Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[thilicen]

With all the breaking news, teacher shortage is probably the least of on the list of concerns. I am here to tell you that situation is not going to get better.

Supreme Court allows Trump to freeze dozens of teacher training grants

Trump knows who his voters are, them getting educated is one of the worst things that could happen to the republican party.

[gondrin]

Yup. Finished "strong".



Of course, the stock market is somewhat exponential, so top x losses is usually going to be limited to recent events.

However, Trump holds number 2 spot in percentage at -12.93%. That was a nearly 3000 point primarily due to COVID. The Dow Jones was also about 12000 points lower than it was now.

[thilicen]

I think the EU is likely to continue with targeted tariffs. They are just going to be much wider and higher in value.

A lot of talk about targeting tech / digital goods. The US exports a fuckton of digital services like cloud hosting, Google services, Netflix, Prime etc. France has even begun talking about a full embargo.

[gondrin]

On a related note, Trump shares claims that he's crashing the Stock Market on purpose in some effort to put pressure on the Fed or something. It's fucking stupid.

So, inflation will go up because of the tariffs which will cause the Fed to INCREASE interest rates to tamp down on inflation.

Bold move Cotton, lets see how this play out.

[Captain N]

However, Trump holds number 2 spot in percentage at -12.93%. That was a nearly 3000 point primarily due to COVID. The Dow Jones was also about 12000 points lower than it was now.

Don't challenge Trump to put it below that 12000. He'll try.

[Rasulis]

Directly contradicted by WH statements as I linked earlier. You can't claim "this is what I wanted" after sending your WH Press Secretary on camera to yell "stop selling, don't you have faith in Trump?"

Revolution happened not because the poor suffered, but when the middle class became dissatisfied. Trump may not be aware of that. However, members of his administration and the GOP realized that they can't afford to make the middle class unhappy. Crashing the stock market is the surest way of doing that.

[gondrin]

A lot of talk about targeting tech / digital goods. The US exports a fuckton of digital services like cloud hosting, Google services, Netflix, Prime etc. France has even begun talking about a full embargo.

Speaking of Google, they literally had one of the smallest losses of the day. Unlike Tesla. Google had a 4.89 point loss or a 3.2% loss which isn't bad. Tesla, on the other hand, had a 27.85 loss which is a 10.42% loss. And this also means that Elon Musk has lost, just for the past 2 days due to Trump, a bit over $17.9 billion. Yes Musk, you can thank Trump for losing nearly $18 billion. To put that in perspective, Musk lost as much as Netflix made in 6 months last year in 2 days.

[hellhamster]

Speaking of Google, they literally had one of the smallest losses of the day. Unlike Tesla. Google had a 4.89 point loss or a 3.2% loss which isn't bad. Tesla, on the other hand, had a 27.85 loss which is a 10.42% loss. And this also means that Elon Musk has lost, just for the past 2 days due to Trump, a bit over $17.9 billion. Yes Musk, you can thank Trump for losing nearly $18 billion. To put that in perspective, Musk lost as much as Netflix made in 6 months last year in 2 days.

Tells you much about how inflated some stocks really are.

[PhaelixWW]

And this also means that Elon Musk has lost, just for the past 2 days due to Trump, a bit over $17.9 billion. Yes Musk, you can thank Trump for losing nearly $18 billion. To put that in perspective, Musk lost as much as Netflix made in 6 months last year in 2 days.

Yes, but today's loss just puts Tesla stock at what it was the day before the election. I mean, it's certainly below what it would have been had he not involved himself in the election and Trump had lost, but, yeah, Tesla stock was way inflated.

[Rasulis]

Speaking of Google, they literally had one of the smallest losses of the day. Unlike Tesla. Google had a 4.89 point loss or a 3.2% loss which isn't bad. Tesla, on the other hand, had a 27.85 loss which is a 10.42% loss. And this also means that Elon Musk has lost, just for the past 2 days due to Trump, a bit over $17.9 billion. Yes Musk, you can thank Trump for losing nearly $18 billion. To put that in perspective, Musk lost as much as Netflix made in 6 months last year in 2 days.

Google P/E ratio is currently a measly 18.08 with net profit over $100B in 2024. An increase of 35.37% from 2023.

Tesla current P/E ratio, after losing half of its value, is still a whooping 117.5. Net profit of $7.13B in 2024. A decline of 52.46% from 2023.

One is in the top 5 of the most profitable companies in the world. The other is not even remotely in the same league.

If the price is still there or lower by 04/15, I think I will buy Google. I can't recall the last time I saw one of the big tech companies with P/E ratio in the teens.

[gondrin]

Don't challenge Trump to put it below that 12000. He'll try.

Here is a little fun fact.

If Trump were to start a war with Greenland/Denmark/NATO or Canada/NATO, he basically will have killed off the stock market as we know it. It will pretty much collapse overnight to the point where it would probably end up back where it was in the early 80s or maybe 70s. In the 3000 to 6000 range. And all of the techbros that are wanting things to collapse also need to realize that they would also pretty much get their entire wealth wiped out as nearly all of their wealth is in stocks in their companies.

- - - Updated - - -

Well well well. Here is a group of conservatives basically pissed off at Trump due to his tariffs. Not for the other shit he is doing but because they don't like taxes and tariffs are just another name for a direct tax.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...slative-power/

A conservative legal group is suing the Trump administration over the president’s tariffs on Chinese imports, alleging that they were imposed through an “unlawful” use of emergency executive power.

The 29-page complaint filed Thursday by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) in the Northern District of Florida alleges that the authority to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the president.

“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers,” NCLA senior litigation counsel Andrew Morris said in a statement accompanying the lawsuit.

According to the nonprofit group, the statutes under which Trump purported to issue the levies — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) — grants the executive sweeping authority to quickly combat international economic crises, permitting the president to “order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies.” However, the NCLA asserts that the emergency statute does not allow the president to usurp the legislative branch’s control of the country’s purse strings through the unilateral imposition of tariffs.

“Congress passed the IEEPA to counter external emergencies, not to grant presidents a blank check to write domestic economic policy,” the complaint states.

The right-leaning legal group is seeking a court order declaring that Trump’s tariffs are an “unconstitutional exercise of legislative power” and enjoining them from being implemented and enforced.

The complaint alleges that Trump is the first president to use the emergency statute as a means of imposing tariffs, saying that fact is “not surprising” because “the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens.”

“A tariff is a tax on Americans’ commerce with other countries,” the NCLA wrote. “The Constitution assigns Congress exclusive power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce. Presidents can impose tariffs only when Congress grants permission, which it has done in carefully drawn trade statutes. These statutes typically authorize tariffs only on industries or countries that meet specified criteria, and only under specified conditions, after following specified procedures. Such statutes require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope.”

Looking to the terms in the IEEPA, the suit argues that even looking at the statute in a light most favorable to Trump, his administration’s tariffs still run contra to the law because the IEEPA limits presidential actions to those “necessary” in addressing a specific emergency. In this case, the president declared an emergency over Chinese opioids being brought into the country.

“But his China Executive Orders show no connection between the opioid problem and the tariff he ordered — much less that the tariff is ‘necessary’ to resolve that problem,” the complaint states. “The means of an across-the-board tariff does not fit the end of stopping an influx of opioids, and is in no sense ‘necessary’ to that stated purpose.

Trump’s own words have further undermined his use of the emergency power, the NCLA claims, noting that the president has stated that he implemented the tariffs with the goal of reducing America’s trade deficit and increasing federal revenue.

Trump cited the same emergency statute on Wednesday when he unveiled another executive order that raised the percentage Americans will pay on imported Chinese products to 54%. The latest order defines the emergency as the U.S. trade deficit, saying it is “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.

“The Constitutional power ‘to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises’ and ‘to regulate commerce with foreign Nations’ belongs to Congress,” NCLA senior litigation counsel John Vecchione said. “The Administration’s actions followed none of these constitutional commands, and the statute it cites does not even use the word ‘tariff’ or ‘tax.’ This unlawful ‘impost’ must fall.”

They are right in the sense that what Trump is doing is unconstitutional. However, they voted for him in so fuck them. They can suffer like the rest of us that DIDN'T want him in. And with Congress basically saying Trump is allowed to do this by either actually legislating it into existence or outright just doing nothing, they can go complain to them to actually do something.

[thilicen]

They are right in the sense that what Trump is doing is unconstitutional. However, they voted for him in so fuck them. They can suffer like the rest of us that DIDN'T want him in. And with Congress basically saying Trump is allowed to do this by either actually legislating it into existence or outright just doing nothing, they can go complain to them to actually do something.

They should suffer even more. When Trump is finally gone anyone who voted for him should be put on a list fully accessible by the public. No one should ever have to hire or work with a Trump voter.

[gondrin]

So, here is massive socialist liberal Ronald Reagan basically stating what Trump is doing is possibly the dumbest move ever. And that is saying a lot in the long history of Donald Trump.



Remember all you MAGA folk, this is the man that conservatives championed for decades. And while I will disagree with him in pretty much everything he did, he is pretty much right on the money with this. He lived in the time when tariffs helped cause one of the greatest depressions in the history of the modern world.

[Rasulis]

Interestingly, the ones buying on the dip are not institutional investors, but retail investors.

Individual investors net bought a record $4.7 billion worth of stocks on Thursday as new tariffs pummeled markets

Stocks faced their worst day since 2020 on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on almost every country. The S&P 500 fell 4.8%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down about 6%.

In response, individual investors bought stocks and ETFs at a record pace. Individuals net bought $4.7 billion worth of equities on April 3, which is the highest daily inflow over the past decade, according to data from J.P. Morgan.

Retail investors buy the dip pretty reliably whenever there’s a stock-market selloff, and Thursday was no exception. But J.P. Morgan, which has been tracking investor activity for years, noted that this trend has strengthened since 2022.

The investment bank also compared the April 3 dip buying to investor behavior during March 2020, which was the last time the stock market fell at this pace. In contrast, individuals sold off their stocks on the days the market dropped in 2020. J.P. Morgan estimated a roughly 75% correlation between investor flows and market performance in 2020. And even on the days individuals bought the dip, they opted for diversified ETFs instead of single stocks.

“We often talk about individual investors having the advantage of being able to be more long-term. If you’re somebody who does this for a living and your job is to to beat the S&P 500, every year you have to beat the S&P 500. If you don’t, you’re out of a job,” Dan Egan, vice president of behavioral finance and investing at Betterment, told MarketWatch. “On the other hand, an individual investor can say, ‘Now’s a good time to invest and I can stick this out for the next three years.’”

Egan said that taking a more long-term approach can help portfolios endure large market drops, but it can also help investors keep their sanity. If an investor feels anxious when a single-day stock-market move hurts their portfolio, Egan suggests keeping enough cash on hand so it’s not as stressful.

“When you think about investing in general, this involves doing the opposite of what feels comfortable to do. So that’s having saved up enough cash where you’re not anxious about it, where you can afford to [take risks],” Egan said. “Doing the opposite of what feels comfortable can sometimes be the smart thing to do.”

[minteK917]

Interestingly, the ones buying on the dip are not institutional investors, but retail investors.

Individual investors net bought a record $4.7 billion worth of stocks on Thursday as new tariffs pummeled markets

Because only retail investor buy falling knives. Until theres signs that tarrifs could go away, there is no reason to buy anything right now. If you buy now you wont do any money, if you hold long enough until the tarrif gets fixed, you break even mabye and if you keep ultra long term.. buying now doesent help you, it will just go back to the curve it was going so buying after the trouble would have been the same.

[gondrin]

Interestingly, the ones buying on the dip are not institutional investors, but retail investors.

Individual investors net bought a record $4.7 billion worth of stocks on Thursday as new tariffs pummeled markets

Because institutional investors understand to basically get out mostly right now and buy it on the cheap. Retail investors are pretty much going to lose their shirt and badly unless, as they say, it is someone looking to buy stock and just hold onto it for a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

Because only retail investor buy falling knives. Until theres signs that tarrifs could go away, there is no reason to buy anything right now. If you buy now you wont do any money, if you hold long enough until the tarrif gets fixed, you break even mabye and if you keep ultra long term.. buying now doesent help you, it will just go back to the curve it was going so buying after the trouble would have been the same.

The only stocks I would be buying are ones paying out a dividend over the long haul as the value of the stock itself doesn't mean much of much for dividend investing.

[Rasulis]

Because institutional investors understand to basically get out mostly right now and buy it on the cheap. Retail investors are pretty much going to lose their shirt and badly unless, as they say, it is someone looking to buy stock and just hold onto it for a long time.

- - - Updated - - -



The only stocks I would be buying are ones paying out a dividend over the long haul as the value of the stock itself doesn't mean much of much for dividend investing.

That's what I did. I still have Oracle stocks that I bought in 1986/1987. Kept them when the value did not change much through the late 90s when it started climbing up. Kept them when the share dropped from $40 to $10 in 2000. Still have them now.

[minteK917]

Because institutional investors understand to basically get out mostly right now and buy it on the cheap. Retail investors are pretty much going to lose their shirt and badly unless, as they say, it is someone looking to buy stock and just hold onto it for a long time.

Yeah but like I said the retail investor is actually better off waiting when the recovery kicks in anyway. If you put money during the dip and wait long term.. you didnt win anything vs the guy that bought early recovery. Unless you magically bought at the very lowest point possible, long term you and the guy that bought during recovery made the same gain, but he took less risk than you did.

[Xath]

With all the breaking news, teacher shortage is probably the least of on the list of concerns. I am here to tell you that situation is not going to get better.

Supreme Court allows Trump to freeze dozens of teacher training grants

Roberts breaking from the pack could be significant here. Roberts and ACB are basically going to be our only hope when the tariffs eventually go to the court as scary as that is.

- - - Updated - - -

Interestingly, the ones buying on the dip are not institutional investors, but retail investors.

Individual investors net bought a record $4.7 billion worth of stocks on Thursday as new tariffs pummeled markets

Because only retail investors think this is anywhere near the bottom

[Rasulis]

So, here is massive socialist liberal Ronald Reagan basically stating what Trump is doing is possibly the dumbest move ever. And that is saying a lot in the long history of Donald Trump.



Remember all you MAGA folk, this is the man that conservatives championed for decades. And while I will disagree with him in pretty much everything he did, he is pretty much right on the money with this. He lived in the time when tariffs helped cause one of the greatest depressions in the history of the modern world.

The text of that radio address.

You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works — but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs.

They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.

The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.

Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.

For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation, passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

Ford, GM and Stellantis are perfect examples. Protected by the 25% pickup trucks tariff, they have become lazy and lost their competitive edge in the global market. Protectionism does not work in the long run. You just end up with a diminishing stagnant market.