Who is going to trust the government reporting once Trump has "yes men" in these critical positions?
And is the idiot really surprised that hiring is weak after the spending cuts, tariff increases and general chaos he has caused?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This is part of the campaign against credibility. If we can't believe the people we used to believe, who should we believe? Where do we get the information we need to conduct our lives?--Hiram
The market does not usually like uncertain data... :-O
There is nothing certain about economic data. Conclusions are based on incomplete data which itself changes over time, hence the revisions. W hat the markets are looking for isn't data that is true or false, because it understands those are unattainable even meaningless goals. What it does want is credibility, numbers we can all agree to accept. Numbers all of us can have confidence in, Credible numbers. But once that credibility is taken away, what replaces it? Where is the alternative? Will the vacuum get filled? What will happen is that various private entities will come up with their own numbers, which won't be compiled transparently and won't be disclosed except on terms of advantage. Most of us will have to trade and act blindly. The levelled playing field government statistics are intended to provide us, will be unlevelled and not to the advantage of most of us.--Hiram
I subscribe to a lecture service, "The Great Courses". They have a new series on financial frauds and panics. I watched the one on Ponzi schemes the other day. One of the points the prof made was that Ponzi's scheme succeeded as long as it did was due to a lack of information. Back then corporations were not required to issue financial reports. Many did not, and many that did issued only the sketchiest of numbers. Is that the era to which we are returning?==Hiram
Thankfully the payroll companies publish some data.
I don't know what the normal investor is thinking right now?
Record stock / crypto prices in the faces of deep debt and chaos.
A friend said. There is just too much money and too few "good" investments.
My view: that cash is our HUGE national debt...
Crypto feels like a ponzi scheme to me... Maybe I am just jealous of their gains... :-)
What they tell me is that much of the rise in the market is due to the buildout of Artificial Intelligence. What Trump is talking about now is the increase in government revenues from the imposition of tariffs. In other words money is coming in from raising taxes. People are paying for access to US markets. I think of this like the difference between Costco and Target. You have to pay to get into Costco, but walking into Target is free. Both seem to be successful business strategies. Will other countries continue to be willing to pay a sort of service fee to do business in the United States? I certainly don't know.--Hiram
Trump likes to be aThebrupt, at least in his rhetoric. Something he doesn't like happens, and he comes down hard. In doing this, he often catches people unprepared, and they have to scramble to deal with the situation. I think of this as a blitzkrieg strategy. The problem is that this strategy loses its effectiveness over time, as its defects become better understood. The blitzkrieg, takes advantage of the enemy's lack of preparation, without taking into account the lack of preparation of those who initiate it. One finds oneself outside of Moscow, which is good, but it is without winter clothing in the month of November. Definitely less good. For us, a blitzkrieg economic strategy might work agains that island of penguins, but not so much against countries that are themselves comparable economic powers, who are used to waging trade wars, and who don't have worry about a domestic public sentiment--Hiram
You have been listening to Trump too much.
Actually it is the "importer" who is paying the tax to be able to access the other country's low cost goods. Now if the US companies are okay lowering the profit margins this is fine... Unfortunatelty we know that will not last and the US consumers will eventually pay these extra costs.
And since low income Americans spend a larger part of their income on the items, they have highest tax increase. :-(
Where the burden falls is al, ways a question, and the answer varies from case to case. Because the answers to those questions are so complicated and so contradictory, attention tends to shift elsewhere. Lately, what I have been hearing is about the enormous tax windfalls we have been receiving from the tariffs. Of course, the obvious thing to do with that money is to distribute it to taxpayers in the form of rebates, but only one or two legislators have been proposing that.--Hiram
There are longer term prospects of course. We need to make some decisions about our economy first. Do we want to be an autarky? A self sufficient economy with limited interaction with the rest of the world. The example that comes immediately to my mind is Japan before it was opened to the world economy through the intervention of the United States? Is that where all the rhetoric about self sufficiency and America First is leading us? In any event, that is consistent with how we are talking about policy now. Through tariffs, we are erecting trade barriers, making America's economy less competitive in global markets. Since America is to be first, and since we want to be self sufficient, is there anything wrong with that?==Hiram
It's the abruptness of the cuts that bugs me. For example, public broadcasting. I support federal funding of public broadcasting, but I also understand there are arguments against it which are reasonable and in good faith. As Republicans remind me a lot, elections do have consequences, and one of them is that Republicans get to defund PBS. I am okay with that. But what I am not okay with is the "clawback" the taking back of commitments previously made. What that means is that public broadcasting doesn't have the time to make up the shortfalls caused by the defunding. Government broke promises, people did and should have been able to rely on. This isn't about good stewardship of public funds, this is about meanness, meanness as tactic and policy. What is the point of it? If we assign ourselves the role of bully, what happens when we come up against a stronger and meaner bully? Can we then count on the support of former friends we ourselves to recently and viciously bullied?==Hiram
Post a Comment