Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[alach]

Oo
Russia invests and extracts the gas. The infrastructure to pipe it to Europe is all already there (tho some is a bit damaged)

Its nothing like Venezuela.

You mean that one under the Baltic sea that exploded? No, I was talking about the new interconnections in Greece and Bulgaria, the Baltic Pipe, and Southern Gas corridor. Several more are being worked on as well.
Think if they war ends people will just forget these new ones, "oh let's go back to good old russian oil and gas. Nothing to worry about there?"

[Darththeo]

Has anyone shared the "news" that show that the Trump's tariffs are paid for my Americans?

If not: https://thehill.com/business/5697480...den-us-buyers/

"The study, which analyzed shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions, found that firms importing goods into the U.S. absorbed only 4 percent of the costs from the levies. The remaining 96 percent was passed on to American buyers, while U.S. customs revenue surged by roughly $200 billion last year."

And the study in question: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmi...-KPB201_EN.pdf

[thilicen]

Has anyone shared the "news" that show that the Trump's tariffs are paid for my Americans?

If not: https://thehill.com/business/5697480...den-us-buyers/

"The study, which analyzed shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions, found that firms importing goods into the U.S. absorbed only 4 percent of the costs from the levies. The remaining 96 percent was passed on to American buyers, while U.S. customs revenue surged by roughly $200 billion last year."

And the study in question: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmi...-KPB201_EN.pdf

Well no shit lol

[alach]

Sounds like trumps big speech at Davos is just more of the same. No surprises, no grand plan or art of the deal, just more he's the best and everything is terrible.

• NOW: US President Donald Trump is addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he doubled-down on his demand for control of Greenland. He also issued harsh criticism of Europe and touted his economic agenda.

• Greenland showdown: European officials are planning to use the forum to stage a diplomatic intervention to cool tensions over Greenland that have put the continent on edge and may now threaten the survival of NATO, three sources told CNN.

• Bessent’s appeal to Europe’s leaders: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said European countries pushing back on the US attempts to acquire Greenland should “sit down and wait” for Trump and “listen to his argument” at the forum.

CNN

He's still talking.....

[Mayhem]

Has anyone shared the "news" that show that the Trump's tariffs are paid for my Americans?

If not: https://thehill.com/business/5697480...den-us-buyers/

"The study, which analyzed shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions, found that firms importing goods into the U.S. absorbed only 4 percent of the costs from the levies. The remaining 96 percent was passed on to American buyers, while U.S. customs revenue surged by roughly $200 billion last year."

And the study in question: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmi...-KPB201_EN.pdf

Yep, like 5 pages ago.

Still fun to remind them.

[Breccia]

"The study, which analyzed shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions, found that firms importing goods into the U.S. absorbed only 4 percent of the costs from the levies. The remaining 96 percent was passed on to American buyers, while U.S. customs revenue surged by roughly $200 billion last year."

And companies are flat-out saying this in public. Amazon CEO: Prices have gone up from tariffs

Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”

In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said

Simply put, large companies don't like the tariffs. Oh sure, they don't mind passing on the prices, but they don't want to be blamed for it. Amazon in the summer added a visible tariff surcharge, making Trump yell at them in public, which of course defies the point of pretending other countries somehow pay these tariffs. Again, nobody believes that, half the country just pretends.

But there is no hiding it anymore. Trump is making everything cost more, and he's doing so on purpose.

Trump added $2.25 trillion to the national debt in his first year back in charge, watchdog says

This is the second highest amount ever. Trump said he would bring down the deficit. Trump said the tariffs would help. Trump lied.

All Trump has is lies and excuses. He has no solutions to the problems he said we have. Even his latest affordability fix is dead in the water.

Trump signs executive order barring Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

"How can an Executive Order do that?"

It can't. And the thing is, it's not even really supposed to.

The order stated that in 30 days, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will develop “definitions of ‘large institutional investor’ and ‘single-family home.'” Cabinet members will issue guidance to prevent “providing for, approving, insuring, guaranteeing, securitizing, or facilitating the acquisition by large institutional investors” of a single-family home.

Trump didn't sign this because he had an answer. Trump signed this because he had a headline. Executive Orders don't apply to average non-government citizens. Trump wants the credit for being a hero and fixing something, when all this does is have Bessent say, behind closed doors of course, "we can't do that" and Trump hopes everyone forgets. Any blockage like what Trump claims would require enforcement by local, state, and/or federal laws, which an E.O. can't do.

"Surely he can withhold tax breaks from rich people who buy up houses."

True, earlier I would have dismissed this as an option. But Trump is already kicking large corporations and banks, his biggest donors, in the balls over and over. He's senile, he's demented, and no matter what he won't be elected in 2028. Maybe he's just showing what loyalty to Trump is worth: nothing.

But these investors are neither as stupid, nor as inept at business, as Trump has proven to be. Not only would they immediately sue and probably win, they could also dodge the problem by using an LLC, like Trump does all the time. "We didn't buy all those houses, it was this P.O. box in Delaware right next to yours," they can say, "tax them. They'll just default and, what a coincidence, we will claim those houses with our secured loans."

This Executive Order is meaningless. The only thing it could do is remind everyone Trump rapes children.

[En Sabah Nur]

Watters: Daddy is about to land and he has needs

Jesus Christ, why are they still doing this...

[Breccia]

Jesus Christ, why are they still doing this...

FOX News has dug themselves into a grave too big to easily climb out of. Bear in mind, FOX News took significant strides to become the majority conservative network, which means they have a plurality but not a majority on normal news. It also means that any change in conservative viewership will have a great effect on them, since it's all they have. Siding with Trump means they will continue to bleed money, but ditching Trump means they'll collapse.

I'm sure there are behind-the-scenes plans to pivot away from Trump after he dies, and they'd better hurry. "Daddy" in that video looks fat, sick, fat, old, fat, tired, stumbling, confused, fat, and fat.

[En Sabah Nur]

FOX News has dug themselves into a grave too big to easily climb out of. Bear in mind, FOX News took significant strides to become the majority conservative network, which means they have a plurality but not a majority on normal news. It also means that any change in conservative viewership will have a great effect on them, since it's all they have. Siding with Trump means they will continue to bleed money, but ditching Trump means they'll collapse.

I'm sure there are behind-the-scenes plans to pivot away from Trump after he dies, and they'd better hurry. "Daddy" in that video looks fat, sick, fat, old, fat, tired, stumbling, confused, fat, and fat.

I'd like to believe that's the case, but surely they can do it without having to call him "Daddy" of all things lol I didn't realise it such an intimate relationship.

[Gorsameth]

You mean that one under the Baltic sea that exploded? No, I was talking about the new interconnections in Greece and Bulgaria, the Baltic Pipe, and Southern Gas corridor. Several more ate being worked on ad well.
Think if they war ends people will just forget these new ones, "oh let's go back to good old russian oil and gas. Nothing to worry about there?"

If Russian gas is cheaper.

Yes.

[Breccia]

JPMorgan's Dimon warns of 'economic disaster' as Trump backs credit card rate cap

"It would remove credit from 80% of Americans, and that is their back-up credit," Dimon, longtime chief of JPMorgan and Wall Street's most influential banker, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Banking industry bodies have pushed back strongly against the move, arguing it would limit credit access for everyday consumers. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts said such a measure would require legislation and has *slim odds of passage, with Democrats and Republicans divided over supporting it.

"I think we should test it," Dimon said. "The government can do it, they should force all the banks to do it in two states - Vermont and Massachusetts - and see what happens."

Though Dimon did not explain why he picked those two states, the idea drew laughs from the crowd. Left-leaning Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who represent Vermont and Massachusetts respectively, ⁠have both advocated for legislation that would cap credit card interest rates.

"People crying the most will not be the credit card companies. It will be the restaurants, retailers, *travel companies, the schools, the municipalities, because people will miss their water payments, this payment and that payment," Dimon said.

It's nice when an actual experienced expert, one with a proven track record, steps in. I'm not defending credit cards or banks, not even close. But the 10% cap is asking them to voluntarily make a lot less money. Just like Trump's proposed mortgage rules, this means banks will suddenly be a lot more cautious with who gets a card and who doesn't, and while I wouldn't have guessed 80%, I would have guessed a lot of people would be rejected. This leads to Americans, so used to swimming in a sea of debt, just drowning. Or, being bit by a loan shark.

Think of it as a parallel to American gun ownership. Right now, anyone who wants ten guns can have ten guns. Imagine a law that says "Anyone selling a gun used for a crime is guilty of that same crime". Legal gun sales grind to a screeching halt, basically reserved for people who have such documented safety records they're probably a soldier or police officer who already has one. Meanwhile, the people with ten guns decide they can make do with eight, selling two of them for highly inflated prices to everyone else. It's not a perfect parallel, I know, but dramatic, sudden changes that fuck the industry end up fucking the consumers.

And let's face it: even the predatory credit card companies are better than Trump right now. At least they honor their contracts.

[Sunseeker]

Maybe 80% of Americans would be better off without credit cards?

Look I'm not saying a rate cap is good or bad, but it is unarguable that rates have gotten out of hand, and that only a decade ago, the average rate was less than half (around 12%) of what is is now (around 28%). And these high interest rates are killing American buying power.

At some point the answer really needs to be "youre going to have to accept making less money, or we're going to decide you shouldnt be in business at all."

If any pushback on billionaires and billion-dollar companies making all the money is met with "if you do this, we will fuck you over rather than make a penny less" then they are the problem, and the solution is not to back off, but to come down on their heads even harder.

[Gorsameth]

JPMorgan's Dimon warns of 'economic disaster' as Trump backs credit card rate cap



It's nice when an actual experienced expert, one with a proven track record, steps in. I'm not defending credit cards or banks, not even close. But the 10% cap is asking them to voluntarily make a lot less money. Just like Trump's proposed mortgage rules, this means banks will suddenly be a lot more cautious with who gets a card and who doesn't, and while I wouldn't have guessed 80%, I would have guessed a lot of people would be rejected. This leads to Americans, so used to swimming in a sea of debt, just drowning. Or, being bit by a loan shark.

Think of it as a parallel to American gun ownership. Right now, anyone who wants ten guns can have ten guns. Imagine a law that says "Anyone selling a gun used for a crime is guilty of that same crime". Legal gun sales grind to a screeching halt, basically reserved for people who have such documented safety records they're probably a soldier or police officer who already has one. Meanwhile, the people with ten guns decide they can make do with eight, selling two of them for highly inflated prices to everyone else. It's not a perfect parallel, I know, but dramatic, sudden changes that fuck the industry end up fucking the consumers.

And let's face it: even the predatory credit card companies are better than Trump right now. At least they honor their contracts.

No I don't get it.

"Banks will be less likely to lend without predatory interest rates that lead to bankruptcies and not actually making a return on investment", just doesn't make sense to me.
The bank still gets their money back, actually more likely to get their money back with lower interests. Its still a good deal. The entire rest of the world can manage it without any issues of lack of lending power from banks.

No, its pure greed, nothing less.

[Breccia]

No, its pure greed, nothing less.

It is.

But it's also supply and demand. Americans are used to being able to easily apply for three credit cards and get them immediately, even if they already have two. The only way that works is if the rates are high enough to balance the defaults - and look at the economic future, more people will be unable to pay back.

It's greed, it's nearly criminal greed. But it's greed we've come to accept as normal and rely on. Changing the status quo will cause damage, because the greedy people will insist that it causes damage, so they can say "See, I told you." They are in the position to see to it that this happens.

[alach]

And the EU just froze the trade talks...
You know, the ones that they spent months working on and UvDL got dunked on for being too soft on trump.
Bravo, you orange tool.

Meanwhile, EU is about to sign a huge trade deal with India. Trump wasn't invited to the table.

[thilicen]

And the EU just froze the trade talks...
You know, the ones that they spent months working on and UvDL got dunked on for being too soft on trump.
Bravo, you orange tool.

Meanwhile, EU is about to sign a huge trade deal with India. Trump wasn't invited to the table.

Yes, in the real world actions still have consequences I'm afraid.

[Breccia]

Meanwhile, EU is about to sign a huge trade deal with India. Trump wasn't invited to the table.

More of this, please.

Here is one article but naturally there are others. Trump said he wouldn't invade, but the tariffs he invented out of thin air are still in play, and SCOTUS punted yet again. Trump broke the deal, so, Europe has no reason to honor it.

From the article,

the Committee on International Trade would on Monday discuss the use of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) — a far-reaching measure variously described as a “trade bazooka” — which would allow the EU to substantially restrict U.S. companies’ access to its single market, block them from tenders, reduce the flow of goods and capital, and curb foreign direct investment in the bloc.

This will damage the US GDP. Good. Do it.

[Endus]

Maybe 80% of Americans would be better off without credit cards?

Look I'm not saying a rate cap is good or bad, but it is unarguable that rates have gotten out of hand, and that only a decade ago, the average rate was less than half (around 12%) of what is is now (around 28%). And these high interest rates are killing American buying power.

At some point the answer really needs to be "youre going to have to accept making less money, or we're going to decide you shouldnt be in business at all."

If any pushback on billionaires and billion-dollar companies making all the money is met with "if you do this, we will fuck you over rather than make a penny less" then they are the problem, and the solution is not to back off, but to come down on their heads even harder.

The problem isn't interest rates, fundamentally. It's carrying a balance on the card, which is what leads to you paying interest. My current bank's cards are all mostly 20.99% interest rates; there's a low-rate option but that also carries an annual fee. I pay zero interest, while using my card as my primary tool for purchases; essentially 100% of my purchases are through my credit card; interest only applies if I don't pay off the balance within that first month. It only dips from 100% in the rare chance I spend money someplace that doesn't take cards, and that's so unlikely here that I can't recall the last time it came up.

That all said, I used to carry a balance, and it was due to poor decisions and predatory practices by banks, and they're definitely exploiting people to make money. But if the problem is, fundamentally, poor wealth management, then removing access to credit cards will just means those problems surface elsewhere and due to new reasons, not that those problems will vanish. Adjusting rates on cards doesn't fix the problem, here.

The problem isn't always wealth management, though. Sometimes, you hit a legitimate rough patch, due to unemployment or medical issues or property damage or whatever. And then you push that onto whatever credit you can, to survive that rough patch, and then struggle to pay it back. That's gonna happen regardless, and IMO the better approach to that kind of issue is better safeguards and support from society in general, not limiting access to credit.

[TACOshake]

TACO Time prevails as always.

Having a fish taco with tater tots to celebrate.

[Kathandira]

Capping credit card interest is not a good move. I do not support that.

That said, it would do good for a decent amount of American's to rely less on credit. We are a bit too indoctrinated into consumer culture where wants are often synonymous with needs. What were once considered luxuries have become day to day necessities due to constant advertising and pressure of a manufactured need to keep up with your neighbors. And more often than not, it is put on a credit car for 24 easy payments of $20 a month. Add more and more items in that way, and you end up with horrid credit card debt, sapping away and chance of saving enough money to afford any sort of a comfortable future.

Yes, they do it to themselves, but the system of hyper consumerism created this. Unfortunately, many are too weak willed to stop for a moment and think if they need all the junk and services they pay for, or if they can live without and put that money aside in a high yield savings account, or any sort of retirement plan for their future. Then they get to 40-50 years old with nothing to show for the time they've put in working other than nick knacks, services, and other nonsense.

If I were to give a hot take on what we can do. A quick off the cuff idea would be to better examine a applicants current monthly income and their monthly spending on bills. If they don't have or make the money to responsibly pay off a credit card debt they are looking to take on, while being able to pay their bills, they should be denied.

Something like, A person makes $2,000 a month, and their monthly bills add up to $1950 per month, they would be denied the use of a credit card. They obviously do not have the income to pay it off in a responsible manner, therefore should be denied.

This is not in regards to taking out a loan. This is in regards to credit card purchases. Medical expenses should not be included in this. Things that are life or death should not be included. I'm talking about general consumer level purchases. TVs, Clothing, Vacations, Odds ends type trinkets and so on.