Economics - Tariffs Question - Trump - Why? (1 Viewer)

[Sammy3469]

Lol Trump actually ***advocates Hoover’s economics in that piece.

He doesn’t really believe that...it’s just a negotiating tactic.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

I am not a fan of Trump, but I don't think Trump believes a healthy stock market is the goal. He wants the country to have jobs, instead of losing them to other countries. And it would be odd if he succeeded in that goal and the stock market was down. 

For all intensive care purposes we're at full employment now. As I posted in the wall thread there are 11 million job openings that need to be filled. 

 

[timschochet]

Great discussion, but I think the OP’s question is somewhat flawed because Trump does not accept the premise that tariffs are bad for the economy. He believes, against the conventional wisdom, that tariffs bring prosperity by forcing the trading partner to make concessions. Also, he thinks it protects the American worker so they’re not forced to compete with people willing to take a lesser income. This latter belief is shared by Bernie Sanders among others. 

And it’s important to note that this belief is nothing new for Trump. There is not a single issue I can think of that he hasn’t expressed various contradictory viewpoints about over the years...except for this one. He has never wavered from the conviction that tariffs are good. 

 

[shader]

Please let's do our best to keep the responses non trolling here. Let's focus on understanding and less on snark. And yes, I know it's Political Forum on a Friday...  

But work with me.

Is it fair to say:

• Trump is a guy who puts "winning" on a pedestal?
  
• For better or for worse, Trump will do almost anything to "win" and gain approval from his supporters?
  
• "Winning" for Trump is seen as a Strong Economy.
  
• Trump is a "scoreboard" kind of guy.
  
• The Stock Market is seen as one of Trump's scoreboards for the economy.
  

So bottom line, Trump is highly incentivized for the stock market to do well. Is that fair to say?

I'm no economist, but it seems like most people agree Tariffs are bad for the stock market. This isn't a republican or democratic point. This is a practical point. "Stocks dip on fear of tariffs" seems common.

With that said, why is Trump so strongly in favor of tariffs?

I’m not a professor of Trump history but here’s my take.  

His recent tax returns show he’s willing to take massive risks.

Overall he’s been successful. 

But the stakes are a tad higher here.  His personal risk taking is now infringing on the entire world economy.  

I have no idea if it will work.  Perhaps China will cave and the economy will explode.  But it seems like a huge risk. Amazing that one man has that much power.

 

[timschochet]

One other point- there is a distinct difference between long term tariffs for the purpose of protecting jobs and wages, and short term tariffs for the purpose of getting the other side to agree to a new deal which will ultimately mean a more free trade than we had before. I think a lot of people might not be adverse to the latter idea, if it’s done correctly, including me. But it’s awful risky especially with China. 

 

[timschochet]

 Amazing that one man has that much power.

I’m not sure he has. I have long questioned why, if Congress is supposed to be in charge of commerce, the President has the power to impose tariffs. That doesn’t seem to me to be what the Founding Fathers intended. So far as I know this question has not been challenged to the Supreme Court. I think it should be. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Nobody has posted the cynical reason yet. Trump knows that announcing tariffs will cause certain stocks to fall. He and his confidantes sell just before he announces tariffs, and then buy just before he announces backing down.

I don’t think that’s actually the correct explanation. (I think Trump simply misunderstands the basics of trade economics — there is evidence for this every time he opens his mouth on the subject.) But I’m a little surprised that nobody has been cynical enough yet to advance it.

 

[Sammy3469]

One other point- there is a distinct difference between long term tariffs for the purpose of protecting jobs and wages, and short term tariffs for the purpose of getting the other side to agree to a new deal which will ultimately mean a more free trade than we had before. I think a lot of people might not be adverse to the latter idea, if it’s done correctly, including me. But it’s awful risky especially with China. 

He doesn’t view it as a risk since he fully believes (and rightfully so when you have FoxNews willing to spin anything you do for your benefit) that he can claim a win at any point.  There is no long term in his mind.

 

[NCCommish]

Please let's do our best to keep the responses non trolling here. Let's focus on understanding and less on snark. And yes, I know it's Political Forum on a Friday...  

But work with me.

Is it fair to say:

• Trump is a guy who puts "winning" on a pedestal?
  
• For better or for worse, Trump will do almost anything to "win" and gain approval from his supporters?
  
• "Winning" for Trump is seen as a Strong Economy.
  
• Trump is a "scoreboard" kind of guy.
  
• The Stock Market is seen as one of Trump's scoreboards for the economy.
  

So bottom line, Trump is highly incentivized for the stock market to do well. Is that fair to say?

I'm no economist, but it seems like most people agree Tariffs are bad for the stock market. This isn't a republican or democratic point. This is a practical point. "Stocks dip on fear of tariffs" seems common.

With that said, why is Trump so strongly in favor of tariffs?

I think all that's fair to say. I also think Trump is a fairly superficial winning guy. He will spin anything into a win. The truth is his tariffs have ruined many people. There are farmers who went bankrupt who will never be able to get back what they had, that business is gone now. There are companies that will never recover that business is gone now. The reason tariffs have to be very targeted with an eye to blowback is that the market is so sensitive to even slight pricing fluctuations. But I have seen people who support Trump who are suffering say it's fine because he is making things great. He's not but they believe it or need to believe it so there you go.

In the idea of full disclosure I am for fairer trade but when you look at the "new" deals Trump is pushing they dont really accomplish much in that arena and the changes are largely cosmetic. So that brings us back to superficial wins. Trump got some minor changes so it's the best trade deal ever. This is the guy that bankrupted a casino by building another casino across the street from it while the market for them was already in decline. His deal making skills are suspect and he won't listen to the experts because he knows everything. He is going to push this economy back into recession and it could happen sooner rather than later. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

Markets are a leading indicator. It's a perception of the future economy, not a direct derivative. 

Tariffs, if they remain in place, will impact future earnings.  The present value of those future earnings are aggregated in the stock market.  Could the tariffs be reversed and not actually affect earnings because they were never in place?  Sure.  But the market needs to price in all available information.  It's not accurate to say tariffs are not bad for the market.  Tariffs will negatively impact earnings, thus negatively impact the stock market.  To what degree is the question.   

 

[Gawain]

People’s 401k’s aren’t tied to the environment in such a direct way. My criticism is mainly around the fact that Americans retirement is so coupled to the stock market, which is actually the part that’s broken. But under that broken system, that means influencing the markets heavily like Trump is doing is messing with people’s retirements directly. So no, it’s not the exact same argument. 

I hold 600 shares of BTI (British Tobacco). Stock tanked when McConnell said that smoking age is going up to 21. McConnell's statement directly impacted the market. However, no one is advocating more kids smoke so stock prices stay up.

Here's a link to a study which shows that enforcement of environmental regulations, specifically negative monetary penalties, have a discernible, measurable and repeatable impact on the market: Environmental impact on the Food Industry

Events with actual negative monetary consequences, the result of noncompliance (E3), still remain an important factor in the market

It is foolish to take short-term gains at a greater long-term expense. Reasonable minds can differ about whether the course we're on with trade is correct, but if someone believes the course correct, the ship should be sailed. Not left at anchor because of 401K concerns.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I hold 600 shares of BTI (British Tobacco). Stock tanked when McConnell said that smoking age is going up to 21. McConnell's statement directly impacted the market. However, no one is advocating more kids smoke so stock prices stay up.

Here's a link to a study which shows that enforcement of environmental regulations, specifically negative monetary penalties, have a discernible, measurable and repeatable impact on the market: Environmental impact on the Food Industry

It is foolish to take short-term gains at a greater long-term expense. Reasonable minds can differ about whether the course we're on with trade is correct, but if someone believes the course correct, the ship should be sailed. Not left at anchor because of 401K concerns.

While I don’t disagree with this in principle,  a major point in your argument is that these tariffs are good in the long term. As someone who sees tariffs as an 18th Century approach to a 21st Century issue, I’ll double down with it’s a bad short term and a bad long term answer, and the fact that it impacts real people’s money, people doing it “the right way” is total BS. Please, keep up the philosophic side of the discussion though while supporting this mistake.

 

[GoBirds]

Not sure if you are serious but Trump is absolutely not in favor of tariffs.  He is willing to have some short term volatility in turn for better long term trade deals.

Not to mention the market is down a whole 50 points at this point today and up considerably since he took office but hey let’s freak out. When in Rome. 

 

[prefontaine]

Tariffs, if they remain in place, will impact future earnings.  The present value of those future earnings are aggregated in the stock market.  Could the tariffs be reversed and not actually affect earnings because they were never in place?  Sure.  But the market needs to price in all available information.  It's not accurate to say tariffs are not bad for the market.  Tariffs will negatively impact earnings, thus negatively impact the stock market.  To what degree is the question.   

You are conflating earnings with equity. They aren't the same thing. It is believed* that tariffs will impact future earnings but the underlying value of stock is not tethered to earnings. It can be a function but the market is always forward looking. It's why P/E ratios can differ wildly between even similar companies. 

* and I agree they are but it's not math and it is not provable - there is no alternate reality to show a before/after comp. This is why Economics is all theorem and not laws. But I'm being very nitpicky and for that I apologize. 

 

[GoBirds]

I don`t know much about what these trade deals with China are.

 Only thing that I heard yesterday on the business station is a few pundits saying "The China trade situation should have been dealt with starting 30-40 years ago and that China has taken great advantage of the USA and the pirating of USA technology the last 3-4 decades"  Not just the last 7-8 years. 

I’m no expert on this either but   I think this is the most accurate post in here while not sure on the timeframe they’ve definitely taken advantage and now that they are the power they are no one has wanted to draw the line in the sand. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's another cynical take, but one that I think might be close to the truth. Tariffs are bad on the whole. Pretty much all economists would agree with that. But as with just about any policy, tariffs will be good for some and bad for others.

Specifically, tariffs will be good for industries in which we are net importers, like manufacturing, and bad for industries where we are net exporters, like agriculture.

Let's look at the electoral college map for a minute.

Most of the states where agriculture is king (Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, California, Texas...) are not swing states. They are either red or blue. But the rust-belt states that have historically relied on manufacturing (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin...) are precisely the important swing states.

So politically, tariffs might actually be bad for the popular vote but very good for the electoral college vote -- and to that extent, they may indeed be a key to winning.

 

[[scooter]]

Not sure if you are serious but Trump is absolutely not in favor of tariffs.  He is willing to have some short term volatility in turn for better long term trade deals.

Not to mention the market is down a whole 50 points at this point today and up considerably since he took office but hey let’s freak out. When in Rome. 

I'm not sure if this helps your argument, if you're making an argument at all.

The market was up considerably -- until the first tariffs were implemented in January 2018. Since that point, the market is down 800 points.

 

[timschochet]

I’m no expert on this either but   I think this is the most accurate post in here while not sure on the timeframe they’ve definitely taken advantage and now that they are the power they are no one has wanted to draw the line in the sand. 

As I wrote, if these are short term tariffs designed to get a better deal, then I could be OK with that. If the whole thing works out then I will be the first here to congratulate the President. To your point in your previous post, the reason the market is not way down this morning is that a lot of investors agree with you; they continue to think this is all for show and that there will be a deal reached. 

I hope that’s right. But I’m not convinced. Don’t Noonan claims that Trump really isn’t for tariffs but for the last 30’years he has consistently spoken out in favor of them, and not simply as a means to obtain concessions from the other side, but as a permanent way to protect jobs and wages. So we’re going to have to find out how much of that he still believes. 

 

[The Commish]

I don`t know much about what these trade deals with China are.

 Only thing that I heard yesterday on the business station is a few pundits saying "The China trade situation should have been dealt with starting 30-40 years ago and that China has taken great advantage of the USA and the pirating of USA technology the last 3-4 decades"  Not just the last 7-8 years. 

Agreed. Talked about this at length in the trade war thread. It's staggering how little our politicans know about economics. this doesn't completely rest at the government's feet. A good bit of this was known as part of the price of doing business in that market. 

We can continue with the mmqb approach or forget the past and begin movement towards a solution. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

You are conflating earnings with equity. They aren't the same thing. It is believed* that tariffs will impact future earnings but the underlying value of stock is not tethered to earnings. It can be a function but the market is always forward looking. It's why P/E ratios can differ wildly between even similar companies. 

* and I agree they are but it's not math and it is not provable - there is no alternate reality to show a before/after comp. This is why Economics is all theorem and not laws. But I'm being very nitpicky and for that I apologize. 

Equity valuations are based on future earnings.  If you alter the assumptions that investors make in valuing those future earnings (e.g. tariffs), you change the equity valuation.  Is there a 1/1 relationship on the increase in tariffs to the change in stock price?  No.  The market is far more complex including the emotions of investors.  However, that doesn't change the fact that tariffs do affect the stock market.

If you wanted to sell your business, how do you think someone would come up with an offer price?  They'd look at your past results, make assumptions about what you'd earn in the future, then discount those earnings, cash flows, etc to a present value.  The risk that tariffs would increase the price of your product have to be included in that analysis.  Thus the earnings would go down and the equity valuation go down.  The offers you'd receive for your business' value (equity) would be less than if there were no tariffs in place.

 

[NCCommish]

Well China has called his bluff. They walked away from the table. Wall Street better be getting jittery because Trump has all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. 

Oh and by the way Wall Street has little meaning to the average persons life and is one of the worst ways to measure economic success especially for working class people who make up the majority. Wall Street being up hasn't led to rising wages or more opportunities.  We have less social mobility now than any time since the Gilded Age.

 

[Da Guru]

Well China has called his bluff. They walked away from the table. Wall Street better be getting jittery because Trump has all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. 

Oh and by the way Wall Street has little meaning to the average persons life and is one of the worst ways to measure economic success especially for working class people who make up the majority. Wall Street being up hasn't led to rising wages or more opportunities.  We have less social mobility now than any time since the Gilded Age.

Most of the experts on the business channels feel the opposite..they think Trump called China`s bluff and there will be a deal done shortly.  I guess it does not matter as there is no deal done now either way. 

 

[yak651]

Saw something that due to these tariffs the average family will see their costs rise $794/year. 

Gonna have to return that Costco membership the tax cuts gave us...

 

[Don't Noonan]

Gonna have to return that Costco membership the tax cuts gave us...

Didn't realize Costco memberships are up to $2,000 annually, sheesh

 

[GoBirds]

I'm not sure if this helps your argument, if you're making an argument at all.

The market was up considerably -- until the first tariffs were implemented in January 2018. Since that point, the market is down 800 points.

Correction now we are up for the day and what, 3% +/- off ALL TIME highs EVER? Even if we continue to pull back next week........come on. 

 

[[scooter]]

I'm not sure if this helps your argument, if you're making an argument at all.

The market was up considerably -- until the first tariffs were implemented in January 2018. Since that point, the market is down 800 points.

Correction now we are up for the day and what, 3% +/- off ALL TIME highs EVER? Even if we continue to pull back next week........come on. 

What's yout point? The market also went up on the day that the first tariffs were implemented, back in January 2018.

The market is down 800 since then.

It's not about day-to-day variations. Come on, you should know that.

The crux of your previous post was that the market was "up considerably" since Trump took office.

And the crux of my point is that the market is down considerably since tariffs were implemented.

 

[GoBirds]

Saw something that due to these tariffs the average family will see their costs rise $794/year. 

Cool......let us know when these tariffs have been in effect for a year and how that pans out. If those calculations are correct we are all currently in the hole $1.36, don't let it ruin your weekend. 

 

[NCCommish]

Most of the experts on the business channels feel the opposite..they think Trump called China`s bluff and there will be a deal done shortly.  I guess it does not matter as there is no deal done now either way. 

We'll see. While I agree we should have done a lot more about technology transfer and other things we depend on China for quite a lot. This feels more like the beginnings of a bad divorce. Those rarely are good for either side.

 

[lod001]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinese-companies-brace-for-tariff-hike-if-the-tariffs-rise-to-25-then-were-done-for-2019-05-09?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

[prefontaine]

Equity valuations are based on future earnings.  If you alter the assumptions that investors make in valuing those future earnings (e.g. tariffs), you change the equity valuation.  Is there a 1/1 relationship on the increase in tariffs to the change in stock price?  No.  The market is far more complex including the emotions of investors.  However, that doesn't change the fact that tariffs do affect the stock market.

If you wanted to sell your business, how do you think someone would come up with an offer price?  They'd look at your past results, make assumptions about what you'd earn in the future, then discount those earnings, cash flows, etc to a present value.  The risk that tariffs would increase the price of your product have to be included in that analysis.  Thus the earnings would go down and the equity valuation go down.  The offers you'd receive for your business' value (equity) would be less than if there were no tariffs in place.

I don't want to belabor this point too much but an equity market price is qualitative. Things like market share, the market conditions, competition, brand value and barriers to entry all play in a valuation. Those are some of the long term factors at play. But valuations are not hard science, they are subjective based on a myriad of factors as you well point out. 

It's entirely possible that someone can believe that tariffs will increase sales even at a higher cost but the net will be better and thus this perceive the equity to be worth more. I might not agree with that, but perception drives the price. 

The stock market bumps up and down. It often foreshadows the economy as a whole but sometimes it's dead wrong. In 1987 there was a mass sell off in the market. The economy itself didn't enter a recession again until Q3 90 by which time the losses had all been recovered in the market (we also had a bear that began at the same time). Sometimes the perception is right. Sometimes it's wrong. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Cool......let us know when these tariffs have been in effect for a year and how that pans out. If those calculations are correct we are all currently in the hole $1.36, don't let it ruin your weekend. 

Tariffs have been affecting my business for a year now.  My vendors are tacking on 3 to 8 percentage as a material fee now.  It hurts the farmers more though since that increase gets passed onto them.  So, not only are their crop and livestock prices too low they are also paying more for equipment and parts.

 

[The Commish]

and by the way Wall Street has little meaning to the average persons life and is one of the worst ways to measure economic success especially for working class people who make up the majority. Wall Street being up hasn't led to rising wages or more opportunities.  We have less social mobility now than any time since the Gilded Age.

For a while i thought this was shtick similar to the gdp in a vacuum thing. Apparently it's not and is a real belief

 

[Insomniac]

Please let's do our best to keep the responses non trolling here. Let's focus on understanding and less on snark. And yes, I know it's Political Forum on a Friday...  

But work with me.

Is it fair to say:

• Trump is a guy who puts "winning" on a pedestal?
  
• For better or for worse, Trump will do almost anything to "win" and gain approval from his supporters?
  
• "Winning" for Trump is seen as a Strong Economy.
  
• Trump is a "scoreboard" kind of guy.
  
• The Stock Market is seen as one of Trump's scoreboards for the economy.
  

So bottom line, Trump is highly incentivized for the stock market to do well. Is that fair to say?

I'm no economist, but it seems like most people agree Tariffs are bad for the stock market. This isn't a republican or democratic point. This is a practical point. "Stocks dip on fear of tariffs" seems common.

With that said, why is Trump so strongly in favor of tariffs?

Maybe he just has a very poor understanding of economics.  

 

[Biff84]

The simple answer is he doesn’t know much about trade negotiations and someone told him that tariffs were the way to gain leverage. Then he surrounded himself with people who agree with that or are afraid to disagree with him. He’s stuck with it because it fits with his bombastic rally speeches ‘We’re gonna get better trade deals and we’ll do it by putting huge tariffs on these countries. 15%, 25% maybe 35%...wouldn’t that be something? We’re gonna get some great trade done!’.

 

[Opie]

What's yout point? The market also went up on the day that the first tariffs were implemented, back in January 2018.

The market is down 800 since then.

It's not about day-to-day variations. Come on, you should know that.

The crux of your previous post was that the market was "up considerably" since Trump took office.

And the crux of my point is that the market is down considerably since tariffs were implemented.

Remember when?

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Maybe he just has a very poor understanding of economics.  

Hey, I just got elected and this is crazy

All of these numbers, I don't understand economics maybe

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I wouldn't doubt it him and his cronies make even more money......hey guys time to short everything....watch this...…………"CHINA TARIFFS"

Market tanks...…….....

Oh yeah just kidding...…….time to get back in!

 

[NCCommish]

For a while i thought this was shtick similar to the gdp in a vacuum thing. Apparently it's not and is a real belief

No shtick. Stock prices go up when people get laid off from profitable companies. Stock prices go up for no reason that's why we always hear about emotion in the market. The performance of the stock market is not a reflection of how the economy is for the average worker

 

[The Commish]

No shtick. Stock prices go up when people get laid off from profitable companies. Stock prices go up for no reason that's why we always hear about emotion in the market. The performance of the stock market is not a reflection of how the economy is for the average worker

No. I know. I'm talking about the people who point to the market as a bigly tell of the economy.  

 

[NCCommish]

No. I know. I'm talking about the people who point to the market as a bigly tell of the economy.  

I'm sorry I misunderstood your point. My apologies. 

 

[lazyike]

Not sure if you are serious but Trump is absolutely not in favor of tariffs.  He is willing to have some short term volatility in turn for better long term trade deals.

Not sure if you are serious....https://www.apnews.com/420f9e3ae0714dc08d97c5e7dc093f46

Earlier, in a series of blustering morning tweets, Trump claimed the new tariffs will help rather than hurt the U.S. and bring “FAR MORE wealth.”

Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker. Just sit back and watch!” Trump tweeted.

Here is my question......Is President Trump that stupid or does he think Americans are that stupid to fall for such baloney.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Not sure if you are serious....https://www.apnews.com/420f9e3ae0714dc08d97c5e7dc093f46

Earlier, in a series of blustering morning tweets, Trump claimed the new tariffs will help rather than hurt the U.S. and bring “FAR MORE wealth.”

Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker. Just sit back and watch!” Trump tweeted.

Here is my question......Is President Trump that stupid or does he think Americans are that stupid to fall for such baloney.

Like I said earlier, I believe Trump is just negotiating here and doesn't really believe tariffs are good for our economy.  If not, than I think he is very wrong.  I would say let's see how this plays out.

 

[Joe Summer]

Biff84 said:

The simple answer is he doesn’t know much about trade negotiations and someone told him that tariffs were the way to gain leverage. Then he surrounded himself with people who agree with that or are afraid to disagree with him. He’s stuck with it because it fits with his bombastic rally speeches ‘We’re gonna get better trade deals and we’ll do it by putting huge tariffs on these countries. 15%, 25% maybe 35%...wouldn’t that be something? We’re gonna get some great trade done!’.

Trump has advocated for tariffs since the '80s, long before he thought it would be a good negotiating tactic. I think he truly believes that America needs to return to the age where we were the #1 manufacturer in the world, when we exported more goods than we imported. And he thinks tariffs are the key to making that happen. Plus, tariffs fit neatly with his nationalist/isolationist mentality -- the less trade we do with other countries, the more isolated we become. And anti-globalists like Trump think that is a good thing.

Anyway, I think this is far deeper than just "Tariffs are a good negotiating tactic." I think his mentality is more like, "Tariffs will bring back the good old days."

 

[GoBirds]

Like I said earlier, I believe Trump is just negotiating here and doesn't really believe tariffs are good for our economy.  If not, than I think he is very wrong.  I would say let's see how this plays out.

Wait, you mean longer than the first 24 hours before I freak out?

 

[sho nuff]

Wait, you mean longer than the first 24 hours before I freak out?

It’s been more than 24 hours.  Or do you believe these are the first tariffs? 

Also Noonans point of Trump negotiating and not liking tariffs has been thoroughly destroyed by quotes from now and the past .

 

[GoBirds]

It’s been more than 24 hours.  Or do you believe these are the first tariffs? 

Also Noonans point of Trump negotiating and not liking tariffs has been thoroughly destroyed by quotes from now and the past .

Another rational and unbiased take from you, what a surprise. You have no idea how it will play out and haven’t destroyed anything he said. 

As asked before, please don’t quote my posts and I’ll return the favor. It’s always the same and adds no value. TIA. 

 

[sho nuff]

Another rational and unbiased take from you, what a surprise. You have no idea how it will play out and haven’t destroyed anything he said. 

As asked before, please don’t quote my posts and I’ll return the favor. It’s always the same and adds no value. TIA. 

Facts are irrational and biased?

These aren’t the first tariffs.  They have had negative effects so far and throughout history.

Trump has been quoted for many years talking positively about tariffs.  That directly shows Noonan’s post as being false.

Instaed of making claims about me and bias...refute the facts.

You are right on the last part.  I am always the same...posting facts you can’t even try to refute and your responses never add value. 

 

[Sammy3469]

Another rational and unbiased take from you, what a surprise. You have no idea how it will play out and haven’t destroyed anything he said. 

As asked before, please don’t quote my posts and I’ll return the favor. It’s always the same and adds no value. TIA. 

Iowa soybean farmers say :hi:

 

[GoBirds]

Facts are irrational and biased?

These aren’t the first tariffs.  They have had negative effects so far and throughout history.

Trump has been quoted for many years talking positively about tariffs.  That directly shows Noonan’s post as being false.

Instaed of making claims about me and bias...refute the facts.

You are right on the last part.  I am always the same...posting facts you can’t even try to refute and your responses never add value. 

You are out of touch with reality.....no one wants to read this. Do everyone a favor and move on when you see my posts. 

We’ll see how this plays out, the dramatics at this stage are a waste of time. 

 

[NCCommish]

You are out of touch with reality.....no one wants to read this. Do everyone a favor and move on when you see my posts. 

We’ll see how this plays out, the dramatics at this stage are a waste of time. 

And when China decides to retaliate? Imagine banning iPhones from 1.2 billion customers. China can do that. What happens if China bans American soy beans? Well say bye to even more of those farmers Trump claims to love.

This idea that there is no reason to worry about how this could go is almost as laughable as the idea that the US is actually in a strong position. Can only do so many bailouts to try to stem the bleeding.