and changes over time. Think about putting that graph on the same one as a country with a surplus. It really does make sense.

The problem is the label on that graph, which probably was not put there by the folks who made it. The graph should read "monthly trade balance" or "monthly current account balance."
 
mynameisbond said:
Yeah, that's not happening. Trump can't admit when he's wrong or made a mistake. He has to find some way to turn this into a win. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
As we have seen, all he has to do is announce he made a bunch of new deals and his sycophantic acolytes will believe it and call him the bestest president of all-time.
The economy comes back and the stock market takes off and he takes all the credit.
 
I imported all of the 0dte and 1dte SPY calls into a database and did some queries. Someone bought 1535 contracts (153500 shares) at a strike price of 510 for $1.70/share (total cost $250,950) at 13:05 on 4/9 and netted $5.04 million if they held it to the end of the day.
 
ChileG said:
As we have seen, all he has to do is announce he made a bunch of new deals and his sycophantic acolytes will believe it and call him the bestest president of all-time.
The economy comes back and the stock market takes off and he takes all the credit.
Click to expand...
And if not, it's all Biden's fault anyway
 
superrific said:
That's how these graphs work. They always depict trade deficits as negative and surpluses as positive. And the shading (i.e. reverse color) is used because it helps cross-country comparisons and changes over time. Think about putting that graph on the same one as a country with a surplus. It really does make sense.

The problem is the label on that graph, which probably was not put there by the folks who made it. The graph should read "monthly trade balance" or "monthly current account balance."
Click to expand...
The label is what I objected to the most.
 
hedge said:
I believe there was a similar trade in the 520's that day...
Click to expand...
Here's an interesting one. Both were made at the same time. One paid $912 and got $406,752 back.

The thing is, the tweet went out at 13:18. Did this person (or persons) see the tweet and immediately buy these? These were the highest multiples among those who ended with more than $100k.


total_cost | size | price | strike_price | timestamp | value_at_expiration | return_multiple
--------------------+-------+-------+--------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------
912 | 228 | 0.04 | 525 | 2025-04-09 13:18:56 | 406752.00 | 446
228 | 57 | 0.04 | 525 | 2025-04-09 13:18:56 | 101688.00 | 446

And this guy turned $3 into $10,152.

total_cost | size | price | strike_price | timestamp | value_at_expiration | return_multiple
--------------------+-------+-------+--------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------
3 | 3 | 0.01 | 509 | 2025-04-09 13:18:46 | 10152.00 | 3384

Also, this second one kind of answers the question about the first. Note that the 509 strike price was $.01 then 10 seconds later the 525 was $.04 so the prices had already begun to skyrocket.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top