Stock Market/Investing/Day Trading/Speculative Trading Thread

[BingoDingo]

🤣

 

[doublewing]

I'll be looking for some opportunities to buy some degraded stocks but (1) it's hard to determine where the bottom is in this tariff clusterf**k and (2) I don't want to see how my current stocks are doing. I'm just avoiding looking at my portfolio altogether.

In any case, it's great that we did away with trillions of dollars we didn't need and that woke economy.

 

[2010sarenevercomingback]

Most likely outcome - lots of countries start making very favorable trade deals to eliminate/greatly reduce tariffs both ways. US manufacturing actually shows some vague signs of life after a ramp-up period. People who buy stonks during the panic selling do better than the bleach drinkers.

 

[BingoDingo]

Most likely outcome - lots of countries start making very favorable trade deals to eliminate/greatly reduce tariffs both ways. US manufacturing actually shows some vague signs of life after a ramp-up period. People who buy stonks during the panic selling do better than the bleach drinkers.

So higher prices and lower real incomes at the cost of higher taxes upfront in order to bring manufacturing back marginally? Idk, maybe...doesn't seem like a good deal, imo. I'm probably only buying healthcare here but will definitely be ready to pull the trigger when I feel like it's time and cost down the rest of the way.

 

[cwessel76]

Most likely outcome - lots of countries start making very favorable trade deals to eliminate/greatly reduce tariffs both ways. US manufacturing actually shows some vague signs of life after a ramp-up period. People who buy stonks during the panic selling do better than the bleach drinkers.

 

[Toe]

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Most likely outcome - lots of countries start making very favorable trade deals to eliminate/greatly reduce tariffs both ways. US manufacturing actually shows some vague signs of life after a ramp-up period. People who buy stonks during the panic selling do better than the bleach drinkers.

It's actually about foreign trade barriers though. The implicit assumption of the tariff rates is that the US should have a neutral or positive trade balance with every country in the world, even if we're the ones benefiting from the arrangement (Vietnam).

 

[RedSavage]

It's actually about foreign trade barriers though. The implicit assumption of the tariff rates is that the US should have a neutral or positive trade balance with every country in the world, even if we're the ones benefiting from the arrangement (Vietnam).

We've been getting ass raped by other countries tariffs on us for years. This needed to happen. Does it seem excessive? Yes. But this should be good for the US in the long run.

 

[BingoDingo]

We've been getting ass raped by other countries tariffs on us for years.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

We've been getting ass raped by other countries tariffs on us for years. This needed to happen. Does it seem excessive? Yes. But this should be good for the US in the long run.

❌ ❌

 

[2010sarenevercomingback]

We've been getting ass raped by other countries tariffs on us for years. This needed to happen. Does it seem excessive? Yes. But this should be good for the US in the long run.

Tariffs are obviously very variable by country & industry & situation, but as a whole, the US charges an average of 1.5% - 2.5% on imports, and gets charged an average of 3-5% on goods we export (per WTO). So we would need to literally double our tariffs to arrive at roughly equilibrium.

You can get into a million macroeconomic arguments about whether it's good for things to be tilted a certain way or not, but it is certainly not level right now.

 

[Toe]

 

[cwessel76]

View attachment 52039

Reagan would be called a globalist in today’s MAGA landscape

 

[cwessel76]

 

[BingoDingo]

Tariffs are obviously very variable by country & industry & situation, but as a whole, the US charges an average of 1.5% - 2.5% on imports, and gets charged an average of 3-5% on goods we export (per WTO). So we would need to literally double our tariffs to arrive at roughly equilibrium.

You can get into a million macroeconomic arguments about whether it's good for things to be tilted a certain way or not, but it is certainly not level right now.

If the tariffs were meant to "level the playing field", seems ill advised to increase the average rate above 20%, no?

 

[cwessel76]

If the tariffs were meant to "level the playing field", seems ill advised to increase the average rate above 20%, no?

This is all about fulfilling Trump’s transactional lizard brain desires. Nothing more.

There’s no clear or coherent strategy to any of this.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Tariffs are obviously very variable by country & industry & situation, but as a whole, the US charges an average of 1.5% - 2.5% on imports, and gets charged an average of 3-5% on goods we export (per WTO). So we would need to literally double our tariffs to arrive at roughly equilibrium.

You can get into a million macroeconomic arguments about whether it's good for things to be tilted a certain way or not, but it is certainly not level right now.

It's obviously not about leveling the playing field. Again, let's take Vietnam as an example. The reason exports from Vietnam significantly outstrips imports (even though Vietnam is pretty pro-US) is not because of trade barriers. It's because we benefit from cheap labor.

 

[HughJanus]

If the tariffs were meant to "level the playing field", seems ill advised to increase the average rate above 20%, no?

How to fix a headache according to modern trade theory:

 

[2010sarenevercomingback]

If the tariffs were meant to "level the playing field", seems ill advised to increase the average rate above 20%, no?

This is all about fulfilling Trump’s transactional lizard brain desires. Nothing more.

There’s no clear or coherent strategy to any of this.

It's obviously not about leveling the playing field. Again, let's take Vietnam as an example. The reason exports from Vietnam significantly outstrips imports (even though Vietnam is pretty pro-US) is not because of trade barriers. It's because we benefit from cheap labor.

This is all deliberately obtuse. You can jump to arguments about why, what's beneficial, or who's importing/exporting more, but the basic fact is that, at least prior to 2025, our exports are tariffed 2x the rate of what our imports are.

That is a significantly slanted market.

You don't have to love the current actions or think that they're specifically being taken because of that, but if you can't acknowledge it, then I don't put any stock in your analysis or evaluation of the situation.

 

[cwessel76]

This is all deliberately obtuse. You can jump to arguments about why, what's beneficial, or who's importing/exporting more, but the basic fact is that, at least prior to 2025, our exports are tariffed 2x the rate of what our imports are.

That is a significantly slanted market.

You don't have to love the current actions or think that they're specifically being taken because of that, but if you can't acknowledge it, then I don't put any stock in your analysis or evaluation of the situation.

Being against Implementing across-the-board tariffs - which conveniently skip Russia and North Korea by the way - is deliberately obtuse? Pardon?