Economics Thread

Last 5 years

S&P +109%

Meanwhile, $1 today is worth the same as $0.80 in 2020 (CPI data lol)

Great to be an asset holder. Good luck to you if not
 
acesfull86 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1981748993269862779

Hopefully SCOTUS will agree
Click to expand...

There's a stronger chance then many may think that the IEEPA tariffs get nuked, but even in a world where that doesn't occur, I'm beginning to see a likely path where inflation just hangs around 2.8-3% for another year and then goes lower slowly and you'll be able to thank oil and housing here for that path if that's what plays out.

Honestly, if that's the path, and really if inflation stays below 4%, the inflation side of this will never burn Trump. First reason why is because...Trump, the guidelines are higher for something to hurt for him, and the second reason is that the 2022 wounds are still fresh.

Think it's probably more likely the labor market hurts, if anything does at all here.
 
Thethe will tell me Trump and Co has a plan on trade and they know what they’re solving for and how to get there. This is yet another shining example why he’s completely wrong.
 
I’m not interested in scoring little shots, I’m interested in showing why it’s ridiculous to allow one person to direct international trade policy based on his feelings.

Hopefully SCOTUS will agree. This should make excellent evidence undermining Trump’s claim that he’s responding to an emergency.
 
acesfull86 said:
I’m not interested in scoring little shots, I’m interested in showing why it’s ridiculous to allow one person to direct international trade policy based on his feelings.

Hopefully SCOTUS will agree. This should make excellent evidence undermining Trump’s claim that he’s responding to an emergency.
Click to expand...
If Canada cheating on their commercial by finding a clip of Ronald Reagan disagreeing with our Dear Leader on trade policy isn’t a national emergency, I don’t know what is. I feel less safe already just knowing that Canada would stoop so low.
 
acesfull86 said:
I’m not interested in scoring little shots, I’m interested in showing why it’s ridiculous to allow one person to direct international trade policy based on his feelings.

Hopefully SCOTUS will agree. This should make excellent evidence undermining Trump’s claim that he’s responding to an emergency.
Click to expand...
There is no political system that can safeguard against the kind of leadership a country chooses. None.

Our system can operate with mediocre leadership. But it breaks down in the face of childishness and a lack of self-restraint. We gave an emotional toddler the right to hire and fire his babysitters. We ought not to be surprised if the babysitters let him have his way.

At some level, it is fitting and proper that the choice the voters made should be accommodated. Anyone who was paying attention would not be surprised by anything that has happened. I find it amusing that some of them now want SCOTUS/Congress to stand up to the guy they chose. At least thethe shows consistency in his enthusiasm for undiluted Trumpism.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
There is no political system that can safeguard against the kind of leadership a country chooses. None.

Our system can operate with mediocre leadership. But it breaks down in the face of childishness and a lack of self-restraint. We gave an emotional toddler the right to hire and fire his babysitters. We ought not to be surprised if the babysitters let him have his way.

At some level, it is fitting and proper that the choice the voters made should be accommodated. Anyone who was paying attention would not be surprised by anything that has happened. I find it amusing that some of them now want SCOTUS/Congress to stand up to the guy they chose. At least thethe shows consistency in his enthusiasm for undiluted Trumpism.
Click to expand...
You’d likely have landed something if you hadn’t used the word babysitters.

Too easy
 
can you assess this statement: There is certainly no shortage of beef in our own country, but lowering prices requires relaxing a suite of crony regulations designed to protect Big Agriculture from the competition of local and independent farmers.

The statement argues that beef supply in the U.S. is abundant, but prices remain high due to regulations favoring large agricultural corporations over smaller, independent farmers. Let’s break it down:


  1. Beef Supply: The U.S. is a major beef producer, with over 90 million cattle and roughly 30 million head slaughtered annually, producing billions of pounds of beef. Supply is indeed robust, supporting the claim of "no shortage." However, prices are influenced by more than just supply volume.
  2. High Prices: Beef prices have risen significantly in recent years. For example, retail beef prices increased from about $6.50 per pound in 2019 to over $8 per pound in 2025, driven by factors like inflation, labor costs, feed prices, and supply chain disruptions. The statement suggests regulatory barriers are a key driver, which requires scrutiny.
  3. Crony Regulations: The claim that regulations protect "Big Agriculture" (large agribusinesses like Tyson, Cargill, or JBS) over local farmers has merit but is nuanced:
    • Market Concentration: Four companies control over 80% of U.S. beef processing, creating a bottleneck. Regulations like USDA inspection requirements can disproportionately burden smaller processors due to high compliance costs, limiting their ability to compete.
    • Barriers to Entry: Small farmers often face challenges with access to slaughterhouses, as large processors prioritize their own supply chains. Regulatory hurdles, such as mandatory USDA inspections for interstate sales, can make it harder for local producers to scale.
    • Subsidies and Policies: Federal subsidies often favor large-scale operations indirectly through crop insurance or feed subsidies, which benefit industrial feedlots more than small, pasture-based farms.
  4. Counterpoints:
    • Regulations like food safety standards (e.g., HACCP) exist to protect consumers, not just to entrench big players. Relaxing them could risk safety without guaranteed price reductions.
    • Other factors, like rising input costs (fuel, feed, labor) and global demand, also drive prices, not just regulations.
    • Local farmers face structural challenges (e.g., land costs, distribution networks) that deregulation alone may not solve.
  5. Potential Impact of Deregulation: Relaxing certain rules, like streamlining inspection processes for small processors or allowing more direct-to-consumer sales, could lower barriers for independent farmers. Evidence from states with "meat share" programs shows modest price benefits for consumers buying directly from local producers. However, scaling this to meaningfully impact national prices is uncertain, as local farms supply a tiny fraction of the market (<5%).

Assessment: The statement is partially accurate. There’s no beef shortage, and some regulations do favor large agribusinesses, limiting competition from smaller farmers. Deregulation could help, but it’s not a silver bullet—other economic factors also drive prices. The "crony" framing oversimplifies complex regulatory and market dynamics.
 
my small contribution re beef prices: they are downstream of grain prices.

grain prices spiked bigly due to disruptions to supply chains during covid then even more bigly after the russian invasion of ukraine (both are major grain producers)...they have been normalizing since the second half of 2023...but the lag from grain prices to beef prices is surprisingly long...i think beef prices will drop significantly over the next year if the usual pattern holds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top