Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 5:22:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

Does he really care about the stock market?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 5:23:53 PM
From: Rarebird	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz Maple MAGA Respond to of 1570917

During Trump's first term, the Market fell 10% after he enacted his tariffs after about a year in office and then rebounded quickly. So, I suppose the Market could use Trump's implementation of tariffs as an excuse to correct, especially if it continues its strong rally. Whether Trump would stop or not is an entirely different question. I kind of doubt it. He feels he got burned by China not adhering to the first trade deal.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 5:31:00 PM
From: Rarebird	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

Another thing to consider is that 90% of US companies no longer produce their goods from China. During Trump's first term, it was much higher. So, Trump can get away with much higher tariffs in regard to China and the effects would still be minimal.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 5:34:58 PM
From: Rarebird	2 Recommendations Recommended By Augustus Gloop longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

Another thing to consider is that Trump may be using his threat of tariffs to get trade concessions from other countries now that the later knows he means business. Trump often talks tough then backs off a bit after he gets what he wants.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 5:40:56 PM
From: Rarebird	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz rxbond Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570917

Also, Trump is not going to do a mass deportation. Your Indian friends with visas who work in Silicon Valley, I severely doubt he would touch. He is not going to touch the Dreamers or those illegally coming in from the South to work in the fields or hotels. He is primarily going after the terrorists, jihadists and anti-semites, those who have been marching in demonstrations chanting death to USA. Trump isn't stupid; he is not going to deport those who are working here and making a contribution to American society.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/9/2024 8:10:28 PM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

Do you have a list of these tariffs you say he's going to enact?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1500214)	11/10/2024 1:36:56 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz Tenchusatsu Respond to of 1570917

Yes, but he didn't impose tariffs to the level that he promised during his second term. San Francico Fed, in 2019, estimated that tariffs on Chinese imports contributed to inflation by adding 0.1 percentage point to consumer price inflation, based on the direct impact on import prices. I don't know if they truly believed that was statistically significant. But the point was it was "quantifiable". Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found in 2018-19 that the effect of tariffs was "temporary and transitory" and "not significant" (and hence not the cause of Biden's inflation later on, suggesting there were "other macroeconomic issues" (LOL, I'll say!) There are certainly plenty of arguments on both sides (as there always are in economics) but the one argument I can't really get past is Friedman's conclusion that inflation is "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" -- and I believe that has been over the years. It does seem evidence that the recent inflation, as well as Carter's inflation, were products of largely "monetary phenomena", as were those severe cases, e.g., Brazil's hyperinflation in the early 90s that began in the early 80s, iirc. It was plainly monetary in nature (I think I remember Citibank was giving Brazil the money to pay its loans due to them, to keep from writing the debt off!). Also, Venezuela was clearly a monetary event, I believe. While the Carter era inflation had non-monetary elements (we had just come through a pretty rough wage-and-price spiral and really misguided efforts to solve it by Nixon). I recall my dad, who had an 8th grade education, commenting on the fact he couldn't raise prices by law until it was over. I was clear to him that as soon as the price freeze ended everyone would be raising prices instantly, which is precisely what happened. There were also oil-price shocks in the late 90s that resulted from the revolution in Iran. So, there were many confounders in those statistics. I'm not panicky about tariffs because it is clear they need not be permanent: the primary point is insistence on fair-play. I think tariffs are not helpful otherwise unless they're used to eliminate income taxes. That wouldn't be crazy advice for someone to give, considering the likely effects of the brewing AI Revolution (lack of a better term).