Stock Market and tariffs

[CatsWin2025]

Why are we limiting the tariffs to goods only? The reason those goods are so much cheaper is due to cheap labor. Service companies do the same thing. There are millions of full time employees across southeast Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe making 60-75% less than an equivalent US based employee would make providing technical and customer support for Americans. Why should we punish companies for manufacturing goods overseas and not companies who avail themselves of the same cheap labor but instead provide a service? When is the last time you called your insurance company or bank and talked to an American? Tariff the labor that accounts for all the savings, and you have millions of ready made remote jobs for Americans. And unlike trying to build or refit manufacturing infrastructure, which is a decade long undertaking, you don't have to wait for the capability.

 

[GJNorman]

As for paying down the debt, our discretionary spending is ~14% of the budget. We could be ~break even if we got rid of all discretionary spending (including defense).

Cut back on the defense budget and raise taxes on people making over 20 million per year

 

[JumperJack]

 

[JumperJack]

As for paying down the debt, our discretionary spending is ~14% of the budget. We could be ~break even if we got rid of all discretionary spending (including defense).

Is this accounting for the waste that riddles all federal spending, even non-discretionary?

 

[ukcatz12]

??? Bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US is the point of the tarrifs. Funny/sad how nobody on the left dare mention that these tarriffs are a response to tarriffs that have been placed on us forever. smh

Half this thread seems to think the tariffs are merely negotiating tactics to get better trade deals and half thinks they'll stay and have an actual purpose. The initial tariffs against Canada were apparently a negotiating tactic for border security with that stupid fentanyl excuse. Now all of a sudden the tariffs are for real reasons?

Does slapping a tariff on sneakers made in Vietnam really help bring manufacturing back to the US? No it doesn't. Does slapping a tariff on bananas from Ecuador do that? No. If that was the intention, using tariffs as a scalpel instead of a hammer.

It will take 5-10 years for any of this to actually happen, if it happens at all. In the mean time, the cost to actually build factories in the US just shot up tremendously, making it less economically viable.

What's actually going to happen is other countries are just going to get tired of the flip flopping and lack of good faith negotiations and turn their backs on the US. It's already happened with Canada. The EU is talking about banning large US services like Google and Meta. China has banned export of rare earth minerals to the US.

 

[JumperJack]

 

[ukcatz12]

View embedded media

It's amazing to me that you guys just parrot stuff like this without actually thinking about it.

The 2022 drop took place over the course of an entire year. It was the stock market being the stock market and having a bad year.

In 2025 we're down about 10% in the span of a few days because of a single action one single person decided to do. What's happened since last week was 100% avoidable even if you think tariffs are the right thing to do.

This administration has zero negotiating or diplomacy skills. The only tool they know how to use is a hammer. It's gotten really old and eventually the rest of the world isn't going to tolerate it anymore and will just stop trying to negotiate. Which is already starting to happen.

 

[UKGrad93]

Is this accounting for the waste that riddles all federal spending, even non-discretionary?

USA Facts This site gives a good breakdown of the federal budget. It has high marks for being politically neutral and very accurate according to media bias scales.

Most mandatory spending is for Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt. I don't think that there is enough waste there to balance the budget.

Defense spending ~850 Billion, other discretionary spending ~960 Billion. Total budget is 6.8 Trillion. Revenues are 4.9 Trillion. So cutting all defense and discretionary spending will balance the budget - Almost.

 

[warrior-cat]

Something had to be done to the economy to put a little sanity back. I’m a big fan of the cuts but I fear rogue judges and lazy Congressmen will slow that down. But I’m not a fan of this broad brush tarriff war at all. It’s going to cost Americans and Trump. The more he talks about how “beautiful” it is the less people believe. But he’s going to live or die on that hill. I guess we’ll all see.

The rogue judges and lazy (corrupt better word) politicians will drive a wrench in the works (intent), but it remains to be seen how far-reaching their efforts will have in stopping Trumps agenda. No doubt it will slow it, hopefully not enough to stop it. The longer it goes on however, the better chance that failure will be the end result.

 

[Baller Val]

Half this thread seems to think the tariffs are merely negotiating tactics to get better trade deals and half thinks they'll stay and have an actual purpose. The initial tariffs against Canada were apparently a negotiating tactic for border security with that stupid fentanyl excuse. Now all of a sudden the tariffs are for real reasons?

Does slapping a tariff on sneakers made in Vietnam really help bring manufacturing back to the US? No it doesn't. Does slapping a tariff on bananas from Ecuador do that? No. If that was the intention, using tariffs as a scalpel instead of a hammer.

It will take 5-10 years for any of this to actually happen, if it happens at all. In the mean time, the cost to actually build factories in the US just shot up tremendously, making it less economically viable.

What's actually going to happen is other countries are just going to get tired of the flip flopping and lack of good faith negotiations and turn their backs on the US. It's already happened with Canada. The EU is talking about banning large US services like Google and Meta. China has banned export of rare earth minerals to the US.

We should just go with your all's plan and print money we don't have, prop the economy up and drive off of a cliff. Who cares about the future of the country?

Liberals literally destroy everything they touch, but won't get to touch this country (that they despise) for the next 3.5 years. Sucks for Liberals.

 

[Bill Cosby]

It's amazing to me that you guys just parrot stuff like this without actually thinking about it.

The 2022 drop took place over the course of an entire year. It was the stock market being the stock market and having a bad year.

In 2025 we're down about 10% in the span of a few days because of a single action one single person decided to do. What's happened since last week was 100% avoidable even if you think tariffs are the right thing to do.

This administration has zero negotiating or diplomacy skills. The only tool they know how to use is a hammer. It's gotten really old and eventually the rest of the world isn't going to tolerate it anymore and will just stop trying to negotiate. Which is already starting to happen.

lol

No bias in that analysis at all.

 

[ukcatz12]

We should just go with your all's plan and print money we don't have, prop the economy up and drive off of a cliff. Who cares about the future of the country?

Liberals literally destroy everything they touch, but won't get to touch this country (that they despise) for the next 3.5 years. Sucks for Liberals.

This tariff plan is being torched by literally every single credible economist in the world. It's not a liberal/conservative thing. Rand Paul doesn't agree with it, is he some left wing shill now?

And this does nothing to actually address any of what you're concerned about. It's quite clear the national debt talking point has been played all day long in the Trump media sphere. Bessent projects these to raise a maximum of $600 billion a year in revenue. That's not even half of the projected deficit for 2025. Offset that by the larger drop in the economy (GDP growth is already projected to be negative this quarter), lost tax revenue from when people lose their jobs, etc. and we're tanking the economy for something that will do nothing to fix the debt problem.

 

[brianpoe]

Half this thread seems to think the tariffs are merely negotiating tactics to get better trade deals and half thinks they'll stay and have an actual purpose. The initial tariffs against Canada were apparently a negotiating tactic for border security with that stupid fentanyl excuse. Now all of a sudden the tariffs are for real reasons?

Does slapping a tariff on sneakers made in Vietnam really help bring manufacturing back to the US? No it doesn't. Does slapping a tariff on bananas from Ecuador do that? No. If that was the intention, using tariffs as a scalpel instead of a hammer.

It will take 5-10 years for any of this to actually happen, if it happens at all. In the mean time, the cost to actually build factories in the US just shot up tremendously, making it less economically viable.

What's actually going to happen is other countries are just going to get tired of the flip flopping and lack of good faith negotiations and turn their backs on the US. It's already happened with Canada. The EU is talking about banning large US services like Google and Meta. China has banned export of rare earth minerals to the US.

There is so much wrong in this. The tariffs have always had multiple strategic uses. You are obviously overreacting like many on the Left with their, "but Trump said", silliness.

As for the Vietnams and other poorer countries my opinion is that the strategy was to hit every country in order obtain a dominant leverage position. It is obvious that all countries can negotiate, but out the gate it appears the admin wanted to launch with as few exceptions as possible.

"What's actually going to happen is other countries are just going to get tired of the flip flopping and lack of good faith negotiations and turn their backs on the US."

This comment simply tells me that you are not a serious person when it comes to understanding global economics.

- Canada has flip flopped as much as Trump.

- The EU will not ban Google and Meta - These two drive massive revenue in the EU, over $120B annually. This doesn't include the torching of the ecosystem surrounding the 2. This includes the vast majority of EU businesses that count on them for the 70% of their paid advertising which could slash sales revenue.

Both of these companies pump billions of dollars into the EU for AI and cloud technologies. The EU already lags behind the US and China with technology innovation. Removing these 2 companies would widen that gap. And this is already a concern.

Banning them could cause a social upheaval as 90% of EU internet searches rely on Google and Meta has over 300M users in Europe. Not to mention the massive usage of WhatsApp owned by Meta.

- The EU will never turn it's back on the US market for so many reasons that one could write a book. This is seriously a beyond bad take.

 

[vhcat70]

It's amazing to me that you guys just parrot stuff like this without actually thinking about it.

The 2022 drop took place over the course of an entire year. It was the stock market being the stock market and having a bad year.

In 2025 we're down about 10% in the span of a few days because of a single action one single person decided to do. What's happened since last week was 100% avoidable even if you think tariffs are the right thing to do.

This administration has zero negotiating or diplomacy skills. The only tool they know how to use is a hammer. It's gotten really old and eventually the rest of the world isn't going to tolerate it anymore and will just stop trying to negotiate. Which is already starting to happen.

You want to know what a crash is? The DJIA dropped 23% on Oct. 19, 1984. It had dropped 10% the three previous days. So get over the current 10% drop.

 

[brianpoe]

This tariff plan is being torched by literally every single credible economist in the world. It's not a liberal/conservative thing. Rand Paul doesn't agree with it, is he some left wing shill now?

And this does nothing to actually address any of what you're concerned about. It's quite clear the national debt talking point has been played all day long in the Trump media sphere. Bessent projects these to raise a maximum of $600 billion a year in revenue. That's not even half of the projected deficit for 2025. Offset that by the larger drop in the economy (GDP growth is already projected to be negative this quarter), lost tax revenue from when people lose their jobs, etc. and we're tanking the economy for something that will do nothing to fix the debt problem.

I will say this again. There is a legitimate debate to be had regarding this tariff strategy. But the debate should be honest, using truthful data, and free from the high strung hate of Trump as an acceptable rationale.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I’ve watched hours of administration officials on podcasts and saw enough explanation throughout the campaign to understand tariffs were coming and this has been the plan all along.

Equities were artificially inflated. We’ve been in an actual private economy recession for 2 years.

Meanwhile, some people keep saying “there is no plan”.

I’d bet it’s the exact same posters who were claiming the economy was great in 2023-2024 because of reported jobs numbers and GDP, and those who now say “there is no plan”.

At some point you need to broaden the scope of media you consume.

You can disagree with the plan, or think it ultimately may be unsuccessful, but Bessent knows a little bit about macro economics and risky trades.

Bessent Was revered in the financial world before working in this administration. He probably cannot do his job because he is so afraid Trump wants to kill gay people, as the nuts claimed before the election.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Why does Gold scare you?

It's artificially high. It will correct and I wouldn't want to be in it at $3000+ per ounce. Just my opinion.

 

[brianpoe]

It's artificially high. It will correct and I wouldn't want to be in it at $3000+ per ounce. Just my opinion.

I agree, gold simply isn't the safe haven it used to be. Multiple issues exist with gold in today's economic environment to reliably count on it.

 

[Catsfan0809]

Why are we limiting the tariffs to goods only? The reason those goods are so much cheaper is due to cheap labor. Service companies do the same thing. There are millions of full time employees across southeast Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe making 60-75% less than an equivalent US based employee would make providing technical and customer support for Americans. Why should we punish companies for manufacturing goods overseas and not companies who avail themselves of the same cheap labor but instead provide a service? When is the last time you called your insurance company or bank and talked to an American? Tariff the labor that accounts for all the savings, and you have millions of ready made remote jobs for Americans. And unlike trying to build or refit manufacturing infrastructure, which is a decade long undertaking, you don't have to wait for the capability.

This is a really good point. The US economy has transitioned to being mostly a service based economy and I don't think there's any going back from that. I know all of the large CPA firms have outsourced a lot of work to Asia, those are good high paying jobs that are leaving the US, and I'm sure there are many other white collar industries doing the same thing.

Even if we were able to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US I'm not sure we'd have enough people willing to do the hard work in a manufacturing facility.

 

[warrior-cat]

It's artificially high. It will correct and I wouldn't want to be in it at $3000+ per ounce. Just my opinion.

I agree it is too high (would not buy now and don't own any) but I think most who are in gold or silver are in it for the long haul because of its security of being a backup currency. However, there are those who are in it just to make money to sell when it reaches a high point which by the way I think it has already topped out on and is now starting to correct itself. Yeah, just checked it and it is down under $3000 and ounce now. Big drop from a few days ago.

 

[Catsfan0809]

There’s another piece of this. Trump doesn’t like Jerome and wants rates lower. He’s backing Jerome into a corner and I’m sure he loves it.

Except tariffs lead to inflation which would mean holding rates firm or increasing them to head off inflation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/powell-sees-tariffs-raising-inflation-and-says-fed-will-wait-before-further-rate-moves.html?&qsearchterm=jerome powell

 

[Baller Val]

Except tariffs lead to inflation which would mean holding rates firm or increasing them to head off inflation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/powell-sees-tariffs-raising-inflation-and-says-fed-will-wait-before-further-rate-moves.html?&qsearchterm=jerome powell

NBC, lmao.

 

[Catsfan0809]

NBC, lmao.

It's literally quotes and video of Jerome Powell himself talking about the issue. The source has nothing to do with it.

 

[CatsWin2025]

This is a really good point. The US economy has transitioned to being mostly a service based economy and I don't think there's any going back from that. I know all of the large CPA firms have outsourced a lot of work to Asia, those are good high paying jobs that are leaving the US, and I'm sure there are many other white collar industries doing the same thing.

Even if we were able to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US I'm not sure we'd have enough people willing to do the hard work in a manufacturing facility.

The elephant in the room here is that the United States consumes more goods and services than our own population is capable of keeping up with. If we put up a dome tomorrow and just cut off everything from outside our borders, we'd be in a dystopian war zone within a few weeks.

I get the whole throw shit at the wall and hope some sticks strategy. What we've been doing since the last 5-10 years isn't sustainable, so let's see if tariffs work. I'll reserve judgment until 12-18 months from now. I think the correction will last at least that long. Wealth has been overinflated on paper for years. Something had to give.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

This is a really good point. The US economy has transitioned to being mostly a service based economy and I don't think there's any going back from that. I know all of the large CPA firms have outsourced a lot of work to Asia, those are good high paying jobs that are leaving the US, and I'm sure there are many other white collar industries doing the same thing.

Even if we were able to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US I'm not sure we'd have enough people willing to do the hard work in a manufacturing facility.

That's kind of my underlying worry with everything. I just can't see us going backwards to factory jobs, hard labor, etc. The companies don't want to pay for good salaries when they can pay off shore, and our own citizens don't seem to want these jobs anyways. I'd love to BELIEVE that this can come back, but I also don't know anyone in my age group who is chomping at the bit to hit a factory floor.

I think were very much overlooking what US Citizens actually WANT to do for work. And some may argue "too bad", and they aren't wrong. But in the end, these jobs just simply aren't coveted. People want to WFH, they want to be in a desk chair, they don't want to come home dirty, etc. And we can critique that notion all we want, but that's just where society is.

 

[CatsWin2025]

That's kind of my underlying worry with everything. I just can't see us going backwards to factory jobs, hard labor, etc. The companies don't want to pay for good salaries when they can pay off shore, and our own citizens don't seem to want these jobs anyways. I'd love to BELIEVE that this can come back, but I also don't know anyone in my age group who is chomping at the bit to hit a factory floor.

I think were very much overlooking what US Citizens actually WANT to do for work. And some may argue "too bad", and they aren't wrong. But in the end, these jobs just simply aren't coveted. People want to WFH, they want to be in a desk chair, they don't want to come home dirty, etc. And we can critique that notion all we want, but that's just where society is.

Some factory jobs are still coveted, no? Toyota as an example. Make six figures for working a line, it's not a bad gig at all. I'm assuming those are few and far between, though.

 

[UKGrad93]

Cut back on the defense budget and raise taxes on people making over 20 million per year

Seems reasonable to me. We did something like this back in the mid 1990s and had some success. Balanced budgets and even a surplus or two.

 

[UKGrad93]

ANyhow, since all the news media is tainted, can someone give me a link to the economists and financial gurus that are saying the tariffs and lowering stock market a good thing?

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Some factory jobs are still coveted, no? Toyota as an example. Make six figures for working a line, it's not a bad gig at all. I'm assuming those are few and far between, though.

Im sure some are yeah. But theres still the problem of paying for that labor and finding quality workers who want to do that work. If Mexico and India want to do the same work for half the price, I dont know how we get around that. India is a huge problem for my industry for the same reasons: they will do IT work for 50 cents on the dollar. Companies know this and outsource, and once one Indian manager gets into a company, they ONLY hire fellow indians.

 

[Bill Cosby]

ANyhow, since all the news media is tainted, can someone give me a link to the economists and financial gurus that are saying the tariffs and lowering stock market a good thing?

Trust the experts!

 

[Tskware]

This is not the right thread to argue federal deficit (it is obscene, has to be addressed, nobody should argue the point) or several other issues that have bled into this thread (have no idea about gold, never owned any of it), unemployment rate is really quite low . . . but workforce participation is not what it was 40 years ago, and US would be better for all if it increased, especially among young men.

But in the really big picture, if we are in such terrible straits over the loss of manufacturing, then why has our national GDP grown exponentially over the past 50 years, while we were shedding all those millions of manufacturing jobs? Just in my personal life, I know for a fact that my family's standard of living is way higher than the one I grew up in the 1970s, in the same town, with one parent having a professional degree and the other went to two years of college. We only had one car, one TV, had never heard of a computer or a smart phone, did not own nearly as many clothes, house was much smaller than the one I live in, etc., and I bet many of us (over 60 at least) could relate the same experience.

For years and years, our economy has been the envy of the world (understanding that nothing is guaranteed in the future), I am just not seeing the logic of trying to go back to universal tariffs like it is 1890, which was an entirely different world.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

This is not the right thread to argue federal deficit (it is obscene, has to be addressed, nobody should argue the point) or several other issues that have bled into this thread (have no idea about gold, never owned any of it), unemployment rate is really quite low . . . but workforce participation is not what it was 40 years ago, and US would be better for all if it increased, especially among young men.

But in the really big picture, if we are in such terrible straits over the loss of manufacturing, then why has our national GDP grown exponentially over the past 50 years, while we were shedding all those millions of manufacturing jobs? Just in my personal life, I know for a fact that my family's standard of living is way higher than the one I grew up in the 1970s, in the same town, with one parent having a professional degree and the other went to two years of college. We only had one car, one TV, had never heard of a computer or a smart phone, did not own nearly as many clothes, house was much smaller than the one I live in, etc., and I bet many of us (over 60 at least) could relate the same experience.

For years and years, our economy has been the envy of the world (understanding that nothing is guaranteed in the future), I am just not seeing the logic of trying to go back to universal tariffs like it is 1890, which was an entirely different world.

Well, two things that I've thought about.

1. We now need two working parents for today's lifestyle. Even if your family had two in the 70s.. the vast majority didn't.
2. There are some studies and rationalization that the great lives many had in the 70's 80's and 90's really shouldn't be considered the "norm" for the every day American. For instance, it's only since the 50's that the US really declined in it's percentage of multi-generational homes (3 or more generations, I believe is how they describe it). That really wasn't the norm in any society. And what's funny, is that percentage of multi-generational living is now on the rise over the last 15 years. One could argue that there's signs of current and future generations maybe NOT being better off than their parents: more and more Americans can't afford to live alone.

 

[wkycatfan]

This whole thing will end up better than the media is telling us and worse than Trump is telling us. The truth is in the middle.

 

[ukcatz12]

Well, two things that I've thought about.

1. We now need two working parents for today's lifestyle. Even if your family had two in the 70s.. the vast majority didn't.
2. There are some studies and rationalization that the great lives many had in the 70's 80's and 90's really shouldn't be considered the "norm" for the every day American. For instance, it's only since the 50's that the US really declined in it's percentage of multi-generational homes (3 or more generations, I believe is how they describe it). That really wasn't the norm in any society. And what's funny, is that percentage of multi-generational living is now on the rise over the last 15 years. One could argue that there's signs of current and future generations maybe NOT being better off than their parents: more and more Americans can't afford to live alone.

I guess my question would be how do these tariffs solve those problems (not a question directed at you specifically)? I 100% agree that life was sustainable back in the day with one full time job. What what type of life were those people living? Houses were smaller, cars were worse and unsafe, food variety wasn't as widespread, etc. etc. Modern life just has so many more expenses and most of those are expenses that we choose. Life back in the day didn't have an internet bill, a cell phone bill, streaming services, DoorDash, Spotify, laptops and tablets, etc. etc. Not to mention average house sizes were about three times as small than they are now.

Of the expenses that are required, housing is probably the biggest issue right now. How exactly does slapping large tariffs on steel and lumber help to build more houses to help that problem?

 

[ukcatz12]

But in the really big picture, if we are in such terrible straits over the loss of manufacturing, then why has our national GDP grown exponentially over the past 50 years, while we were shedding all those millions of manufacturing jobs? Just in my personal life, I know for a fact that my family's standard of living is way higher than the one I grew up in the 1970s, in the same town, with one parent having a professional degree and the other went to two years of college. We only had one car, one TV, had never heard of a computer or a smart phone, did not own nearly as many clothes, house was much smaller than the one I live in, etc., and I bet many of us (over 60 at least) could relate the same experience.

This is a question I have too. Plenty of people in this thread have mentioned the loss of factories and manufacturing jobs like it's 100% a negative and I just don't see it. Our economy evolved. Our technologies and services run the world. Would we honestly rather that not be the case?

Globalization has given the modern US the most comfortable, cheapest, and highest standard of living in the history of the world.

 

[brianpoe]

This is not the right thread to argue federal deficit (it is obscene, has to be addressed, nobody should argue the point) or several other issues that have bled into this thread (have no idea about gold, never owned any of it), unemployment rate is really quite low . . . but workforce participation is not what it was 40 years ago, and US would be better for all if it increased, especially among young men.

But in the really big picture, if we are in such terrible straits over the loss of manufacturing, then why has our national GDP grown exponentially over the past 50 years, while we were shedding all those millions of manufacturing jobs? Just in my personal life, I know for a fact that my family's standard of living is way higher than the one I grew up in the 1970s, in the same town, with one parent having a professional degree and the other went to two years of college. We only had one car, one TV, had never heard of a computer or a smart phone, did not own nearly as many clothes, house was much smaller than the one I live in, etc., and I bet many of us (over 60 at least) could relate the same experience.

For years and years, our economy has been the envy of the world (understanding that nothing is guaranteed in the future), I am just not seeing the logic of trying to go back to universal tariffs like it is 1890, which was an entirely different world.

I'll take a stab at this which might only make sense to me.

Services took over much of the manufacturing portion of the GDP. It is around 70% or something crazy like that. Healthcare & finance also exploded, as did the tech sector.

These booms not only covered the manufacturing loss they increased the GDP. That said the exponential growth is a hollow victory for many as it is seemingly masking a gutted middle class. Healthcare and Finance now employ millions but the wages are low compared to the manufacturing scales that were lost.

Manufacturing was more stable. Services lean on debt and speculation. Finance thrives on bubbles and can unravel much easier than factories that produced real, tangible output.

You are already well aware of the national security aspect.

 

[brianpoe]

I guess my question would be how do these tariffs solve those problems (not a question directed at you specifically)? I 100% agree that life was sustainable back in the day with one full time job. What what type of life were those people living? Houses were smaller, cars were worse and unsafe, food variety wasn't as widespread, etc. etc. Modern life just has so many more expenses and most of those are expenses that we choose. Life back in the day didn't have an internet bill, a cell phone bill, streaming services, DoorDash, Spotify, laptops and tablets, etc. etc. Not to mention average house sizes were about three times as small than they are now.

Of the expenses that are required, housing is probably the biggest issue right now. How exactly does slapping large tariffs on steel and lumber help to build more houses to help that problem?

The most difficult aspect of tariffs is that there is almost always winners and losers, and of course some people will experience both sides.

Raising prices on imports negatively impacts consumers but theoretically increases production that requires jobs which increases salaries and benefits in local areas. The issue is that not having the right amount of manufacturing puts much of the middle class at risk as wages are almost always lower in Services and more likely to experience volatility due to short term factors.

Your take on house size and newer expense items is valid.

 

[Nightwish84]

ANyhow, since all the news media is tainted, can someone give me a link to the economists and financial gurus that are saying the tariffs and lowering stock market a good thing?

Somebody dropped a couple tweets from Jack Posobiec and Bill Mitchell earlier. Guess you missed those. They're the economists you should be listening to. MSM who? Financial gurus where? For total blind faith, put your trust in social media boot lickers.

 

[Deeeefense]

Long term our technological advantage over most countries will result in robotics performing a lot of the manual task that are currently involved in the low-tech manufacturing the goes on in 2nd and 3rd world countries. So technology will result in a lot return of manufacturing to the states.

 

[Tskware]

^
There are and were pockets of poverty left behind in communities when the manufacturing and mining jobs moved offshore, were automated, or simply dried up (e.g. no more easy coal seams to mine). And we need to continue to help those communities. Same as plenty of other pockets like inner city black people and native americans who have always been poor, with or without manufacturing (another huge topic for another thread)

But at the same time let's not act like in the last fifty years while manufacturing was disappearing, the US didn't found amazing companies like Amazon Apple Nvidia Microsoft Tesla and all the other gigantic companies which have made many many people wealthy and raised our standard of living immeasurably. Which is unquestionably a good thing and better in my opinion than continuing to try to make piece goods the old-fashioned way.