Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

I’m not an economist and never said it was, only spoke on the administration’s talking points.

However, my simple minded view would be, a person (country) can’t survive if they are consuming at a higher rate than they are producing. I can’t have a trade deficit with everyone I’m dealing with or I go bankrupt.

 

Well let me help enlighten you.  First and foremost think about transportation costs, first and foremost.  Goods from the country of origin much be cheaper than the competing products of the country being shipped to, INCLUDING the additional costs of shipping.  This shipping cost is an expense that is not incurred for non-imports.  So by definition, whatere you ship out of country must have a competitive price advantage in production.  Otherwise the product could not absorb the price of shipping.  Agreed?

Now let's take a rudimentary snapshot of what the US produces in country and ships overseas.  US companies do not produce cheap products and ship them overseas much, beyond commodities like corn, beef, oil nat gas.  Because our labor expenses are much high as they are in ALL developed nations.  We do produce highly technical products with much larger profit margins from the US  that we do ship to foreign countries. Think aerospace, complex manufacturing machinery, and biotech products.

Now think about the US being the wealthiest country in the world.  Think about having the richest corporate entities in the world looking at the world as a market to sell to.   As a CEO so you 1) never seek out lower labor costs? 2) never seek out reduced transportation costs 3) never consider bottom line profitability 4) never consider increasing profit margins. 5) Don't worry about the stock price.  This is the imaginary world that would repatriate all manufacturing to the US.  It is a world that does not exist.  Because the things I listed are exactly what every CEO thinks about all day long.  And because of #2 transportation, and the ability to build factories closer to the point of sale, a LOT of US companies that profit overseas are not included in the trade deficit.  Let me say this again for emphasis.  US goods manufactured and sold, outside the United States, do not show up in the trade deficit.

Does that mean that the overseas profits do not exist?  Do not benefit US stockholders ?  OF course not.  And these numbers are HUGE!

I could go on and on and on.  But yes "However, my simple minded view would be, a person (country) can’t survive if they are consuming at a higher rate than they are producing. I can’t have a trade deficit with everyone I’m dealing with or I go bankrupt."  Is indeed simple minded.  Because it focuses on and gives much greater weight of value economically on the trade deficit. Which does not include a shit ton of US products, and shit ton of US corporate profits.  So it is a very simplistic and inaccurate snapshot of what would or would not make America go bankrupt. 

It is the wealth and largesse of corporate America's ability to produce goods ANYWHERE is actually one of our greatest competitive advantages.  Countries, the US included has always had some tariffs to protect certain aspects of local economies.  Oftentimes this is on agricultural commodities to product in country food production from being wiped out by lower prices goods.  You see... like a room full of people, countries have specific advantages and disadvantages.  Access to oceans, clean water, rare minerals, cheap labor, highly educated labor, oil deposits, natural gas, clean manufacturing.  Which ALL when you include shipping costs determine the costs of goods.  It is NOT a one size fits all. And that is why using the trade deficit as so important is... well... stupid.

But lets assume that trade deficits are indeed the holy grail of a countries well being.  Then explain to me where in the trade deficit these profits are included in the trade deficit?

****** the numbers I am going to post are from Google's AI search and I am not footnoting the specific source ******

1) Services revenue produced outside the US?   ** In 2023, the United States generated $1,026.6 billion in foreign revenue from services, with financial services being a leading sector, and cloud services among the fastest-growing

2) Foriegn Energy production. **  US corporations generate significant revenue from foreign energy production, with the oil and gas industry alone reaching \$244.4 billion in 2023, though this was a decrease from the previous year's peak of \$330.8 billion

3) Heavy equipment manufacturing - US corporations see significant revenue from foreign heavy equipment manufacturing, with the global market estimated at $208.5 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $314.4 billion by 2030  CM20240314-603d4-53e00

The map above is the location of Caterpillar Tractor manufacturing plants.  The revenue from this foreign plants is not included in the trade deficit.. every dot not in the USA.

I can keep on adding numbers if you like on what's not included in a simplistic number like the trade deficit, BUT

I need to go do some of my own stuff - but I can go on nearly endlessly. As to  why economically and mathematically the very basic premises of causation for the actions the Administration regarding tariffs is simply not remotely correct, accurate, smart or any other word that implies fully informed.  In other words when you basic premises are wrong, the only way you can get a decision correct is by blind luck.   And I don't feel lucky right now, do you?

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 hours ago, Anastasis said:

So I've numbers ranging quite a bit in terms of what is maturing in 2025 and needs to be rolled out. Is there a good source what exactly needs to be refinanced and at what rates they were originally issued? 

Great and relevant question. I haven’t dug in detail but also interested in what is replacing what and what kind of duration Treasury has in mind for new issues. Of course the market dictates. Chaos creates a flight to safety driving down treasury yields and finance costs across the board. I maintain that is the “logic” of what the administration is trying to do.

I also get the substantial downside potential of bullying people into line. Lotta in lotta outs…

But net is that 10 year now has a 3 handle and that is a big deal. People need to listen to Bessent. I don’t think he is being coy about intent. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

However, my simple minded view would be, a person (country) can’t survive if they are consuming at a higher rate than they are producing. I can’t have a trade deficit with everyone I’m dealing with or I go bankrupt.

What if the majority of our production were consumed within the United States.  Would a net trade imbalance with the rest of the world matter as much?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

A "trade imbalance" here is a "financial imbalance" for the other party.  Their domestic market is too small, so they export their goods to the US.  Not enough stuff to bring back home, so their USD's are "stuck" in America.  So they invest it in debt, equities, cash, real estate, etc.

Is that so bad? To have the rest of the World buying up our stupid debt?

The whole thing is fucking ridiculous because the premise that a trade imbalance is in and of itself a bad thing is stupid.

 

In the simplest economic terms, as an example moving our manufacturing to china to take advantage of Chinese slave labor rates is better for us in that we pay lower prices, and better for the Chinese because they get to work and get more wages than farming rice paddies. It is very fucking simple. Hell we spent a whole semester in MBA school in international business class learning why the biggest advantage the US has on the world economic stage is our ability to consume. 

 

We may have beef with China politically but the economics of a trade deficit with China are good for both parties. People really should take a fucking economics class from time to time.

 

But none of this was ever intended to really be about economics. It’s all about one pathetic human trying to show the whole world how much power he has. I will fuck all of you over just to show you that I can. 100% this and nothing else. 

Edited by tbone_
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Not sure I'd call that a bad thing.  

Oh yea nothing to see here at all. I mean, it’s not like two hedge funds failing in the summer of 2007 triggered the 2008 near complete financial meltdown or anything. 

Posted
Just now, tbone_ said:

Oh yea nothing to see here at all. I mean, it’s not like two hedge funds failing in the summer of 2007 triggered the 2008 near complete financial meltdown or anything. 

Those were the canaries in the coal mine, not the underlying cause.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Those were the canaries in the coal mine, not the underlying cause.

Fair. They were probably the first evidence we had of just how bad the underlying systematic problems were, and though not the root cause, still that’s where the avalanche started.

 

Either way, less than ideal outcome. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

And this is why I invest with/through Warren Buffett, due has banked cash for several years & can choose what and when he wants to buy/sell a company or investment, and he doesn't have to worry about people taking their investment out of the funds. I am sure that one of the reasons BRK was sold so much yesterday is that there are people who have locked money up in other investments and this is one of the places that they can sell. 
I will buy more if and when it drops - looks like I was a day early with my Thursday purchases. 

Posted
9 hours ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

I’m not an economist and never said it was, only spoke on the administration’s talking points.

However, my simple minded view would be, a person (country) can’t survive if they are consuming at a higher rate than they are producing. I can’t have a trade deficit with everyone I’m dealing with or I go bankrupt.

 

 

8 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Agreed, That is a very simple minded view. 

Wouldn't claim otherwise. 

7 hours ago, horn4life said:

Well let me help enlighten you.  First and foremost think about transportation costs, first and foremost.  Goods from the country of origin much be cheaper than the competing products of the country being shipped to, INCLUDING the additional costs of shipping.  This shipping cost is an expense that is not incurred for non-imports.  So by definition, whatere you ship out of country must have a competitive price advantage in production.  Otherwise the product could not absorb the price of shipping.  Agreed?

Now let's take a rudimentary snapshot of what the US produces in country and ships overseas.  US companies do not produce cheap products and ship them overseas much, beyond commodities like corn, beef, oil nat gas.  Because our labor expenses are much high as they are in ALL developed nations.  We do produce highly technical products with much larger profit margins from the US  that we do ship to foreign countries. Think aerospace, complex manufacturing machinery, and biotech products.

Now think about the US being the wealthiest country in the world.  Think about having the richest corporate entities in the world looking at the world as a market to sell to.   As a CEO so you 1) never seek out lower labor costs? 2) never seek out reduced transportation costs 3) never consider bottom line profitability 4) never consider increasing profit margins. 5) Don't worry about the stock price.  This is the imaginary world that would repatriate all manufacturing to the US.  It is a world that does not exist.  Because the things I listed are exactly what every CEO thinks about all day long.  And because of #2 transportation, and the ability to build factories closer to the point of sale, a LOT of US companies that profit overseas are not included in the trade deficit.  Let me say this again for emphasis.  US goods manufactured and sold, outside the United States, do not show up in the trade deficit.

Does that mean that the overseas profits do not exist?  Do not benefit US stockholders ?  OF course not.  And these numbers are HUGE!

I could go on and on and on.  But yes "However, my simple minded view would be, a person (country) can’t survive if they are consuming at a higher rate than they are producing. I can’t have a trade deficit with everyone I’m dealing with or I go bankrupt."  Is indeed simple minded.  Because it focuses on and gives much greater weight of value economically on the trade deficit. Which does not include a shit ton of US products, and shit ton of US corporate profits.  So it is a very simplistic and inaccurate snapshot of what would or would not make America go bankrupt. 

It is the wealth and largesse of corporate America's ability to produce goods ANYWHERE is actually one of our greatest competitive advantages.  Countries, the US included has always had some tariffs to protect certain aspects of local economies.  Oftentimes this is on agricultural commodities to product in country food production from being wiped out by lower prices goods.  You see... like a room full of people, countries have specific advantages and disadvantages.  Access to oceans, clean water, rare minerals, cheap labor, highly educated labor, oil deposits, natural gas, clean manufacturing.  Which ALL when you include shipping costs determine the costs of goods.  It is NOT a one size fits all. And that is why using the trade deficit as so important is... well... stupid.

But lets assume that trade deficits are indeed the holy grail of a countries well being.  Then explain to me where in the trade deficit these profits are included in the trade deficit?

****** the numbers I am going to post are from Google's AI search and I am not footnoting the specific source ******

1) Services revenue produced outside the US?   ** In 2023, the United States generated $1,026.6 billion in foreign revenue from services, with financial services being a leading sector, and cloud services among the fastest-growing

2) Foriegn Energy production. **  US corporations generate significant revenue from foreign energy production, with the oil and gas industry alone reaching \$244.4 billion in 2023, though this was a decrease from the previous year's peak of \$330.8 billion

3) Heavy equipment manufacturing - US corporations see significant revenue from foreign heavy equipment manufacturing, with the global market estimated at $208.5 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $314.4 billion by 2030  CM20240314-603d4-53e00

The map above is the location of Caterpillar Tractor manufacturing plants.  The revenue from this foreign plants is not included in the trade deficit.. every dot not in the USA.

I can keep on adding numbers if you like on what's not included in a simplistic number like the trade deficit, BUT

I need to go do some of my own stuff - but I can go on nearly endlessly. As to  why economically and mathematically the very basic premises of causation for the actions the Administration regarding tariffs is simply not remotely correct, accurate, smart or any other word that implies fully informed.  In other words when you basic premises are wrong, the only way you can get a decision correct is by blind luck.   And I don't feel lucky right now, do you?

 

 

As stated, I was originally referring to the administration's talking points. I don't presume to understand it, rarely think about it, and have no intentions of learning.

My focus is what the market is currently doing. I don't need to understand trade deficits for my trading/investing methods, which is mainly based on volume (indicator of what the big players are doing), and technicals. The markets are frequently detached from fundamentals and the research doesn't suit my personality. I'll let the big firms do the research and I'll do my best to follow their lead. 

Regarding labor costs in ALL developed countries, it depends on the country and the type of labor. In Singapore, the median income is US$4,074/month or US$48,888/year for their citizens. However, their migrant laborers' median income is US$1,820, with a huge percentage making as low as US$600 a month. The migrant laborers building their infrastructure, repairing ships, and acting as nannies typically make around US$20 a day.

Posted

I always tape all the Sunday News shows.  I encourage you to listen to the people speaking for the administration, Mark Wayne Mullin on Fox, Scott Bessent on NBC and Kevin Hassett on ABC this morning.   Maybe it will calm you, in a way it did not me. 

Posted
1 hour ago, horn4life said:

I always tape all the Sunday News shows.  I encourage you to listen to the people speaking for the administration, Mark Wayne Mullin on Fox, Scott Bessent on NBC and Kevin Hassett on ABC this morning.   Maybe it will calm you, in a way it did not me. 

michael jordan laughing GIF
 

(I am wearing this gif out) 

Posted
On 4/5/2025 at 8:51 AM, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

I'm not ignoring anything, which is why I said "could". 

1) Tariffs can be removed as fast as they have been put in place. I'm sure we'll hear "we've made a deal" many times, with the terms undisclosed, meaning it may amount to nothing in reality.

2) There's always uncertainty. I'm not sure there will ever be more uncertainty in the world, in my lifetime, than 2020, when the market made a drastic recovery.

3) Money flow has a way of healing hurt feelings.

 

Business negotiations are often not pretty, but once the deal is done all parties magically work together to make profit.

I agree that no one can predict the decisions of one man. Even the advisors don’t have a clue of the strategy. But it’s a fools errands to not take trumps words literally. He doesn’t want to remove the tariffs. The point is to earn tariff revenue short term and bring back manufacturing in the long run. It’s not to lower trade barriers overseas. The tariffs are to be permanent.

If you buy foreign goods either by choice or lack of options, you face financial consequences. This is the reality.

will there be pauses, delays, changes in percentages? Of course. Sometimes it’s that last person that speaks to a president gets their way especially if you flatter said president.

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

As stated, I was originally referring to the administration's talking points. I don't presume to understand it, rarely think about it, and have no intentions of learning.

My focus is what the market is currently doing. I don't need to understand trade deficits for my trading/investing methods, which is mainly based on volume (indicator of what the big players are doing), and technicals. The markets are frequently detached from fundamentals and the research doesn't suit my personality. I'll let the big firms do the research and I'll do my best to follow their lead. 

Regarding labor costs in ALL developed countries, it depends on the country and the type of labor. In Singapore, the median income is US$4,074/month or US$48,888/year for their citizens. However, their migrant laborers' median income is US$1,820, with a huge percentage making as low as US$600 a month. The migrant laborers building their infrastructure, repairing ships, and acting as nannies typically make around US$20 a day.

So how were Thursday and Friday for your portfolio?  Using the "I am not worrying about understanding stuff yourself" methodology?

Edited by horn4life
Posted
3 minutes ago, BJ Johnson said:

Bitcoin dumping on Sunday is typically a harbinger of market dumping Monday morning. Buckle up. 

Does anyone really think that we’ve discovered the bottom given the admin’s messages on today’s news shows. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Does anyone really think that we’ve discovered the bottom given the admin’s messages on today’s news shows. 

It's going to get much worse

Posted (edited)

I think it's going to get much worse. At the same time, I can see a scenario where Trump is so thin skinned/bothered with being blamed for the crash and not feeling loved that he might lift the tariffs and frame it as some kind of victory:  All the countries countries came to the table, we made our point, now the world knows, America is great again because of the tariffs, now we don't need them anymore.  You just don't know with that crazy asshole.   The White House is claiming 50 countries have contacted them for talks on tariffs.  Who the fuck knows? 

Edited by RabidM
Posted
50 minutes ago, horn4life said:

So how were Thursday and Friday for your portfolio?  Using the "I am not worrying about understanding stuff yourself" methodology?

I’m about 84% cash & treasuries between retirement and non-retirement funds as of December. First time in my life I’ve sold anything in my retirement account.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, RabidM said:

I think it's going to get much worse. At the same time, I can see a scenario where Trump is so thin skinned/bothered with being blamed for the crash and not feeling loved that he might lift the tariffs and frame it as some kind of victory:  All the countries countries came to the table, we made our point, now the world knows, America is great again because of the tariffs, now we don't need them anymore.  You just don't know with that crazy asshole.   The White House is claiming 50 countries have contacted them for talks on tariffs.  Who the fuck knows? 

Blowing out the match doesn't help much once the house is already burning

Posted

In my opinion, the selling will likely slow or bounce around 2022 highs, as shorts begin to cover a larger portion of their position and other buyers are looking for it as support. If something big doesn't change and the cycle completes itself, it will likely only be temporary, with bounces getting heavily shorted again.

I think we'd only be in the anxiety phase.

image.thumb.png.0b9b10f82d88219d688ef7ebc8a1a1b5.png

Posted
On 4/5/2025 at 11:44 AM, Hefeweizen said:

Hope it was worth ruining your reputation for a taste of power, bitch.  Amazing how many people get sucked into thinking they will make a difference at all.

 

he got a golden egg tax break. he'll be fine 

Posted
40 minutes ago, RabidM said:

I think it's going to get much worse. At the same time, I can see a scenario where Trump is so thin skinned/bothered with being blamed for the crash and not feeling loved that he might lift the tariffs and frame it as some kind of victory:  All the countries countries came to the table, we made our point, now the world knows, America is great again because of the tariffs, now we don't need them anymore.  You just don't know with that crazy asshole.   The White House is claiming 50 countries have contacted them for talks on tariffs.  Who the fuck knows? 

^^^I’ll have what he’s having.

Posted

where is the bottom - seriously - from the perspective of going back in

s&p all-time high was 6147 on 19feb

friday closed 5074

let's call that 18%

the 20 crash was a high of 3393 on 19feb (!) that bottomed at 2192 on 22march

closed 27may at 3036

let's call that 28%

ai says that in 07-08 the crater bottomed at 57%

where is this bottom?

 

Posted
Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

where is the bottom - seriously - from the perspective of going back in

s&p all-time high was 6147 on 19feb

friday closed 5074

let's call that 18%

the 20 crash was a high of 3393 on 19feb (!) that bottomed at 2192 on 22march

closed 27may at 3036

let's call that 28%

ai says that in 07-08 the crater bottomed at 57%

where is this bottom?

 

The bottom is any company that isn't actually profitable and was using stock issued to a frothy market to pay for shit going to 0. Buckle up its gonna be a fucking ride. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

where is the bottom - seriously - from the perspective of going back in

s&p all-time high was 6147 on 19feb

friday closed 5074

let's call that 18%

the 20 crash was a high of 3393 on 19feb (!) that bottomed at 2192 on 22march

closed 27may at 3036

let's call that 28%

ai says that in 07-08 the crater bottomed at 57%

where is this bottom?

 

I dont know but it comes very fast when it does happen. And likely right after the worst possible news hits and when every instinct you have says only an idiot would invest in this market right now. That's when the bottom hits. So good luck with that. Im gonna try and time it though so let's fucking go !

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

then what are some good funds that are only companies that fit your cohort i.e. makes money, normal multiples, no shenanigans

I wouldn't recommend anything but a money market fund or short term govt security right now. Anything else is a huge gamble at the moment. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Blowing out the match doesn't help much once the house is already burning

 I know, but this is all driven by the tariffs being worse than everyone's worst case nightmare scenario.  The jobs report was solid.  It's the tariffs that are freaking everyone out.  If he lifted them, the rest of the economic indicators are pretty strong still. Biden handed him a good economy.  You could see a pretty strong bounce back if he lifted them in the very near future. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I agree that no one can predict the decisions of one man.

Very true especially when that man is dumb as a a box of rocks and so are the people he hires. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/06/trump-tariffs-error-aei

It was speculated on Friday that the idiocy of the forumula they used to calculate the size of the tariffs was purposely made to look overly complex so that the architects of the tariffs regime didn't look stupid. It turns out those people are in fact extremely incompetent.

image.thumb.png.d724907005f16b4dd7fe4d440dd2c897.png

Quote

The formula used by the Trump administration to levy reciprocal tariffs contains a serious math error that over-inflates the impact by about a factor of four, economists at the American Enterprise Institute said.

Why it matters: The conservative think tank says the error led to tariff rates massively higher than they should have been to achieve the goals the administration sought.

Catch up quick: After announcing the tariffs last Wednesday the Trump administration released a complicated-looking formula, which it said was developed with the Council of Economic Advisers, used to determine how to set the rates.

  • It turns out the formula is simply the U.S. trade deficit with each country, divided by the value of the goods the U.S. imports from that country.
  • Two other variables in the equation cancel each other out, rendering them effectively meaningless.

Yes, but: AEI's economists Kevin Corinth and Stan Veuger say they shouldn't cancel each other out, because Trump's team used the wrong level for one of them.

How it works: One of the variables relates to the "elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs," which is to say, how much import prices move as tariffs are applied.

  • The administration's calculation assigns a value of 0.25 to that variable, which in the math of price elasticity suggests most of the tariff impact does not hit the import price of an item as it enters the country.
  • But the AEI paper says they used the wrong value for import prices, and instead used the value for a retail price, or what happens to the final consumer price after the good is imported and distributed.
  • They argue, instead, that the right value is 0.945 — in other words, almost all of the tariff hits the import price of a good as it's brought into the country.
  • "It is inconsistent to multiply the elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices by the elasticity of retail prices with respect to tariffs," the authors write.
 

For example: Corinth and Veuger write that if the tariffs had been calculated correctly, with the same ultimate goals in mind but using the right kind of elasticity figure, the levy on a country like Vietnam would have been 12.2% and not 46%.

The intrigue: In making the case for their approach, including their formula, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative cites research on price elasticity by the Harvard Business School professor Alberto Cavallo.

  • Cavallo himself says it's not clear the USTR used his findings properly.

For the record: The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on AEI's assertion.

The bottom line: "Now, our view is that the formula the administration relied on has no foundation in either economic theory or trade law," Corinth and Veuger write.

  • "But if we are going to pretend that it is a sound basis for US trade policy, we should at least be allowed to expect that the relevant White House officials do their calculations carefully."

 

 
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

 

1 minute ago, immamac said:

The bottom is any company that isn't actually profitable and was using stock issued to a frothy market to pay for shit going to 0. Buckle up its gonna be a fucking ride. 

Let's not forget the last time tariffs were involved heavily in a downward move on the markets

Google Query: 1929 and tariffs.  AI overview - In the midst of the 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed into law in June 1930, raised tariffs on imported goods by about 20%, aiming to protect US industries, but instead, it triggered a global trade war and deepened the economic downturn. spacer.png

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...