Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Simplified: If you’ve owned your home for 5 - 7 years……could you move right now? You’ve been laid off. Or you hate your job. Found another one. Could you sell your home? Guess who put that “tax” on Americans? We were headed towards something no one on this board outside of a few you can’t even wrap your head around. Who is responsible for the rise in the real estate market? pray tell. I'm surmising that you want the prices to decrease so you can move. Even if ruins the global economy. You think a market collapse alleviates the concern for an American economic meltdown? Nope. it increases the risk of a GLOBAL economic meltdown that will include the US. The economy is GLOBAL as much as you dummies want to pretend it isn't. 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I’ve explained to you and provided you sources showing that housing prices will never decline unless you massively increase supply. You ignored them. Im a city planner. This is my wheelhouse. There is literally no other option than to increase supply. how bout if very few have the money to buy? Demand shrinks and supply increase, prices drop. but the route there is awful. Blitz is probably OK with it. Perspective... 1
Big Blitz Posted April 5 Posted April 5 6 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I’ve explained to you and provided you sources showing that housing prices will never decline unless you massively increase supply. You ignored them. Im a city planner. This is my wheelhouse. There is literally no other option than to increase supply. How many regulations and red tape in order to build? How many areas are off limits? We can always say there is a freaking supply issue. Unless no one is buying. Which is currently the case. Interest rates doubling have crashed the market. Interest rates rose bc of 2020 and trillions of spending with zero cuts to spending. Unsustainable.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How many regulations and red tape in order to build? How many areas are off limits? We can always say there is a freaking supply issue. Unless no one is buying. Which is currently the case. Interest rates doubling have crashed the market. Interest rates rose bc of 2020 and trillions of spending with zero cuts to spending. Unsustainable. trump and his minions aint gonna fix this for you.
Big Blitz Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: trump and his minions aint gonna fix this for you. Admitting there is a problem is step 1 to recovery. Good job. 👏
nedboy7 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 Weird that no mention of financial disaster on Fox today. Headline news Kamala Harris. I guess you got to feed the morons. 1 1
SectionC3 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said: Who would have thought trying to reverse the absolute disastrous path our country was going down was going to be hard? I'd vote for him again today knowing what I know now. Did people really think it was going to be easy to rebuild a debt riddled country and reverse the awful impact of NAFTA on our country? The real issue is Americans would rather learn Mandarin and be overlorded by communist China then fight to get our country back. Especially if it meant they have to pay a little more money for products made here. Instead of crying I am going to buy stock and hold it. Its absolutely incredible to me what a weak-willed bunch of pussies we all have become. Learn Mandarin? That’s hilarious. MAGA learning Mandarin. MAGA probably should take a high school Econ course first. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 for once, I fully agree with Ted Cruz https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-tariffs-trade-war-04-04-2025/card/ted-cruz-sees-risk-of-political-bloodbath-if-trump-s-trade-gambit-fails-0NlUK4uBrYg9KLEC3jtH
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 22 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How many regulations and red tape in order to build? How many areas are off limits? We can always say there is a freaking supply issue. Unless no one is buying. Which is currently the case. Interest rates doubling have crashed the market. Interest rates rose bc of 2020 and trillions of spending with zero cuts to spending. Unsustainable. when did mortgage rates double. last few years look historically ok to me https://themortgagereports.com/61853/30-year-mortgage-rates-chart#historical
Doc Brown Posted April 5 Posted April 5 37 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Simplified: If you’ve owned your home for 5 - 7 years……could you move right now? You’ve been laid off. Or you hate your job. Found another one. Could you sell your home? Guess who put that “tax” on Americans? We were headed towards something no one on this board save for a few that you can’t even wrap your head around. I mean this in all due respect, wtf are you talking about? 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 20 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Admitting there is a problem is step 1 to recovery. Good job. 👏 did admitting that you aren't able to move help you? catharsis? 1
Roundybout Posted April 5 Posted April 5 28 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How many regulations and red tape in order to build? How many areas are off limits? We can always say there is a freaking supply issue. Unless no one is buying. Which is currently the case. Interest rates doubling have crashed the market. Interest rates rose bc of 2020 and trillions of spending with zero cuts to spending. Unsustainable. There are too many regulations! Yes! CEQRA and the like have been a disaster! But increasing the cost of building is not the answer. People aren’t buying because there’s nothing to buy. Housing in the most desirable markets is impossible to get. While it’s not as bad as it was in 2020, it’s still horrific.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 5 Posted April 5 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I mean this in all due respect, wtf are you talking about? I think he's lost it. 25 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: Weird that no mention of financial disaster on Fox today. Headline news Kamala Harris. I guess you got to feed the morons. I used to watch Fox a little bit every week just to get a sense of how both sides get entirely different spins. I can't even take it anymore in those small doses.
Big Blitz Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 minute ago, Doc Brown said: I mean this in all due respect, wtf are you talking about? This is unchartered territory with interest rates and mortgages - not the same as 1980: “For all the similarities between the 1980s and today, there are key differences. One of them involves “assumable mortgages,” which were plentiful then and are in short supply now. Many mortgages were assumable at the dawn of the 1980s. With an assumable mortgage, the buyer not only gets ownership of the house but takes over the seller’s home loan, too. Picture yourself trying to buy a house when mortgage rates are in the double digits. You find a home seller who has an assumable loan with an interest rate in the single digits. That home may be affordable if you can take over the loan; it might not be affordable at a double-digit interest rate.” https://www.abc4.com/news/national/it-has-been-this-bad-before-how-home-buyers-got-it-done-in-1981/amp/ Gotta go. I’m watching OV 🇷🇺
nedboy7 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) What do you think about Trump’s blanket tariff announcement on Wednesday? If we go back to Trump, we saw a lot of threats, a lot of tweets, about using tariffs in different ways, but because you had a lot of Wall Street hands in the Cabinet that disagreed with his tariff approach and you had pretty sophisticated economic nationalists like [former U.S. Trade Representative] Robert Lighthizer with Trump’s trust to execute on a smarter or more strategic trade policy. The net result was, despite the threats, you didn’t have that many tariffs. You had some tariffs on China and some tariffs on specific products. The real bipartisan transnational achievement was the renegotiation with Canada and Mexico’s support and with Democrats’ support of the U.S.-Canada-Mexico agreement, which Biden used super aggressively to enforce labor rights protections for workers in Mexico and really showed, using that tool that Trump and Lighthizer created, that you could use trade to benefit workers. That’s what we had in Trump I, but what we’re seeing in Trump II is completely different. There’s a lot fewer guardrails on his behavior, and as a result, the policy that’s being rolled out is less thoughtful, less strategic. It’s just really pushing executive authority to its outer bound extreme in a way. The courts in the first term were willing to let him get away with the country-specific and commodity-specific tariffs. Once you start talking about across-the-board universal tariffs of 10%, at some point, a court is going to look at that and question whether even the most minimal guardrails that do exist in the National Emergencies Act, whether the minimal guardrails have been met. Basically, there needs to be the existence of an emergency, the emergency needs to be unusual and extraordinary, and Congress needs to be kept before, during and after. If you think of that in terms of other parts of administrative law, that doesn’t seem like a lot of guardrails, it seems pretty minimal. But, I think, even that guardrail they have not cleared. Yesterday’s announcement was called an effort to establish reciprocal tariffs. There is a way you could have done that. You could have had an expert agency, even one staffed by Trump-friendly folks, go through tariffs and assess what types of tariffs are being charged, what kind of non-tariff policies that you’re concerned about and come up with a number that can compensate against that. That’s really why we have all of this trade administrative state bureaucracy, whether it’s the U.S. Trade Representative’s office or the International Trade Commission. There are talented civil servants in those places that if you gave them a few months, they could come up with meaningful numbers. Instead, it seems like they just pulled math out of their back pocket to come up with numbers that are arbitrary and capricious. For all of Trump’s concerns about bilateral trade deficits, we’re applying tariffs to countries that we have trade deficits with, that we have trade balances with, that we have trade surpluses with. It’s really across the board. Some countries are getting that made-up tariff number cut in half. Others, like the U.K., despite us having a trade surplus with them, are getting hit with the 10% without the halving of it. You’ve got a lot of discrimination between these otherwise similarly situated actors. We may be seeing the beginning of the end for this type of emergency presidential authority. A lot of these policies have their roots in the New Deal and World War II era where FDR wanted to be put in a more equal position with the prime ministers of the world, who, if they win elections, can kind of govern the way they want to. In the U.S. system, there’s always the possibility that Congress isn’t going to want to work with you. So, we created these emergency powers for when push came to shove the U.S. could respond in kind to international economic developments in the same way a prime minister could. What we’re seeing now is, by pushing this to the outer brink, without giving reason, documentation, consultation, you know — I was really surprised to see the Senate issue its disapproval resolution for the declaration for emergency with Canada. I was surprised, frankly, to see any Republican go along with that. It’s due to the context of what’s been unfolding over the past few days where the administration has been barreling down this tunnel towards an economic collapse. Where that lands remains to be seen, but it depends on the economic impact in markets over the next few weeks. You are an advocate of tariffs in some instances. What do you see about these particular tariffs, the blanket tariffs, that either you might support or where do you think has gone wrong from the approach that you would take? For some people that have looked at Trump’s tariffs, there’s one group of people saying, “If Trump is doing it, it must be bad.” That’s one reaction. Then there’s one more neoliberal reaction from folks that never liked tariffs anyway who say, “Well, a tariff is a tax and a tariff is bad because it’s a tax and a tax is bad because it’s going to raise the cost of imports.” And, to me, that’s a strange critique to make, because it’s sort of like saying, “I don’t like the progressive income tax because it squeezes billionaires.” Yeah, that’s like the definition of what the progressive income tax is. You can not like that outcome, you know, it’s not really a basis for a substantive critique. Tariffs do work, this is something that [liberal blogger] Matt Yglesias wrote about that I agreed with, is that tariffs work by raising the relative cost of imported products. That is how they work. Now, there are certain instances where maybe the full costs don’t get passed through 100% or there are other considerations where you don’t have the full pass-through to price increases. When that happens, great for everyone. But, in general, in Econ 101 terms: You’re trying to make domestic industry more competitive by increasing the relative cost in strategic sectors. What you see with this across-the-board tariff is it’s broadly inflationary. It’s like saying the cost of everything goes up, not just, say, the cost of assembled cars is going to go up. Instead, you’re saying everything is going up. So, whatever benefit you might see for auto workers or other industries from a higher tariff, you kind of just erase if everything else that goes into making a car goes up by that amount. You can contrast that with what Biden did, which is, arguably to a fault, they deliberated over which sectors they would offer tariff protection to. They ended up finalizing a list after a couple of years after the Inflation Reduction Act passed where they realized that the sectors they should protect are the ones that were subsidized — like electric vehicles, like chips. The reason there is super clear. If you’ve just invested trillions of dollars over the decade in these industries that you deem strategic, the last thing you want to have happen is effectively unlimited Chinese capacity overwhelm the market and kill, stillborn, those infant industries you’re trying to promote. These were high tariffs. The difference isn’t that Trump has a high number and Biden had a low number. No, Biden had a high number. It was 100% on electric vehicles. That means you’re basically not getting any electric vehicles from China. That’s pretty prohibitive. The difference isn’t the number, the difference is the scope: Where you’ve decided that some industries are strategic, that isn’t going to be true of all industries. We’re going to have an industrial policy for the clean energy sector, but that doesn’t mean we have an industrial policy for every industry under the sun. Edited April 5 by nedboy7 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) so how did trump calculate those tariff numbers imposed by other countries on the graph that magas just blindly accepted? https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-calculations/ this is from a fiercely libertarian site the a friend frequents. he generally supported trump before the tariffs. First, the formula. The alleged “tariff rate” from each trading partner is fully a function of trade aggregates, specifically, the deficit divided by US imports, with a minimum of 10 percent. No factors discussed by the administration in these documents or anywhere else (like tariffs, digital services taxes, value-added taxes, or monetary policy) play any role. For example, Singapore is a relatively free-trade-oriented country, while Brazil makes considerably more use of tariffs and other trade manipulations. However, both end up with the 10 percent rate because of their goods trade balances with the US. By contrast, Vietnam, which exports a great deal to the US but has also worked to make its policies amenable to the US, gets no credit for the effort. The US response is generally half the alleged rate from other countries, though in some cases it appears to round up an extra percentage point beyond a simple halving. Edited April 5 by Joe Ferguson forever
SectionC3 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 46 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I mean this in all due respect, wtf are you talking about? Why bother asking. He doesn't know what he's talking about. 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: so how did trump calculate those tariff numbers imposed by other countries on the graph that magas just blindly accepted? https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-calculations/ this is from a fiercely libertarian site the a friend frequents. he generally supported trump before the tariffs. My guess is that Barron did it on Chat GPT. 1
meazza Posted April 5 Posted April 5 4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: so how did trump calculate those tariff numbers imposed by other countries on the graph that magas just blindly accepted? https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-calculations/ this is from a fiercely libertarian site the a friend frequents. he generally supported trump before the tariffs. First, the formula. The alleged “tariff rate” from each trading partner is fully a function of trade aggregates, specifically, the deficit divided by US imports, with a minimum of 10 percent. No factors discussed by the administration in these documents or anywhere else (like tariffs, digital services taxes, value-added taxes, or monetary policy) play any role. For example, Singapore is a relatively free-trade-oriented country, while Brazil makes considerably more use of tariffs and other trade manipulations. However, both end up with the 10 percent rate because of their goods trade balances with the US. By contrast, Vietnam, which exports a great deal to the US but has also worked to make its policies amenable to the US, gets no credit for the effort. The US response is generally half the alleged rate from other countries, though in some cases it appears to round up an extra percentage point beyond a simple halving. But you should have known that trump would do this right? I mean he literally campaigned on going out onto the rose garden with a price is right board and applied tariffs to islands such as La reunion which I didn’t even know could export stuff and an island full of penguins. And why? Because penguin island and La reunion have been pillaging and raping America for all its resources and finally, a fraudster who bankrupted casinos is going to stand up for the little guy who wants to go back to working in factories with terrible conditions to make tshirts and sneakers. So tired of winning! 1
SectionC3 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 Just now, meazza said: But you should have known that trump would do this right? I mean he literally campaigned on going out onto the rose garden with a price is right board and applied tariffs to islands such as La reunion which I didn’t even know could export stuff and an island full of penguins. And why? Because penguin island and La reunion have been pillaging and raping America for all its resources and finally, a fraudster who bankrupted casinos is going to stand up for the little guy who wants to go back to working in factories with terrible conditions to make tshirts and sneakers. So tired of winning! Those penguins are some deceitful MFers. Probably commies, too. They're responsible for a lot of the dumping of fish that has hurt our oceanic industries. 1
meazza Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: Those penguins are some deceitful MFers. Probably commies, too. They're responsible for a lot of the dumping of fish that has hurt our oceanic industries. 2 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 minute ago, meazza said: But you should have known that trump would do this right? I mean he literally campaigned on going out onto the rose garden with a price is right board and applied tariffs to islands such as La reunion which I didn’t even know could export stuff and an island full of penguins. And why? Because penguin island and La reunion have been pillaging and raping America for all its resources and finally, a fraudster who bankrupted casinos is going to stand up for the little guy who wants to go back to working in factories with terrible conditions to make tshirts and sneakers. So tired of winning! There have been conmen like trump throughout the ages. What has changed is the number of idiots that are easily fooled. How do you fix that?
Recommended Posts