The constitution is certainly a framework for arguments. I’m just not a close minded Luddite who thinks past is always prologue.
Life evolves and so does policy.
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
The constitution is certainly a framework for arguments. I’m just not a close minded Luddite who thinks past is always prologue.
Life evolves and so does policy.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Ok. I’ll take principles & the Constitution over a bumper sticker that conveniently allows one to make it up as he goes along.
The POTUS shouldn’t be allowed to slap a tariff on a country based on a commercial that hurt his feelings. But on the other hand, the past isn’t prologue.
Is there a punishment to a country that advertises lies in our country?
acesfull86
Well-known member
It wasn’t a lie.
There shouldn’t be a punishment.
There are several constitutional responses that Trump could’ve taken instead.
There shouldn’t be a punishment.
There are several constitutional responses that Trump could’ve taken instead.
What I do know is that Trump and team have gotten markets to be thrilled with baseline tariffs levels.
That’s a fantastic magic trick if you ask me.
acesfull86
Well-known member
“Baseline tariffs” …subject to change based on whether Trump gets up to piss during Wheel of Fortune, or happens to sit through the commercials and sees one he doesn’t like.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2025/10/27/fraudulent-use-of-reagan/
This lays bare what many people have been saying all along: There's not much rhyme or reason to Trump's protectionism. It's not a cohesive economic theory. It's not about shoring up critical American defense capabilities or supply-chain sturdiness in the event of war. It's not about revitalization of the hollowed-out Rust Belt. It's not about trying to get revenue so taxes can be cut (or so the federal government can work its way out of the debt hole). It's about…Trump wanting to impose tariffs, and believing contra all logic and evidence that they're part of the path to prosperity.
This lays bare what many people have been saying all along: There's not much rhyme or reason to Trump's protectionism. It's not a cohesive economic theory. It's not about shoring up critical American defense capabilities or supply-chain sturdiness in the event of war. It's not about revitalization of the hollowed-out Rust Belt. It's not about trying to get revenue so taxes can be cut (or so the federal government can work its way out of the debt hole). It's about…Trump wanting to impose tariffs, and believing contra all logic and evidence that they're part of the path to prosperity.
OMB!
chop2chip
Well-known member
What do you think would happen to the markets if today Trump team announced “baseline tariffs in all countries are now 0”?
That’s not a good use of this because it literally is Donald Trump doing something dumb that nobody but him has ever done. A National fucking emergency of “Canada quoted Reagan in a way I didn’t like” is indeed a bad Orange Man thing.
Start brushing up on your Mandarin because that’d be the end of America probably.
Globalists would love it and we would get a market spike followed by more disparity in wealth for Americans moving forward.
Fortunately, Trump understand what is needed for a strong country.
Markets have performed well because they trust Trump and teams vision for Americans future.
acesfull86
Well-known member
chop2chip
Well-known member
I think Trump has done well in areas outside of tariffs that’s reflected in the markets. Specifically, his administration is very AI and energy friendly and has either signaled or follow through on cutting regulations. The market has welcomed that.
It’s part of a strategy they will continue to make America by far the best market to invest in. You can’t just ignore certain parts of the plan assuming they aren’t all dependent on each other.
acesfull86
Well-known member
What part of the plan included responding to television ads