US economy thread (3 Viewers)

[Northern Voice]

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!

They don't need anything from Canada anyway right? It's been said repeatedly.

The doublethink required to reconcile that with being so angry about tariffs on all the things they need to get from Canada and the fact that they desperately want them as the 51st state is something else but I don't think we can realistically go down that road without getting deep into the politics

 

[massraider]

If they decided to take the hatchet to the thousands of private contracts the US has overpaid for, and continue to overpay, it would make the collective salaries of those fired workers look like a rounding error.

They STARTED by wanting to fire as many Americans as possible. That should have been a later step. Employing too many people isn't the reason for a massive deficit. And once they have fired as many people as they can, it won't move the needle on our deficit.

 

[massraider]

I'm referring to all fired workers, including the ones they illegally fired.

Second judge orders thousands of probationary employees fired by Trump to be reinstated

U.S. District Judge James Bredar's order applies to 12 departments and several agencies that fired probationary workers during the Trump administration.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Nugget]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

 

[Sand]

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

Algorithmic trading makes this a given these days. I also expect significant overshoot on the upside and downside due to the machines pushing the momentum trade.

This is one item that truly is different from the past.

 

[Gatorade]

That seems to be the goal or end state here.

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.

** Autarky
Is that what the EU is trying to do with this new law ?
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

 

[rockaction]

** Autarky
Is that what the EU is trying to do with this new law ?
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

I can't see the law, but sustainability usually is a buzz word for environmental concerns. If you hear that they're looking to make things more "sustainable," environmental-looking reforms are sure to follow. It could be anything from emissions to pollutants to simply using less energy to do something.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.

To be clear, even this charitable reading of the goals of what the administration is trying to accomplish makes little to no economic sense, which is why the markets are reacting the way they are. Significantly withdrawing from the benefits of the global marketplace is a huge economic loser long term.

 

[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.

To be clear, even this charitable reading of the goals of what the administration is trying to accomplish makes little to no economic sense, which is why the markets are reacting the way they are. Significantly withdrawing from the benefits of the global marketplace is a huge economic loser long term.

What I wrote wasn’t charitable. I never said I was for or against the policy nor did I make a single comment on if I thought it would work or not—I merely gave my opinion on how the policy could be influencing the administrations stance on tariffs (and consequently the economy). I think we all have to take a breath and understand that this forum is a place where we can discuss the policy but not the politics.

 

[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!

They don't need anything from Canada anyway right? It's been said repeatedly.

The doublethink required to reconcile that with being so angry about tariffs on all the things they need to get from Canada and the fact that they desperately want them as the 51st state is something else but I don't think we can realistically go down that road without getting deep into the politics

This is where I get lost and wonder how anyone thinks this makes good economic policy. Although the promises being made are “we will all get rich”, common sense and facts seem to say otherwise. I’m probably treading too close to the politics end of things (at least in the thought in my head) and will stop myself here.

Wishing us all luck …

 

[the moops]

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.

Well of course it isn't. The bolded text doesn't say it is

 

[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.

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.

Well of course it isn't. The bolded text doesn't say it is

That's the magic of framing, anchor your audience in an event without having any real implied relevance to today, lol.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

That's the magic of framing, anchor your audience in an event without having any real implied relevance to today, lol.

It is a very strange way of framing it. Worst since the crash of 1929 would make sense, or maybe even 2nd worst, but if you're down to 7th worst it should really read "in the last 100 years" or "worst in the last X years". If I told somebody, "that's the seventh most diapers I've changed since that time my toddler had diarrhea" they'd think I'd had brain injury or something.

 

[dkp993]

That's the magic of framing, anchor your audience in an event without having any real implied relevance to today, lol.

It is a very strange way of framing it. Worst since the crash of 1929 would make sense, or maybe even 2nd worst, but if you're down to 7th worst it should really read "in the last 100 years" or "worst in the last X years". If I told somebody, "that's the seventh most diapers I've changed since that time my toddler had diarrhea" they'd think I'd had brain injury or something.

Certainly not trying to speak for anyone but I read the point of the quote being, “it’s a really big drop that doesn’t happen often. Is it a sign of more to come, what are your thoughts?”

 

[Sand]

Just as a point of reference where we are with inflation - cool chart:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Finflation-since-1872-a-long-term-look-at-the-cpi-v0-oqrsc1tcndoe1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6fb7ba78754fb814a3082e0b14dc4ab5ec303ad7

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Just as a point of reference where we are with inflation - cool chart:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Finflation-since-1872-a-long-term-look-at-the-cpi-v0-oqrsc1tcndoe1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6fb7ba78754fb814a3082e0b14dc4ab5ec303ad7

How does this compare with wage increases?

 

[Desert_Power]

Just as a point of reference where we are with inflation - cool chart:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Finflation-since-1872-a-long-term-look-at-the-cpi-v0-oqrsc1tcndoe1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6fb7ba78754fb814a3082e0b14dc4ab5ec303ad7

Really is a fascinating view of the data. What sticks out to me is the hard fought battles against deflation and a reminder of the relative comfort of today. Thanks for sharing.

 

[skol asylum]

Just as a point of reference where we are with inflation - cool chart:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Finflation-since-1872-a-long-term-look-at-the-cpi-v0-oqrsc1tcndoe1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6fb7ba78754fb814a3082e0b14dc4ab5ec303ad7

How does this compare with wage increases?

That was my immediate thought as well. An overlay of wage inflation would be very informative.

 

[Sand]

Just as a point of reference where we are with inflation - cool chart:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Finflation-since-1872-a-long-term-look-at-the-cpi-v0-oqrsc1tcndoe1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D6fb7ba78754fb814a3082e0b14dc4ab5ec303ad7

How does this compare with wage increases?

That was my immediate thought as well. An overlay of wage inflation would be very informative.

Yet somehow I don't think we have wage data back to 1850.

 

[Sand]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

 

[dkp993]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

Every time I see data or conversations like this all I can think of is Mathew Berry’s 100 facts articles. Data can be shaped and molded to tell almost any story. Makes it so hard to decipher because it’s all “true”.

 

[Sand]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

Every time I see data or conversations like this all I can think of is Mathew Berry’s 100 facts articles. Data can be shaped and molded to tell almost any story. Makes it so hard to decipher because it’s all “true”.

True, but it doesn't appear to be huge doom and gloom out there. The best indicator is unemployment and that's hanging in there. Economic output is pretty decent and dramatically improving over the last few years - the last few years buoyed by huge govt. spending. Now those are reversing as govt. is getting much tighter and business conditions are improving.

This is another good composite view of economic conditions, which have us in somewhat negative territory. It gives another look at facets of the economy and has value when you see it over time. Looks like consumer sentiment, house, and car sales are what's hurting - no surprise with current interest rates. http://www.econpi.com/

I posted a while back in the stock thread that I didn't see any rate cuts this year and lean toward hikes, if anything, so right with you there.

Oh, and just to be completely contrarian, here is a pretty good article that refutes the premise that the cause of the current downturn was tariffs. Something I mostly agree with - my thoughts are the tariffs tipped the scales over the precipice on what was a mildly overheated market. So the straw that broke the camel's back.

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/tariffs-arent-true-cause-markets-selloff

 

[dkp993]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

Every time I see data or conversations like this all I can think of is Mathew Berry’s 100 facts articles. Data can be shaped and molded to tell almost any story. Makes it so hard to decipher because it’s all “true”.

True, but it doesn't appear to be huge doom and gloom out there. The best indicator is unemployment and that's hanging in there. Economic output is pretty decent and dramatically improving over the last few years - the last few years buoyed by huge govt. spending. Now those are reversing as govt. is getting much tighter and business conditions are improving.

This is another good view of economic conditions, which have us in somewhat negative territory. It gives another look at facets of the economy and has value when you see it over time. Looks like consumer sentiment, house, and car sales are what's hurting - no surprise with current interest rates. http://www.econpi.com/

I posted a while back in the stock thread that I didn't see any rate cuts this year and lean toward hikes, if anything, so right with you there.

Oh, and just to be completely contrarian, here is a pretty good article that refutes the premise that the cause of the current downturn was tariffs. Something I mostly agree with - my thoughts are the tariffs tipped the scales over the precipice on what was a mildly overheated market. So the straw that broke the camel's back.

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/tariffs-arent-true-cause-markets-selloff

Good thoughts.

Like seemingly every thing today it’s all so tribal. Just makes it so difficult for those who don’t claim a tribe to try and get a sense of where things are actually headed.

From a pure logic standpoint, a recession is inevitable (it’s all part of the normal cycles), it’s just a matter when. The “when” unfortunately is the hard part.

 

[Sand]

From a pure logic standpoint, a recession is inevitable (it’s all part of the normal cycles), it’s just a matter when. The “when” unfortunately is the hard part.

That brings me back to my favorite statistic when people start talking about death rates from this or that. The death rate has been constant from the inception of human beings - 1 per person. Just a matter of when.

 

[Zeppelin]

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

I wish we would go all in on customer service so I don't have to talk to someone from india that I don't understand.

 

[Ilov80s]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

Every time I see data or conversations like this all I can think of is Mathew Berry’s 100 facts articles. Data can be shaped and molded to tell almost any story. Makes it so hard to decipher because it’s all “true”.

True, but it doesn't appear to be huge doom and gloom out there. The best indicator is unemployment and that's hanging in there. Economic output is pretty decent and dramatically improving over the last few years - the last few years buoyed by huge govt. spending. Now those are reversing as govt. is getting much tighter and business conditions are improving.

This is another good view of economic conditions, which have us in somewhat negative territory. It gives another look at facets of the economy and has value when you see it over time. Looks like consumer sentiment, house, and car sales are what's hurting - no surprise with current interest rates. http://www.econpi.com/

I posted a while back in the stock thread that I didn't see any rate cuts this year and lean toward hikes, if anything, so right with you there.

Oh, and just to be completely contrarian, here is a pretty good article that refutes the premise that the cause of the current downturn was tariffs. Something I mostly agree with - my thoughts are the tariffs tipped the scales over the precipice on what was a mildly overheated market. So the straw that broke the camel's back.

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/tariffs-arent-true-cause-markets-selloff

Good thoughts.

Like seemingly every thing today it’s all so tribal. Just makes it so difficult for those who don’t claim a tribe to try and get a sense of where things are actually headed.

From a pure logic standpoint, a recession is inevitable (it’s all part of the normal cycles), it’s just a matter when. The “when” unfortunately is the hard part.

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

 

[Sand]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

If you believe Ray Dalio the biggest issue we have is debt and the coming repricing of that debt when we run out of buyers. That issue is being tackled now, though the consequences so far aren't popular. Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%. That hides a multitude of sins while the money train is flowing, but at some point the markets can't bear it.

I think he's right. Like DK said, it's just a matter of when. If you think back to the credit crisis the problems there were gradual until they weren't. No different here, IMO.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ray-dalio-warns-us-debt-203013637.html

 

[dkp993]

If you think back to the credit crisis the problems there were gradual until they weren't. No different here, IMO.

Yep. Death by a thousand small cuts. It’s just a matter of what cut ends up being the final one.

 

[Ilov80s]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

If you believe Ray Dalio the biggest issue we have is debt and the coming repricing of that debt when we run out of buyers. That issue is being tackled now, though the consequences so far aren't popular. Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%. That hides a multitude of sins while the money train is flowing, but at some point the markets can't bear it.

I think he's right. Like DK said, it's just a matter of when. If you think back to the credit crisis the problems there were gradual until they weren't. No different here, IMO.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ray-dalio-warns-us-debt-203013637.html

Yes, we've repeated a lot of mistakes once again.

 

[djmich]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%.

Never seen it framed that way. Incredible

 

[Mitchie]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%.

Never seen it framed that way. Incredible

That's because ii doesn't appear to be true

How has the federal budget changed over time? | USAFacts

In fiscal year 2023, federal spending remained higher than before the pandemic.

usafacts.org

 

[Sand]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%.

Never seen it framed that way. Incredible

That's because ii doesn't appear to be true

How has the federal budget changed over time? | USAFacts

In fiscal year 2023, federal spending remained higher than before the pandemic.

usafacts.org

I looked and can't find it. It was an interview on CNBC (I think) - Scott Bessent said it.

 

[dkp993]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%.

Never seen it framed that way. Incredible

That's because ii doesn't appear to be true

How has the federal budget changed over time? | USAFacts

In fiscal year 2023, federal spending remained higher than before the pandemic.

usafacts.org

I looked and can't find it. It was an interview on CNBC (I think) - Scott Bessent said it.

A quick google search (I did 2019 to 2024 as I wanted to see preCOVID) came back with 4.45 trillion in ‘19 vs 6.8 trillion for ‘24 for budgets. A 50% spend increase. Population was 334.3 million in 2019 to 340.1 million in 2024. Just under 2%.

Mind blowing

 

[Mitchie]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%.

Never seen it framed that way. Incredible

That's because ii doesn't appear to be true

How has the federal budget changed over time? | USAFacts

In fiscal year 2023, federal spending remained higher than before the pandemic.

usafacts.org

I looked and can't find it. It was an interview on CNBC (I think) - Scott Bessent said it.

A quick google search (I did 2019 to 2024 as I wanted to see preCOVID) came back with 4.45 trillion in ‘19 vs 6.8 trillion for ‘24 for budgets. A 50% spend increase. Population was 334.3 million in 2019 to 340.1 million in 2024. Just under 2%.

Mind blowing

ok so my link was spending which is different than the budget, looks like the big jump in the budget was from 2019 to 2020 when it jumped from 4.5T to 6.5T, has moved around a bit and now back to 6.5T for 2025, so guess big jump was for Covid and hasn't returned to pre Covid level.

A big however though is have to factor in inflation so 6.5T today is worth 5.2T in 2019, so overall not ideal but too bad.

 

[-OZ-]

That issue is being tackled now, though the consequences so far aren't popular.

Is it? I mean that as a genuine question. One issue is the numbers differ with different sources. Overall spending rose by $40 billion, a 7 percent increase compared to the same month last year.

If we knew the truth, while we might not like the method, at least there could be some understanding. But the information war is real.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

2015: $4.89T - 20% of GDP
2016: $5.04T - 21% of GDP
2017: $5.07T - 21% of GDP
2018: $5.14T - 20% of GDP
2019: $5.47T - 21% of GDP
2020: $7.94T - 31% of GDP
2021: $7.84T - 30% of GDP
2022: $6.67T - 25% of GDP
2023: $6.31T - 22% of GDP
2024: $6.75T - 23% of GDP

Since 2015, the Spending to GDP ratio has increased from 20% to 23%.

You can break that down into monthly analysis and there are clickable datasets throughout the page. Unsure on the difference(s) between budget and actual spending and what accounts for that discrepancy.

 

[Sand]

Yes but with sound fiscal policies, the time between them can be extended much more and their impacts can be softened. We have earned a lot from previous recessions/depressions to understand what risks not to take and how to manage things to ride a more steady wave. Now are we putting the people capabe of managing this into positions of proper influence, that's another question.

If you believe Ray Dalio the biggest issue we have is debt and the coming repricing of that debt when we run out of buyers. That issue is being tackled now, though the consequences so far aren't popular. Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%. That hides a multitude of sins while the money train is flowing, but at some point the markets can't bear it.

I think he's right. Like DK said, it's just a matter of when. If you think back to the credit crisis the problems there were gradual until they weren't. No different here, IMO.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ray-dalio-warns-us-debt-203013637.html

Wait, what problem is being tackled? It seems like you're referring to debt, but I can't believe you believe that.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[TheAristocrat]

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

2015: $4.89T - 20% of GDP
2016: $5.04T - 21% of GDP
2017: $5.07T - 21% of GDP
2018: $5.14T - 20% of GDP
2019: $5.47T - 21% of GDP
2020: $7.94T - 31% of GDP
2021: $7.84T - 30% of GDP
2022: $6.67T - 25% of GDP
2023: $6.31T - 22% of GDP
2024: $6.75T - 23% of GDP

Since 2015, the Spending to GDP ratio has increased from 20% to 23%.

You can break that down into monthly analysis and there are clickable datasets throughout the page. Unsure on the difference(s) between budget and actual spending and what accounts for that discrepancy.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/POP010210

Key Points (I tried to find a better chart but the Census Bureau is less fun to navigate and search than the Treasury):

April 1, 2020 Population (Census estimate): 331,449,281
July 1, 2024 Population (estimation based on a number of factors that you can click on for more information): 340,110,988
2020 - 2024 Population Percent Change: 2.6%

So, that brings us to "Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%." Again, I do not know the discrepancy between "our budget" or what that refers to and actual spending. That is, at best, a misrepresentation of the data. It could be called something else but that might step into the realm of that which we do not speak.

A Google search is a dangerous tool to pin your beliefs on. A politician is even worse.

 

[fatness]

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%

Revenue is up 47% in that time frame.

 

[Sand]

Since 2020 our population has increased 2% and our budget has increased 55%

Revenue is up 47% in that time frame.

And we still can't help but overspend. Sheesh.

 

[Jayrod]

If this thread isn't political, why can I tell which way 90% of the posters lean simply based on their post?

I could take the names off with no prior history to view and nail it the majority of the time.

 

[Nugget]

If this thread isn't political, why can I tell which way 90% of the posters lean simply based on their post?

I could take the names off with no prior history to view and nail it the majority of the time.

The economy was the top issue in the last election.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

“We have to cut these jobs to lower the debt.”

“Ok. Guess we’ll also be raising taxes on billionaires to further reduce that debt?”

“Nah. We’re going to cut their taxes 20x the amount we save with the DOGE cuts”

“So overall, debt will go way up. But I thought this was about reducing the debt?”

“”

Regardless of my own views or if I agree, please stop. Most of us don’t want this thread (or others) shut down.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

If they decided to take the hatchet to the thousands of private contracts the US has overpaid for, and continue to overpay, it would make the collective salaries of those fired workers look like a rounding error.

They STARTED by wanting to fire as many Americans as possible. That should have been a later step. Employing too many people isn't the reason for a massive deficit. And once they have fired as many people as they can, it won't move the needle on our deficit.

The Federal government has approximately 2.3 million employees. The author of this article has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues, and gets at why the Federal government workforce reduction was earnestly pursued so aggressively early on.

 

[massraider]

If they decided to take the hatchet to the thousands of private contracts the US has overpaid for, and continue to overpay, it would make the collective salaries of those fired workers look like a rounding error.

They STARTED by wanting to fire as many Americans as possible. That should have been a later step. Employing too many people isn't the reason for a massive deficit. And once they have fired as many people as they can, it won't move the needle on our deficit.

The Federal government has approximately 2.3 million employees. The author of this article has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues, and gets at why the Federal government workforce reduction was earnestly pursued so aggressively early on.

Well, that looks like a political minefield to me.

I think the main motivation for focusing on the individuals is that if the government focused on absurd contracts, they would run into opposition from whichever Senator or donor benefits from the absurd contract.

Canceling wasteful contracts, or even better, renegotiate said contracts, would save billions more than firing a few thousand government workers. And every administration of our lifetime failed to do this.

 

[FBG Moderator]

“”

If the thread is to stay alive, please drop the PSF posting.

 

[TripItUp]

Back to the economy...several thoughts

1) I do believe that when/if there is more clarity on tariffs we will have more stock market stability and likely rebound of stock prices
2) If the Federal govt is able to continue to cut spending and eventually balance the budget it will be a financial boon to the economy
3) There will be winners and losers in this new economic landscape, just like there were winners and losers with the govts covid policies
4) it's a mistake to presume anything regarding the tariff policies, not all of the facts are known and economists disagree on their net outcomes. I pretty much ignore all the white noise from talking heads that know little to nothing about economics. There are smart people who have dedicated their lives to studying economics on both sides of this issue.

 

[TripItUp]

True, but it doesn't appear to be huge doom and gloom out there. The best indicator is unemployment and that's hanging in there. Economic output is pretty decent and dramatically improving over the last few years - the last few years buoyed by huge govt. spending. Now those are reversing as govt. is getting much tighter and business conditions are improving.

This is another good composite view of economic conditions, which have us in somewhat negative territory. It gives another look at facets of the economy and has value when you see it over time. Looks like consumer sentiment, house, and car sales are what's hurting - no surprise with current interest rates. http://www.econpi.com/

I posted a while back in the stock thread that I didn't see any rate cuts this year and lean toward hikes, if anything, so right with you there.

Oh, and just to be completely contrarian, here is a pretty good article that refutes the premise that the cause of the current downturn was tariffs. Something I mostly agree with - my thoughts are the tariffs tipped the scales over the precipice on what was a mildly overheated market. So the straw that broke the camel's back.

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/tariffs-arent-true-cause-markets-selloff

Great posting. It's as if there are two different economies based on what media source you listen to.

Employment, GDP growth and Federal deficit/debt should be at the top of the list in terms of evaluating the economy IMHO. Short term stock market pullbacks are rather insignificant.

 

[Instinctive]

If they decided to take the hatchet to the thousands of private contracts the US has overpaid for, and continue to overpay, it would make the collective salaries of those fired workers look like a rounding error.

They STARTED by wanting to fire as many Americans as possible. That should have been a later step. Employing too many people isn't the reason for a massive deficit. And once they have fired as many people as they can, it won't move the needle on our deficit.

The Federal government has approximately 2.3 million employees. The author of this article has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues, and gets at why the Federal government workforce reduction was earnestly pursued so aggressively early on.

Well, that looks like a political minefield to me.

I think the main motivation for focusing on the individuals is that if the government focused on absurd contracts, they would run into opposition from whichever Senator or donor benefits from the absurd contract.

Canceling wasteful contracts, or even better, renegotiate said contracts, would save billions more than firing a few thousand government workers. And every administration of our lifetime failed to do this.

I think the bolded is a good insight I mean some of why you go after what you go after is based on what you can and cannot do as an Executive branch without Congressional approval. I know there's a brewing battle over power to spend or not spend appropriated funds, but one thing that's almost certainly within executive branch purview is the employee side of things.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Consumer sentiment drops in March to 57.9, according to University of Michigan survey, worse than expected

Not pretty for consumer confidence or future inflation expectations. I don't see a rate cut this year, and I expect to see the 10 year start to rise again.

That's interesting because the EOCI and leading economic indicator are positive and trending up.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-60.png

Every time I see data or conversations like this all I can think of is Mathew Berry’s 100 facts articles. Data can be shaped and molded to tell almost any story. Makes it so hard to decipher because it’s all “true”.

True, but it doesn't appear to be huge doom and gloom out there. The best indicator is unemployment and that's hanging in there. Economic output is pretty decent and dramatically improving over the last few years - the last few years buoyed by huge govt. spending. Now those are reversing as govt. is getting much tighter and business conditions are improving.

This is another good composite view of economic conditions, which have us in somewhat negative territory. It gives another look at facets of the economy and has value when you see it over time. Looks like consumer sentiment, house, and car sales are what's hurting - no surprise with current interest rates. http://www.econpi.com/

I posted a while back in the stock thread that I didn't see any rate cuts this year and lean toward hikes, if anything, so right with you there.

Oh, and just to be completely contrarian, here is a pretty good article that refutes the premise that the cause of the current downturn was tariffs. Something I mostly agree with - my thoughts are the tariffs tipped the scales over the precipice on what was a mildly overheated market. So the straw that broke the camel's back.

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/tariffs-arent-true-cause-markets-selloff

The "negatives" right now are almost completely wrapped up in sentiment. Keeping with the theme of the entire life of this thread, I haven't seen any economic data that points towards the direction people generally "feel" things are going, outside of a few cherry picked indicators similar to those that have been shared since the inception of this thread, which are often non-predictive on their own or taken out of context.

And that makes sense, given that the things people worry will trigger a big downturn aren't really reflected in any numbers yet, but sentiment is getting ahead of the curve here.

Sometimes it can become a self fulfilling prophecy, where people stop spending because they're worried about a downturn, and that drop in spending helps to create numbers that indicate a downturn, which reduces spending more, and so on. But sentiment can reverse fast. This is around the 5th likely recession we've been through in this thread's 2 year history, and the majority of the time we see that no matter how much people worry about spending when chatting, when push comes to shove they spend the money anyway.

We don't know if empirically these changes are actually going to have a huge effect on things like inflation, unemployment, earnings reports, etc yet. It's entirely possible and even possibly the more likely case that if and when it doesn't have as large effect on those empirical numbers as people expect, sentiment will reverse practically overnight. It's also possible we will see it in those numbers and things will snowball from there, but I think that is the less likely scenario.