US economy thread (3 Viewers)

[Nugget]

It is a fairly big range of potential increases depending on what models you are looking at and where they are made.

Also depends on reactionary tariffs.

Misleading Headline But Good Info

The JD Power folks thought OEMs would need to spread the pain across the lineup. We don't think Toyota will want a RAV4 (Canada) to cost more than a Highlander (Indiana). Or a Maverick (Mexico) to cost more than a Ranger (Michigan).

 

[Runkle]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

I don't think she believed me when I said "They used to have to interrupt TV every night and ask 'It's 10 pm, do you know where your children are?' because otherwise parents might not have noticed the kids had been gone for hours."

 

[fruity pebbles]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

 

[SFBayDuck]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

And then we'd go back out after dinner and we just had to be home when the street lights came on...which in the summer in Portland was like 9:30-10:00.

 

[dkp993]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

And then we'd go back out after dinner and we just had to be home when the street lights came on...which in the summer in Portland was like 9:30-10:00.

And we learned independence.

 

[Instinctive]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

And then we'd go back out after dinner and we just had to be home when the street lights came on...which in the summer in Portland was like 9:30-10:00.

And we learned independence.

Two great books on this by the way

1. The coddling of the American mind
2. Free range kids


ETA: and a semi related bonus book Hunt Gather Parent

 

[Desert_Power]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

 

[Buckna]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

And then we'd go back out after dinner and we just had to be home when the street lights came on...which in the summer in Portland was like 9:30-10:00.

While I don’t disagree that the pendulum swung too far the other way to the nanny state, you have to remember that all it took was some kids getting molested or kidnapped or murdered for people to start to think “hey maybe I should keep better tabs on my kids?” Versus those free wheeling latchkey kids days people wax nostalgic about…

 

[SFBayDuck]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

Why hard to believe? We have policies being discussed /implemented that are both inflationary and anti-growth in the short-intermediate term. Seems the fed went from not believing they’d actually be implemented to now believing it.

 

[the moops]

While I don’t disagree that the pendulum swung too far the other way to the nanny state, you have to remember that all it took was some kids getting molested or kidnapped or murdered for people to start to think “hey maybe I should keep better tabs on my kids?” V

Yet the country is generally safer now than it was in the 70's or 80's or whatever generation we all grew up in

 

[SFBayDuck]

@MAC_32 Are you trying to say the lack of motivation in the younger workforce is due to the current economic state which is the fault of the generations before them and therefore their lack of trying/caring shouldn't fall on them?

I won’t speak for him. But my opinion is it’s due to helicopter parenting and a participation trophy mindset. GenX has been so worried about protecting our children from any strife or struggle we have not done a very good job preparing them for the real world.

Showing up everyday is the most important thing I try to instill in young people. I don’t understand knocking participation trophies while also wishing young folks participated more.

I am certainly down with rewarding effort and teamwork. My daughter is 10 and been in sports since she was 6. Thing I have told her above all else is her results are not what make me proud or disappointed, it’s her effort. If she’s trying her hardest and strikes out 3 times in a game she gets huge hugs from dad. It’s about the effort. But far too often what I’ve seen is the participation trophies are about shielding our kids from the pain of losing. Learning how to lose is maybe of one of the most important things sports teach you. We shouldn’t be trying to soothe that pain, we should be teaching them how to process, deal and react to it.

I have several bowling trophy and patches from like 1982 when I was 8 years old. I wasn’t a particularly good bowler. They are in essence participation trophies/patches. It may be more prevalent now but it’s not new.

If you don’t see the type of parenting today as any different then in 1982 then we are simply operating in different realities and aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.

My girlfriend is in her 20s (hey look at me) and was utterly confused when watching Stranger Things that a bunch of 13-year-olds were allowed to bicycle all over town unsupervised for hours on end. I tried to explain to her that when I was a kid in that time period, it was normal. A kid on a bike was fine to be left completely alone from after-school until sunset, no questions asked. "Mom I'm going out" was all you had to say. She was completely befuddled by the concept.

My parents and I think most, threw us out in the morning and told us not to come back until dinner time.

And then we'd go back out after dinner and we just had to be home when the street lights came on...which in the summer in Portland was like 9:30-10:00.

While I don’t disagree that the pendulum swung too far the other way to the nanny state, you have to remember that all it took was some kids getting molested or kidnapped or murdered for people to start to think “hey maybe I should keep better tabs on my kids?” Versus those free wheeling latchkey kids days people wax nostalgic about…

Those things were always happening, across the history of man. What’s changed is that we went from only knowing about it if it happened to someone we knew to maybe hearing about it in our community on local news to today’s hyper-information age where these stories from anywhere can be shared and multiplied in real time.

 

[Max Power]

Slightly off topic... my ex wife was almost charged with child endangerment and neglect because our 10 year old son got lost on a bike ride in a neighborhood we had only lived in for about 3 months. The police had to escort him home and threatened to arrest her before seeing the home was safe and it was a one off situation. We basically stopped letting the kids go out of sight after that.

 

[Desert_Power]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

Why hard to believe? We have policies being discussed /implemented that are both inflationary and anti-growth in the short-intermediate term. Seems the fed went from not believing they’d actually be implemented to now believing it.

I think a -2.8% annualized estimate for the quarter would imply that we are currently contracting much faster since a lot of policies are only recently put into place. Maybe that is what equity markets are seeing?

A shift of over 5% since last Wednesday is just a lot though. I think that their GDP model is at least partially understated due to how the data releases are picking up industrial inventory build ahead of tariffs. PCE component more concerning. It also has a positive contribution for government spending which could shut down soon.

 

[tommyGunZ]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

We've run out of runway. Interest rates, due to massive influxes of cash after massive influxes of cash, have remained high and have effectively frozen housing. It's awful and predicted to say awful. At least in the past as the housing market goes so goes the economy in general. Not sure we'll crash, but a bout of stagflation is certainly in the realm of possibilities. Or we could crash, that's also something that's possible.

The only reason we’ve “run out of runway” is because we blew it up intentionally. Macroeconomy has been in excellent shape for a long time; the market leg down and negative GDP predictions are due to business and consumer uncertainty, tariffs, etc., in my opinion.

 

[FairWarning]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

We've run out of runway. Interest rates, due to massive influxes of cash after massive influxes of cash, have remained high and have effectively frozen housing. It's awful and predicted to say awful. At least in the past as the housing market goes so goes the economy in general. Not sure we'll crash, but a bout of stagflation is certainly in the realm of possibilities. Or we could crash, that's also something that's possible.

The only reason we’ve “run out of runway” is because we blew it up intentionally. Macroeconomy has been in excellent shape for a long time; the market leg down and negative GDP predictions are due to business and consumer uncertainty, tariffs, etc., in my opinion.

Seems like we have been kicking the economic can down the road for a few years, now its time to pay. The job market it TOUGH right now.

 

[Nugget]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

I agree - think the model is skewed. January is always a light month and I think it will improve. Directionally I think the model is likely correct.

 

[SFBayDuck]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

I agree - think the model is skewed. January is always a light month and I think it will improve. Directionally I think the model is likely correct.

Agreed, pretty much no forecasting models are actually accurate, it's whether they are directionally correct that matters. And a 5% swing to the negative is a pretty big directional movement.

 

[The Duff Man]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

 

[General Malaise]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I think the stock market is currently educating them.

 

[eighsse2]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

 

[-OZ-]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

Why hard to believe? We have policies being discussed /implemented that are both inflationary and anti-growth in the short-intermediate term. Seems the fed went from not believing they’d actually be implemented to now believing it.

careful. Wouldn’t want this to get political.

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I think the stock market is currently educating them.

I think the costs of goods might be better education for most.

 

[eighsse2]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

That’s certainly part of the question.
How many others will, or can, pay more? Inflation was the hot button issue for a few years.

 

[SFBayDuck]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

Why hard to believe? We have policies being discussed /implemented that are both inflationary and anti-growth in the short-intermediate term. Seems the fed went from not believing they’d actually be implemented to now believing it.

careful. Wouldn’t want this to get political.

Not sure how that would be considered political? I'm discussing policies, more specifically the Fed's and the market's reaction to them.

There's also a reason I specified "short-intermediate term". The impact of these policies in that time frame is pretty much consensus, and in fact were predicted by Musk even before the election. What's not consensus, and what could get into political talk, is the impact of these policies over the long term, whether it's the right/wrong approach, etc. We obviously can't talk about any of that here. Fine with me.

But if we can't talk about the reaction or possible direction of the markets, the fed, and the economy at large to policies that have been announced and/or implemented.....what are we even doing here?

 

[RCon]

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

Even ignoring the harmful economic effects, tariffs encourage isolation, which doesn't make anyone stronger.

With regard to economics, basic Econ 101 goes over the beneficial effects of Comparative Advantage. Tariffs serve to negate those benefits. They're also an extremely regressive form of taxation.

 

[Nugget]

I don't think Kansas is ready to replace our wheat exports with banana farms.

 

[General Malaise]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I think the stock market is currently educating them.

I think the costs of goods might be better education for most.

Markets typically are ahead of the real pain.

 

[ericttspikes]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

There has always been a lot of things made in USA that people could be buying. Generally consumers prefer cheaper things (Walmart, Dollar General, Five Below...). People are free to buy American now they just don't in large numbers because wages have stagnated for years and most people don't have that purchasing power. I'm not sure forcing people to pay more for things is a great idea for a consumer driven economy. For me personally, that will just mean buying less, putting projects off, holding off on buying a new car, etc.

 

[Sand]

Markets typically are ahead of the real pain.

At least at the present the markets are off 5%. Not exactly apocalyptic.

(In fact, I'd say they've been pretty resilient so far to the news and regard this as an investable pullback. IMO, of course).

 

[Joe Schmo]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

 

[eighsse2]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

 

[General Malaise]

Markets typically are ahead of the real pain.

At least at the present the markets are off 5%. Not exactly apocalyptic.

(In fact, I'd say they've been pretty resilient so far to the news and regard this as an investable pullback. IMO, of course).

No, not apocalyptic and certainly overdue, but the statement was "I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy." which garnered my response. The public might not understand but the stock markets have reacted accordingly. Maybe this will be short lived, but there's some stocks (tech) that have been punished lately. TSLA down 27% over the last month.

 

[General Malaise]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Hope you don't need to buy a new car soon.....

New-Car Prices Could Soar by $12,000 Under Proposed Tariffs

The current average new-car price is $47,465, with nearly 20% of buyers paying more than $1,000 per month for a loan.

www.autobodynews.com

 

[eighsse2]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Hope you don't need to buy a new car soon.....

New-Car Prices Could Soar by $12,000 Under Proposed Tariffs

The current average new-car price is $47,465, with nearly 20% of buyers paying more than $1,000 per month for a loan.

www.autobodynews.com

I would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

 

[Sand]

No, not apocalyptic and certainly overdue, but the statement was "I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy." which garnered my response. The public might not understand but the stock markets have reacted accordingly. Maybe this will be short lived, but there's some stocks (tech) that have been punished lately. TSLA down 27% over the last month.

IMO, and totally IMO, TSLA is a meme stock. But I get what you're say here.

I would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

:FFA membership revoked:

 

[General Malaise]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Hope you don't need to buy a new car soon.....

New-Car Prices Could Soar by $12,000 Under Proposed Tariffs

The current average new-car price is $47,465, with nearly 20% of buyers paying more than $1,000 per month for a loan.

www.autobodynews.com

I would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Ata boy. Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

 

[-OZ-]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

 

[FairWarning]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Hope you don't need to buy a new car soon.....

New-Car Prices Could Soar by $12,000 Under Proposed Tariffs

The current average new-car price is $47,465, with nearly 20% of buyers paying more than $1,000 per month for a loan.

www.autobodynews.com

I would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Problem is the demand for used cars soars.

 

[FBG26]

ATL Fed now predicting -2.8% GDP in Q1. They were predicting +2.3% as recently as 2/19.

That is quite low. Not sure if it is a misread on some of the inputs because it is hard to believe the economy has already decelerated so rapidly.

I think that massive swing is largely due to the increase in exports over the last month or two. Imports get subtracted from GDP (it's domestic product after all), and people have imported a lot trying to beat the tariffs.

GDP= C+I+G+NX where NX is net exports. NX goes more negative when we import a ton, hence pulling down GDP.

Consumer spending, business investment, and government spending are likely slowing down too, but just trying to give context to one part of the GDP calcs.

 

[General Malaise]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

Sure, I see can see that. I've been pretty fortunate buying slightly used cars, driving them until I wanted/needed something else and selling them off for cash when I'm done. Just never even considered buying brand new.

 

[SFBayDuck]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

Bought my first new car ever at the age of 50 back in 2022, a Subaru Outback (as required by state law when you move to Oregon).

We drive about 5,000-6,000 miles a year, so planning on that thing lasting me until I’m 70, at which time it might be the only non-autonomous vehicle left on the road.

 

[Nugget]

If you all bought more new cars we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[-OZ-]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

Bought my first new car ever at the age of 50 back in 2022, a Subaru Outback (as required by state law when you move to Oregon).

We drive about 5,000-6,000 miles a year, so planning on that thing lasting me until I’m 70, at which time it might be the only non-autonomous vehicle left on the road.

Remind me to keep an eye out for geriatric driving

 

[MTskibum]

I would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

I try to keep my cost per mile low and I found I could keep it lower by buying new last few years. The depreciation curve has changed and it is relatively flat. Cars don't lose thousands of dollars when you drive them off the lot anymore(unless you negotiate poorly).

Plus, you don't have any repair/maintenance costs.

 

[General Malaise]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

Bought my first new car ever at the age of 50 back in 2022, a Subaru Outback (as required by state law when you move to Oregon).

We drive about 5,000-6,000 miles a year, so planning on that thing lasting me until I’m 70, at which time it might be the only non-autonomous vehicle left on the road.

Are you going to take it to Lilith Fair this summer?

 

[Marauder]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Everything that is imported or has components that are imported from the countries you put the tariffs on will cost more. That's the main point of tariffs. You force the companies that are importing their products to raise their prices, which makes the "made in the USA" companies more price competitive.

The point is, in many cases you have that choice already. You can look for products made in the USA and pay more for them, or you can buy the lowest price products that meet your quality standards, which are usually imported. What it sounds like you're saying is you would be willing to pay more only if you are forced to.

A really good example of how Tariffs work, and you can search for this because it's been talked about a lot, is the famous washing machine tariffs from the first Trump administration. Chinese companies were dumping cheap washing machines on the US market and people were buying them. We put a tariff on washing machines imported from China and the average price for washing machines sold in the US went up by 15%. When the Tariffs were removed they lowered their prices back down and the average price sold went back down to where it was before.

 

[eighsse2]

I don’t think most of the public understands how badly tariffs will hurt the economy.

I know nothing about economics. But to my naive understanding, they seem like a good idea. You make money off of imports and encourage manufacturers who have moved out of country to move back and make things here.

People here will need to pay more. We’ll see if companies actually come back, or go elsewhere where the tariffs aren’t in effect. You’d almost need a tariff on every country large enough to make producing products stateside cost effective.

I'm more than willing to pay more if it makes America stronger.

I'm a bottom line guy myself and will buy the cheapest item I can get based only on the quality I'm looking for which may not be the best for all things. I buy scott tissue cuz it's cheap but it works, I buy my clothes at either wal-mart or kohls and stop at the 70% off rack first when at kohls(lots of good deals if you take your time) and when it comes to a bigger purchase like an appliance, tv or car I'm buying what my wallet can afford. I don't think I've ever looked for where a product was made as part of my calculus.

I guess I wasn't really getting the point. I thought what was being said was that everything will cost more. I tend to buy the cheapest things myself, and I don't generally consider country of manufacture when I buy things either. But I figure the more things that are made here, the better.

Everything that is imported or has components that are imported from the countries you put the tariffs on will cost more. That's the main point of tariffs. You force the companies that are importing their products to raise their prices, which makes the "made in the USA" companies more price competitive.

The point is, in many cases you have that choice already. You can look for products made in the USA and pay more for them, or you can buy the lowest price products that meet your quality standards, which are usually imported. What it sounds like you're saying is you would be willing to pay more only if you are forced to.

A really good example of how Tariffs work, and you can search for this because it's been talked about a lot, is the famous washing machine tariffs from the first Trump administration. Chinese companies were dumping cheap washing machines on the US market and people were buying them. We put a tariff on washing machines imported from China and the average price for washing machines sold in the US went up by 15%. When the Tariffs were removed they lowered their prices back down and the average price sold went back down to where it was before.

Yep that's basically what I meant. I'd only pay more if I were forced to, but I'd be fine with doing so in that scenario if it does truly help US manufacturers.

 

[SFBayDuck]

would never buy a new car unless I were extremely wealthy. I mean, sure, someone has to buy them new and take the depreciation. But it certainly won't be me.

Me neither! I'm 52 and have purchased at least 10 cars in my lifetime. Never ever bought brand new and never ever will.

We’re almost 50 and have purchased 7 vehicles total, two new. We still have 3 of them (son #2 still drives our 07 highlander). We drove the odyssey 14 years and will drive our Grand Highlander at least a decade (probably 15 years). We’re not extremely wealthy by any stretch but buying new and keeping them a long time can be a good way to go.

Bought my first new car ever at the age of 50 back in 2022, a Subaru Outback (as required by state law when you move to Oregon).

We drive about 5,000-6,000 miles a year, so planning on that thing lasting me until I’m 70, at which time it might be the only non-autonomous vehicle left on the road.

Are you going to take it to Lilith Fair this summer?

Strangely the radio only plays Sarah McLachlan, Indigo Girls, and Jewel. It's the darndest thing......