US economy thread (2 Viewers)

[rockaction]

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

I can't cite this so it might be for naught and just inflammatory (I don't think it will be) but wasn't our president basically laying out the terms for autarky in 2016? Please don't comment about its desirability; I just remember all the articles back then and I'm wondering if I'm dreaming or not. I won't even say "I think he's done what he said he would do" because I'm not sure I knew what he actually said he would do.

So that's as de-fanged a way as I can of saying I remember a bunch of economists calling his economic program "autarky."

eta* Autarky meaning a closed economy where the nation or state in question produces and consumes all its own goods, or as much as is possible.

 

[Stoneworker]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

 

[the moops]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

You could just post the link without the snark. Also, what about your crusade to avoid political talk in here?

 

[Stoneworker]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

You could just post the link without the snark. Also, what about your crusade to avoid political talk in here?

Wasn't me who began the snarky line of questioning of the ostensible trade goals, but hopefully by posting an actual fact sheet some answers were provided.

No political discussion required nor solicited on the merits thereof.

 

[Gatorade]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

Thanks, good stuff here.

 

[TheAristocrat]

A signed order to develop a plan sounds serious

 

[General Malaise]

A signed order to develop a plan sounds serious

A concept of a plan!

 

[fruity pebbles]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

 

[the moops]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

End goal? Sensible relations with it's partner to the south?

 

[Sleestak]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man

 

[fruity pebbles]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

End goal? Sensible relations with it's partner to the south?

I want to keep this non political. You can only have relations with someone who wants the same. If someone wants to pick a fight and is a heavyweight in the UFC, you can either fight and get put in the hospital or not play along and get out of there. The US can put them into a severe recession without much effort. We’re talking a 30 trillion GDP vs a 2 trillion GDP. Canada has the economy of Florida.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I’m going to guess the end game is to try and survive in the short term while, maybe making some concessions here and there to ride it out. Longer term I am fairly certain that we (Canada) will remove ourselves from this relationship as best we can and build stronger ties with Europe and Asia.

You can’t force someone to be your friend and need to realize when to move on. Unfortunately I suspect this will endure much longer than just a few years, as trust is easily lost but difficult to secure.

Short term, all economies, Canada, US and Europe will suffer.

 

[Zigg]

Hopefully we slowly move to reduce trade with America. If you want to ask about end goals, what in the world is America’s??? You expect the world to beg and fall in line? We’ll move on and create trade alliances with stable, reliable partners.

We might hurt a little short term, but America is on the brink of doing enormous long term damage to itself.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hopefully we slowly move to reduce trade with America. If you want to ask about end goals, what in the world is America’s??? You expect the world to beg and fall in line? We’ll move on and create trade alliances with stable, reliable partners.

We might hurt a little short term, but America is on the brink of doing enormous long term damage to itself.

Many Americans, myself included, are extremely embarrassed and feel awful about what is happening.

 

[Northern Voice]

Hopefully we slowly move to reduce trade with America. If you want to ask about end goals, what in the world is America’s??? You expect the world to beg and fall in line? We’ll move on and create trade alliances with stable, reliable partners.

We might hurt a little short term, but America is on the brink of doing enormous long term damage to itself.

Going all in on manufacturing while simultaneously pissing off every primary trading partner, resulting in no one wanting any manufactured American goods.

I've never looked at the county of origin for products in my life (maybe I should have but that's another topic) and now we'll do anything to avoid buying American origin or American headquartered products, and it hasn't really affected or limited what we've bought one bit.

Covered Bridge chips are way better than Lays anyway. The Spanish oranges taste better.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Hopefully we slowly move to reduce trade with America. If you want to ask about end goals, what in the world is America’s??? You expect the world to beg and fall in line? We’ll move on and create trade alliances with stable, reliable partners.

We might hurt a little short term, but America is on the brink of doing enormous long term damage to itself.

As you know America is very split on this. But on face value, I think the end goal is to bring American production back, entice Americans to buy US goods and short term bring the economy to the brink of recession to significantly bring down interest rates.

 

[fatness]

eta* Autarky meaning a closed economy where the nation or state in question produces and consumes all its own goods, or as much as is possible.

Like what North Korea tries to do. This is from Google's results for "autarky"

"Autarky, also known as economic self-sufficiency, is a policy where a country strives to be independent by producing all its goods and services domestically, with minimal reliance on international trade.

Historical Examples:
Nazi Germany: During the 1930s and 40s, Nazi Germany attempted to achieve autarky, aiming to reduce dependence on foreign resources and trade.

Soviet Union: The Soviet Union also pursued autarky to varying degrees, particularly during the early years of its existence.

Francoist Spain: During the Franco regime, Spain also pursued autarky.

Contemporary Examples:

North Korea: North Korea is often cited as a current example of a nation pursuing autarky, based on the ideology of Juche, which emphasizes self-reliance. "

 

[fatness]

Federal Worker Layoffs Climb Toward 250,000 as Deadline Looms

"The Trump administration’s push to drastically shrink the federal government shifts to a new gear Thursday, when agencies face a deadline to submit plans for large-scale layoffs and budget cuts. With them, the list of government job cuts that for weeks had been measured in the tens of thousands — and included retirements, deferred resignations, and selective firings — is expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands.

The prospective plans also will bring more clearly into focus how the downsizing could impact government services and reshape everything from the broader US economy to local communities. Such job cuts inevitably have a downstream impact, according to analysts at Wolfe Research, LLC. They predict one layoff elsewhere in the economy for every two government jobs cut."

 

[fatness]

"JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has shifted his stance slightly when it comes to tariffs. Previously the Wall Street veteran has held—overall—a balanced view on the threat President Trump’s tariffs have posed to the economy. But the pace of policy change out of the White House is happening so rapidly that it’s pushing CEOs who were at first unfazed by the rhetoric to question how and when the trade war will end.

Markets are similarly volatile, prompted by the uncertainty of how far tariffs and reciprocal action will go. The cherry atop the cocktail of confusion is the Oval Office’s seeming nonchalance regarding fears over economic fallout and nose-diving stocks. Not only have markets erased all of the gains made in the so-called ‘Trump bump’ but teetering on the edge of correction territory. "

 

[fatness]

Dow slides and S&P 500 closes in correction as Trump’s trade war escalates

 

[Sand]

Dow slides and S&P 500 closes in correction as Trump’s trade war escalates

Futures, at least, look good. Mostly, I think, due to the capitulation on causing a government shutdown. Not surprisingly the market likes this.

 

[The Duff Man]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

Canada is going to get a hand cut off. No doubt about that.

We are trying to cut off a pinky in the US with hopes that Americans will ask themselves, why did we just get a pinky cut off when the economy was humming along nicely?

Canada put ourselves in this position with weak economic policy for a decade and assuming the US would always be a trading ally. This caused us to not build up enough trade with other nations or even ourselves.

Believe it or not, businesses across Canada can’t even ship alcohol to other provinces in many cases, but we can easily ship it to the US. We would rather trade with US than each other

Another example, we have no East/West pipelines to trade our oil with other Canadian provinces let alone other countries.

Just the US.

The US knows this.

 

[The Z Machine]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

Canada is going to get a hand cut off. No doubt about that.

We are trying to cut off a pinky in the US with hopes that Americans will ask themselves, why did we just get a pinky cut off when the economy was humming along nicely?

Canada put ourselves in this position with weak economic policy for a decade and assuming the US would always be a trading ally. This caused us to not build up enough trade with other nations or even ourselves.

Believe it or not, businesses across Canada can’t even ship alcohol to other provinces in many cases, but we can easily ship it to the US. We would rather trade with US than each other

Another example, we have no East/West pipelines to trade our oil with other Canadian provinces let alone other countries.

Just the US.

The US knows this.

Sounds like Canada assumed the US would be their ally and best trading partner forever. They didn't forsee the potential for a POTUS to try and extort them.

 

[Soulfly3]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

Canada is going to get a hand cut off. No doubt about that.

We are trying to cut off a pinky in the US with hopes that Americans will ask themselves, why did we just get a pinky cut off when the economy was humming along nicely?

Canada put ourselves in this position with weak economic policy for a decade and assuming the US would always be a trading ally. This caused us to not build up enough trade with other nations or even ourselves.

Believe it or not, businesses across Canada can’t even ship alcohol to other provinces in many cases, but we can easily ship it to the US. We would rather trade with US than each other

Another example, we have no East/West pipelines to trade our oil with other Canadian provinces let alone other countries.

Just the US.

The US knows this.

Sounds like Canada assumed the US would be their ally and best trading partner forever. They didn't forsee the potential for a POTUS to try and extort them.

edited due to crying.

 

[Soulfly3]

also edited for tears to stop flowing.

 

[Soulfly3]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

 

[-OZ-]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

You could just post the link without the snark. Also, what about your crusade to avoid political talk in here?

Wasn't me who began the snarky line of questioning of the ostensible trade goals, but hopefully by posting an actual fact sheet some answers were provided.

No political discussion required nor solicited on the merits thereof.

Posting a presidential memo as “factual” in an attempt to show why these policies are supposed to be good is inherently political. (Posting EOs to show what an EO does, is not imo)
Out of respect to the board, I’ll leave this now.

 

[Stoneworker]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

If you actually have a genuine objective of understanding trade goals, then this might help you out

Presidential Memo 2/13/25: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board.

You could just post the link without the snark. Also, what about your crusade to avoid political talk in here?

Wasn't me who began the snarky line of questioning of the ostensible trade goals, but hopefully by posting an actual fact sheet some answers were provided.

No political discussion required nor solicited on the merits thereof.

Posting a presidential memo as “factual” in an attempt to show why these policies are supposed to be good is inherently political. (Posting EOs to show what an EO does, is not imo)
Out of respect to the board, I’ll leave this now.

Nowhere is there an attempt to "show why these policies are supposed to be good." That is a blatant lie.

You clearly had a mistaken idea that the trade policy goals were to "stop trading with each other altogether."

I gave you the original source of those officially stated goals so you could (hopefully) figure it out for yourself

 

[-OZ-]

Nowhere is there an attempt to "show why these policies are supposed to be good." That is a blatant lie.

Did you read the memo you posted?

 

[Stoneworker]

Nowhere is there an attempt to "show why these policies are supposed to be good." That is a blatant lie.

Did you read the memo you posted?

Yes

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think these tariffs are effectively a necessary result of the economic strategy/goals that this administration is hoping to accomplish. I want to make clear that I’m not taking any side on if I think this strategy is wrong or right—these are just my thoughts on what I think is going on below the semantics. Politicians and politics have this beautiful way of phrasing and labeling things to “package” them into a more digestible for the public.

I think that most would probably agree that government probably could probably function better and more efficiently. I think most would agree that reducing fraud in government is also a good thing. I think most of us want to see the debt reduced..etc. I think that if an administration tried to do these things in a slow, surgical and deliberate manner—that it would be more comfortable and easier for the public to digest. I think one of the major things that is happening is that the administration is moving really fast and is looking to cut government and services pretty drastically. If we go back through many years (through many administrations with presidents and congresses that are from both parties)—the US has been in a position where our government was not only the printing press of money for the economy—but it was also the biggest consumer in our consumer based economy. The pandemic triggered massive printing of money as well as triggered massive government spending. To combat inflation—the treasury started pulling back on how much money it was printing in 2022. The “cutting the fat” and removing the fraud out of government which was a big policy that led to this administration winning the election is effectively another way of saying “austerity”. We are transitioning from a period during the pandemic (and arguably even before the pandemic) where the treasury would print currency at very high levels, and the government would play a huge role in spending and consequently circulating that money. Now—we are in a position where the printing presses are being slowed down, and the government is doing what it can to reduce its size and spending to the bare minimum required for it to get by.

This means that less money is getting created and circulated by our government—which means it becomes very important to try to reduce the existing money that is in our system/markets from leaving the country. If you are in a drought and very little new water is coming in—the last thing you want to do is see the water that you have going out. Being that the USA and Americans tend to buy more from other countries than we sell to them—more money is leaving the country than is coming in. Last year, we imported over 4 trillion dollars worth of goods, while we exported roughly 3 trillion dollars worth to the world. If the goal of this administration and Doge is to cut $1 trillion from the government and its spending, the treasury is printing less currency, and we currently have far more money going out of the country than coming in—-this is potentially a recipe for some really economically distressing times ahead for a big portion of the country. Keep in mind, many of these government layoffs are not immediate—a lot of the workers have been instructed/or have accepted deals where they keep working or are getting paid until August/September. I think this is why the administration is being so quick and strict on tariffs. They want to try to quickly find ways to capture more money coming in and to reduce money going out in a time where our government and its spending will be reduced and services will be limited. I expect the next 6 months to 1 year to be very turbulent and uneasy for the markets, our economy, and for peoples confidence in the economic outlook. To be transparently clear—I’m not saying that I’m for or against this— this is just my theory breaking down what I think is going on.

 

[djmich]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

 

[Tin Cup]

Federal Worker Layoffs Climb Toward 250,000 as Deadline Looms

"The Trump administration’s push to drastically shrink the federal government shifts to a new gear Thursday, when agencies face a deadline to submit plans for large-scale layoffs and budget cuts. With them, the list of government job cuts that for weeks had been measured in the tens of thousands — and included retirements, deferred resignations, and selective firings — is expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands.

The prospective plans also will bring more clearly into focus how the downsizing could impact government services and reshape everything from the broader US economy to local communities. Such job cuts inevitably have a downstream impact, according to analysts at Wolfe Research, LLC. They predict one layoff elsewhere in the economy for every two government jobs cut."

Why doesn’t this seem to be showing up in US unemployment figures yet? Most of the news coverage lately has been things like “unemployment was up 0.1% in February” or “unemployment claims fell last week”. Seems like 250k being thrust into unemployment in just a few weeks would have a more dramatic impact.

 

[Mitchie]

I think these tariffs are effectively a necessary result of the economic strategy/goals that this administration is hoping to accomplish. I want to make clear that I’m not taking any side on if I think this strategy is wrong or right—these are just my thoughts on what I think is going on below the semantics. Politicians and politics have this beautiful way of phrasing and labeling things to “package” them into a more digestible for the public.

I think that most would probably agree that government probably could probably function better and more efficiently. I think most would agree that reducing fraud in government is also a good thing. I think most of us want to see the debt reduced..etc. I think that if an administration tried to do these things in a slow, surgical and deliberate manner—that it would be more comfortable and easier for the public to digest. I think one of the major things that is happening is that the administration is moving really fast and is looking to cut government and services pretty drastically. If we go back through many years (through many administrations with presidents and congresses that are from both parties)—the US has been in a position where our government was not only the printing press of money for the economy—but it was also the biggest consumer in our consumer based economy. The pandemic triggered massive printing of money as well as triggered massive government spending. To combat inflation—the treasury started pulling back on how much money it was printing in 2022. The “cutting the fat” and removing the fraud out of government which was a big policy that led to this administration winning the election is effectively another way of saying “austerity”. We are transitioning from a period during the pandemic (and arguably even before the pandemic) where the treasury would print currency at very high levels, and the government would play a huge role in spending and consequently circulating that money. Now—we are in a position where the printing presses are being slowed down, and the government is doing what it can to reduce its size and spending to the bare minimum required for it to get by.

This means that less money is getting created and circulated by our government—which means it becomes very important to try to reduce the existing money that is in our system/markets from leaving the country. If you are in a drought and very little new water is coming in—the last thing you want to do is see the water that you have going out. Being that the USA and Americans tend to buy more from other countries than we sell to them—more money is leaving the country than is coming in. Last year, we imported over 4 trillion dollars worth of goods, while we exported roughly 3 trillion dollars worth to the world. If the goal of this administration and Doge is to cut $1 trillion from the government and its spending, the treasury is printing less currency, and we currently have far more money going out of the country than coming in—-this is potentially a recipe for some really economically distressing times ahead for a big portion of the country. Keep in mind, many of these government layoffs are not immediate—a lot of the workers have been instructed/or have accepted deals where they keep working or are getting paid until August/September. I think this is why the administration is being so quick and strict on tariffs. They want to try to quickly find ways to capture more money coming in and to reduce money going out in a time where our government and its spending will be reduced and services will be limited. I expect the next 6 months to 1 year to be very turbulent and uneasy for the markets, our economy, and for peoples confidence in the economic outlook. To be transparently clear—I’m not saying that I’m for or against this— this is just my theory breaking down what I think is going on.

Thing is yes it is easy to get everyone can agree govt could be run more efficiently. My company could be run more efficiently, my household could be run more efficiently, everything could be run more efficiently. So yay let's blow it all up, tell everyone there will be short term pain but just relax everything will be good in the long term if you just trust us. That's a no thanks from me.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Federal Worker Layoffs Climb Toward 250,000 as Deadline Looms

"The Trump administration’s push to drastically shrink the federal government shifts to a new gear Thursday, when agencies face a deadline to submit plans for large-scale layoffs and budget cuts. With them, the list of government job cuts that for weeks had been measured in the tens of thousands — and included retirements, deferred resignations, and selective firings — is expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands.

The prospective plans also will bring more clearly into focus how the downsizing could impact government services and reshape everything from the broader US economy to local communities. Such job cuts inevitably have a downstream impact, according to analysts at Wolfe Research, LLC. They predict one layoff elsewhere in the economy for every two government jobs cut."

Why doesn’t this seem to be showing up in US unemployment figures yet? Most of the news coverage lately has been things like “unemployment was up 0.1% in February” or “unemployment claims fell last week”. Seems like 250k being thrust into unemployment in just a few weeks would have a more dramatic impact.

Many of these people getting laid off by the government are technically getting paid or are instructed to continue working for 6 months. You probably won’t be seeing the true results of the government layoffs until the unemployment reports that reflect the months of August and September come out.

 

[djmich]

I think these tariffs are effectively a necessary result of the economic strategy/goals that this administration is hoping to accomplish. I want to make clear that I’m not taking any side on if I think this strategy is wrong or right—these are just my thoughts on what I think is going on below the semantics. Politicians and politics have this beautiful way of phrasing and labeling things to “package” them into a more digestible for the public.

I think that most would probably agree that government probably could probably function better and more efficiently. I think most would agree that reducing fraud in government is also a good thing. I think most of us want to see the debt reduced..etc. I think that if an administration tried to do these things in a slow, surgical and deliberate manner—that it would be more comfortable and easier for the public to digest. I think one of the major things that is happening is that the administration is moving really fast and is looking to cut government and services pretty drastically. If we go back through many years (through many administrations with presidents and congresses that are from both parties)—the US has been in a position where our government was not only the printing press of money for the economy—but it was also the biggest consumer in our consumer based economy. The pandemic triggered massive printing of money as well as triggered massive government spending. To combat inflation—the treasury started pulling back on how much money it was printing in 2022. The “cutting the fat” and removing the fraud out of government which was a big policy that led to this administration winning the election is effectively another way of saying “austerity”. We are transitioning from a period during the pandemic (and arguably even before the pandemic) where the treasury would print currency at very high levels, and the government would play a huge role in spending and consequently circulating that money. Now—we are in a position where the printing presses are being slowed down, and the government is doing what it can to reduce its size and spending to the bare minimum required for it to get by.

This means that less money is getting created and circulated by our government—which means it becomes very important to try to reduce the existing money that is in our system/markets from leaving the country. If you are in a drought and very little new water is coming in—the last thing you want to do is see the water that you have going out. Being that the USA and Americans tend to buy more from other countries than we sell to them—more money is leaving the country than is coming in. Last year, we imported over 4 trillion dollars worth of goods, while we exported roughly 3 trillion dollars worth to the world. If the goal of this administration and Doge is to cut $1 trillion from the government and its spending, the treasury is printing less currency, and we currently have far more money going out of the country than coming in—-this is potentially a recipe for some really economically distressing times ahead for a big portion of the country. Keep in mind, many of these government layoffs are not immediate—a lot of the workers have been instructed/or have accepted deals where they keep working or are getting paid until August/September. I think this is why the administration is being so quick and strict on tariffs. They want to try to quickly find ways to capture more money coming in and to reduce money going out in a time where our government and its spending will be reduced and services will be limited. I expect the next 6 months to 1 year to be very turbulent and uneasy for the markets, our economy, and for peoples confidence in the economic outlook. To be transparently clear—I’m not saying that I’m for or against this— this is just my theory breaking down what I think is going on.

Thing is yes it is easy to get everyone can agree govt could be run more efficiently. My company could be run more efficiently, my household could be run more efficiently, everything could be run more efficiently. So yay let's blow it all up, tell everyone there will be short term pain but just relax everything will be good in the long term if you just trust us. That's a no thanks from me.

Yes. Hold aside whether it will work or not (trying to stick to jvdesigns intent here of not right or wrong). No voter wants to vote for short term pain on the promise of long term benefit. Hence why we are here to begin with.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think these tariffs are effectively a necessary result of the economic strategy/goals that this administration is hoping to accomplish. I want to make clear that I’m not taking any side on if I think this strategy is wrong or right—these are just my thoughts on what I think is going on below the semantics. Politicians and politics have this beautiful way of phrasing and labeling things to “package” them into a more digestible for the public.

I think that most would probably agree that government probably could probably function better and more efficiently. I think most would agree that reducing fraud in government is also a good thing. I think most of us want to see the debt reduced..etc. I think that if an administration tried to do these things in a slow, surgical and deliberate manner—that it would be more comfortable and easier for the public to digest. I think one of the major things that is happening is that the administration is moving really fast and is looking to cut government and services pretty drastically. If we go back through many years (through many administrations with presidents and congresses that are from both parties)—the US has been in a position where our government was not only the printing press of money for the economy—but it was also the biggest consumer in our consumer based economy. The pandemic triggered massive printing of money as well as triggered massive government spending. To combat inflation—the treasury started pulling back on how much money it was printing in 2022. The “cutting the fat” and removing the fraud out of government which was a big policy that led to this administration winning the election is effectively another way of saying “austerity”. We are transitioning from a period during the pandemic (and arguably even before the pandemic) where the treasury would print currency at very high levels, and the government would play a huge role in spending and consequently circulating that money. Now—we are in a position where the printing presses are being slowed down, and the government is doing what it can to reduce its size and spending to the bare minimum required for it to get by.

This means that less money is getting created and circulated by our government—which means it becomes very important to try to reduce the existing money that is in our system/markets from leaving the country. If you are in a drought and very little new water is coming in—the last thing you want to do is see the water that you have going out. Being that the USA and Americans tend to buy more from other countries than we sell to them—more money is leaving the country than is coming in. Last year, we imported over 4 trillion dollars worth of goods, while we exported roughly 3 trillion dollars worth to the world. If the goal of this administration and Doge is to cut $1 trillion from the government and its spending, the treasury is printing less currency, and we currently have far more money going out of the country than coming in—-this is potentially a recipe for some really economically distressing times ahead for a big portion of the country. Keep in mind, many of these government layoffs are not immediate—a lot of the workers have been instructed/or have accepted deals where they keep working or are getting paid until August/September. I think this is why the administration is being so quick and strict on tariffs. They want to try to quickly find ways to capture more money coming in and to reduce money going out in a time where our government and its spending will be reduced and services will be limited. I expect the next 6 months to 1 year to be very turbulent and uneasy for the markets, our economy, and for peoples confidence in the economic outlook. To be transparently clear—I’m not saying that I’m for or against this— this is just my theory breaking down what I think is going on.

Thing is yes it is easy to get everyone can agree govt could be run more efficiently. My company could be run more efficiently, my household could be run more efficiently, everything could be run more efficiently. So yay let's blow it all up, tell everyone there will be short term pain but just relax everything will be good in the long term if you just trust us. That's a no thanks from me.

That’s up for each person to decide. I’m certainly not saying it’s a “yes” or a “no” from me—as I want to avoid taking any sort of political stance in these forums. Being that this is the thread about the economy—and there seems to be a lot of talk about the tariffs and about why and how they are being handled—I just wanted to chime in and give my opinion on what is going on that could be propelling these actions.

 

[Instinctive]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

Just put the guy on ignore if you think he's trolling you and you can't resist stopping to respond. Trust me, life will be better. I did it with our worst poster in another thread and the last few months have been great not worrying about their dumb takes and trolls.

 

[Northern Voice]

So what’s Canada’s end goal here? I get wanting to fight back but they’re in a fight they can’t win.

Canada put ourselves in this position with weak economic policy for a decade and assuming the US would always be a trading ally. This caused us to not build up enough trade with other nations or even ourselves.

Believe it or not, businesses across Canada can’t even ship alcohol to other provinces in many cases, but we can easily ship it to the US. We would rather trade with US than each other

Another example, we have no East/West pipelines to trade our oil with other Canadian provinces let alone other countries.

This is all true and I can take it out of this thread if people prefer, this isn't the Canada economy thread but we are rapidly taking down the interprovincial barriers finally as a result of all this and there are a lot of measures coming to both promote buying Canadian and helping Canadians who lose their jobs as a result of these tariffs.

Canada is actually stronger and more united than any time in the past twenty or so years, so it that sense it's been really great to see everyone coming together against a common enemy, it just sucks that said common enemy was formerly our greatest ally.

I do understand to a degree the comments about Canada's lack of military spending but as a country, Canada has always been one of the first into the fray historically (including two full years ahead of the USA in WWII) and really don't think there were any major threats to the country that required extensive military spending. Again, that has changed, with the annexing threats/imperialism coming from what we thought was our greatest ally.

Is it going to hurt the Canadian economy? Absolutely. But we do have so much in terms of raw materials from more fresh water than anyone, our clean energy is very strong, there's endless forests for lumber and minerals, and lots of oil and natural gas. And we do still have great trade relationships with most of the rest of the world and now hopefully interprovincially as well.

The big concern would be the auto industry and if companies did pull out, what that means in terms of job losses and loss of so much spin-off industry.

It's going to be some pain but everyone will/is come together and Canada can be pretty self-sustaining over the long term, as long as the USA doesn't actually come and try to occupy/take the country by force.

 

[djmich]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

Just put the guy on ignore if you think he's trolling you and you can't resist stopping to respond. Trust me, life will be better. I did it with our worst poster in another thread and the last few months have been great not worrying about their dumb takes and trolls.

Even better idea, why don’t we create a separate forum for that talk?

 

[Instinctive]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

Just put the guy on ignore if you think he's trolling you and you can't resist stopping to respond. Trust me, life will be better. I did it with our worst poster in another thread and the last few months have been great not worrying about their dumb takes and trolls.

Even better idea, why don’t we create a separate forum for that talk?

Not a better idea. It's one the site owner has explicitly denied as an option.

You have three options:
1. Put them on Ignore and go about your day forever
2. Resist responding and making it worse, just report it
3. Become part of the problem by stopping to their level

I just can't fathom choosing to be the person who picks #3.

 

[Desert_Power]

Federal Worker Layoffs Climb Toward 250,000 as Deadline Looms

"The Trump administration’s push to drastically shrink the federal government shifts to a new gear Thursday, when agencies face a deadline to submit plans for large-scale layoffs and budget cuts. With them, the list of government job cuts that for weeks had been measured in the tens of thousands — and included retirements, deferred resignations, and selective firings — is expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands.

The prospective plans also will bring more clearly into focus how the downsizing could impact government services and reshape everything from the broader US economy to local communities. Such job cuts inevitably have a downstream impact, according to analysts at Wolfe Research, LLC. They predict one layoff elsewhere in the economy for every two government jobs cut."

Why doesn’t this seem to be showing up in US unemployment figures yet? Most of the news coverage lately has been things like “unemployment was up 0.1% in February” or “unemployment claims fell last week”. Seems like 250k being thrust into unemployment in just a few weeks would have a more dramatic impact.

I would guess it is a factor of the lagged nature of the data itself combined with uncertainty around if folks are actually laid off or not.

Believe the household survey is roughly conducted over the back half of the prior month and first half of current month. So, anything from about mid-Feb wouldn't be included in the Feb report.

 

[-OZ-]

No voter wants to vote for short term pain on the promise of long term benefit. Hence why we are here to begin with.

Not none, but definitely a minority. It’s a question of chance that the long term will be better vs that of short term pain. Many of us do many things that “hurt” in the short term because we expect it to pay off long term. We eat veggies, maybe drink less, exercise, invest in retirement accounts, etc. Some of us would take slower growth if it meant sustainable growth and better environmental conditions long term. so it’s not that we’re all unwilling to pay in the short term.
The issue is how things are done, but that conversation leans political.

 

[Atomic Punk]

If balanced trade is the main impetus of the tariffs, why doesn’t the president just sign an EO to make it so? I believe the surplus with Canada is between $40B and $80B depending whether services are included in the calculation (nowhere near the $200B referenced by the White House). So just import $40B - $80B less from Canada in oil, electricity, lumber, etc., since the US doesn’t need it anyway, and we are good … easy, peasy!

 

[Steve Tasker]

Is it going to hurt the Canadian economy? Absolutely. But we do have so much in terms of raw materials from more fresh water than anyone, our clean energy is very strong, there's endless forests for lumber and minerals, and lots of oil and natural gas. And we do still have great trade relationships with most of the rest of the world and now hopefully interprovincially as well.

Bombardier watching Boeing right now

 

[Soulfly3]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

I'll quote it again

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

what are your thoughts?

 

[Chaz McNulty]

If balanced trade is the main impetus of the tariffs, why doesn’t the president just sign an EO to make it so? I believe the surplus with Canada is between $40B and $80B depending whether services are included in the calculation (nowhere near the $200B referenced by the White House). So just import $40B - $80B less from Canada in oil, electricity, lumber, etc., since the US doesn’t need it anyway, and we are good … easy, peasy!

If you remove energy from the equation (oil, natural gas, power), than the US has a 40B trade surplus with Canada.

 

[Instinctive]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

I'll quote it again

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

what are your thoughts?

My thoughts, on a little conversation with myself were roughly:

Hmm, big sale on securities coming. Am I prepared? Should I sell some now in anticipation of further decline and getting back in? Hey dummy you can't time the market just keep buying every month and be happy you get more of it keeps going down.

I wonder if this will make it easier for me to buy the house we want next? Will it break prices a bit? If things go kaboom, does that mean interest rates may tank too? That's a huge deal. I've been lazy and haven't put the cash from year end bonus into the market yet...do I sit on it as a down payment fund? I wonder if rates and prices could crash to the point that I could buy and not have to sell our current house, but rent it out instead...maybe that's a headache. Hmmm.

And then I saw your post! So I responded.

 

[Schmeabs]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

I'll quote it again

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

what are your thoughts?

This is nothing like the Great Depression.

 

[Max Power]

Anyways, I'm out of the arguing (not that there is much arguing, more just frustration being spewed)

back to the US economy... does this worry any of you?

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

Cool, out of nowhere drop a bunch of political crap into then thread and then claim you're out of the arguing (I didn't really see anybody arguing with you)...mighty big of you. Stay out please before you get the thread locked.

I'll quote it again

S&P 500’s drop into correction is the seventh-fastest since 1929, the year of the Great Depression crash — Bloomberg

what are your thoughts?

My thoughts, on a little conversation with myself were roughly:

Hmm, big sale on securities coming. Am I prepared? Should I sell some now in anticipation of further decline and getting back in? Hey dummy you can't time the market just keep buying every month and be happy you get more of it keeps going down.

I wonder if this will make it easier for me to buy the house we want next? Will it break prices a bit? If things go kaboom, does that mean interest rates may tank too? That's a huge deal. I've been lazy and haven't put the cash from year end bonus into the market yet...do I sit on it as a down payment fund? I wonder if rates and prices could crash to the point that I could buy and not have to sell our current house, but rent it out instead...maybe that's a headache. Hmmm.

And then I saw your post! So I responded.

Rates have dropped for 6 straight weeks and applications are up 11%. Nice to see a little improvement, but housing still has a long way to go.

I'm in the camp where I don't have a lot of faith the starter home market ever gets corrected.