Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment

[divs4ever]

Can't happen these days level 3 circuit breaker is at 20% and markets close for the rest of the day. Just an fyi level 1 is at 7% close for 15 min after that, level 2 is 13% closes for another 15 min.

never say never , but less likely sure thing

there is a chance it drops more than 20% at the open ( small though it is )

 

[divs4ever]

Haha. The point is Cramer is the most reliable contrarian signal there is.

he has been to date , but would you bet it is different this time ?

i always like to have a plan from all the outcomes i can think of at the time

that one thousand to one shot pays out big on the rare occasion it wins

 

[TimeISmoney]

They won't move any plant as its financially stupid.

I thought that would be the case, I've been involved hands-on with lots of large de construction and construction of plants. Most of the company's plant equipment transfers are only viable when they go to third world countries, and even then, half of the stuff gets left behind because it's cheaper to buy it again rather than packing it to transport. Sometimes it's viable to transport equipment due to the wait times to have it remade again in the new location.

 

[over9k]

Presidents were never meant to rule alone. He has to argue his case and justify the decisions he makes. That 1973 decision was meant to allow actions during a crisis.

 

[JohnDe]

An interesting and informative view point.

On episode LXVI of "In The Know" (April 4, 2025), ARK CEO/CIO Cathie Wood emphasizes the importance of understanding the political backdrop, particularly regarding tariffs and their implications for the economy. She also discusses the current macroeconomic landscape, focusing on the impact of fiscal and monetary policies, the ongoing rolling recession, and the potential for innovation to drive future growth.​

 

[qldfrog]

From Strategas:

“President Trump announced his tariff proposal today, which is near the worst-case scenario. We estimate the proposal will generate roughly $500bn of tariff revenue on top of the $150bn that has already been enacted. Trump said he wanted $600bn and he got it. This represents 2.2 percent of GDP and twice the size of the largest tax increase in modern US history.”

View attachment 196912
Source: Strategas​

Tariffs are a tax increase on the American people and business just like a sales tax increase.

It allows companies like Google Apple etc to be taxed .
It is first a tax on companies, then maybe on the consumers.
Americans are a long way from being taxed to death as we are

 

[qldfrog]

One thing is clear, a huge majority of the population, inc investors is unable to have a clear objective opinion/analysis of these tariffs. Focus on pingouins tariffs and other bs like that even when explanations are really simple.
This is a great opportunity for a more level approach, to leverage and benefits on these.
Was talking to an Australian manufacturer who could not be happier, he is exporting to the US, his competitors are chinese made products , and maybe even better, his individual export parcels might fall below the tariff-able threshold.
So a 40 to 50% price advantage overnight
Very happy with Trump decision as you can imagine
So who on the market is actually a winner, and which stocks are the worst affected by hysteria and BS news feed.
Really hoping for panic but keeping trading tomorrow as i want to start getting bargains.
Still not in cheap let alone bargain territory ..

 

[Smurf1976]

They won't move any plant as its financially stupid.

My observation about how manufacturing closes is what I refer to as a capital strike. There's two basic forms that takes:

One is that investment is reduced to only that necessary to continue the operation of the other still good parts of the plant. So there's no modernisation, but if something actually breaks then they do replace it.

Eventually that ends up with an almost entirely old, worn out and run down plant with just the odd random bit that was replaced out of necessity. That's the point where the axe falls and it's shut.

The other way, if the nature of the facility is modular with multiple independent production lines, is it closes bit by bit. Shut down line number 1 and scavenge the parts to keep the rest going. Then shut down line number 2 and do the same. Etc. Same with the workforce - no new hiring, just repeated consolidation into remaining parts of the operation with some redundancies along the way.

In due course 10 production lines has become 2 still functional production lines and that's the point where the inevitable announcement comes that it's closing.

In the case of the second approach I'm aware of examples in Australia where it took close to 30 years to actually shut the place but ultimately it happened and followed that path. Slowly but surely just whittled away until there was nothing left - the final announcement was a technicality given more than 90% of the workforce was already gone by that point anyway, there was really nothing left to argue about.

So any shutdown of manufacturing somewhere else, in order to relocate it to the US, won't happen rapidly in my view but once the decision's made that sets in motion either of the above scenarios depending on the detail of it.

Another thing that often happens toward the end is quality drops off in a big way, something to be wary of. There's a good reason why anyone who wants to obtain something for historical purposes (museums etc) usually tries to get one made at the peak, not one made at the end. Because in the dying days product specification tends to be down to a price not up to a standard meanwhile the actual production's being done using worn out equipment run by a demoralised workforce - every possible corner's being cut by the end.

 

[Bellcose]

They won't move any plant as its financially stupid.

That rang bell. I remembered reading a publication from some years ago and, after a bit of searching, found it. I don't know if the situation has changed since then.

"The United States no longer manufactures a number of lifesaving essential medications.1 Early warning signs of our dependency on foreign manufacturers include the 2001 anthrax attacks during which the U.S. government purchased large quantities of doxycycline from foreign sources and the closing of the last penicillin fermentation plant in 2004, largely driven out of business by global market forces.1,2 Over the past decades, the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain (USPSC) has increasingly relied on international sources for pharmaceuticals and pharmacists continue to dedicate a sizable amount of energy responding to, and mitigating the impact of, medication shortages, drug recalls, and the adverse outcomes of low-quality medications.3,4 Concerns related to these topics have been highlighted in previous publications over the past decade yet continue to persist and may even be worsening in 2020.5,6 These issues may be symptoms of a larger problem related to the dissolution of our domestic drug manufacturing industry and shortcomings in our regulatory framework, impairing our ability to ensure the availability, quality, and safety of U.S. medicines.7,8"

The U.S. medicine chest: Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain and the role of the pharmacist - PMC

The U.S. capacity to manufacture key essential medications has diminished. The U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain (USPSC) has diversified and now relies on international sources of active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished drug products (FDPs). ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I understand the current tariff's exclude pharmaceuticals for the present. Not sure if it also excludes the ingredients to manufacture pharmaceuticals though - assuming there are still some manufacturing processes remaining in the USA.

 

[divs4ever]

My observation about how manufacturing closes is what I refer to as a capital strike. There's two basic forms that takes:

One is that investment is reduced to only that necessary to continue the operation of the other still good parts of the plant. So there's no modernisation, but if something actually breaks then they do replace it.

Eventually that ends up with an almost entirely old, worn out and run down plant with just the odd random bit that was replaced out of necessity. That's the point where the axe falls and it's shut.

The other way, if the nature of the facility is modular with multiple independent production lines, is it closes bit by bit. Shut down line number 1 and scavenge the parts to keep the rest going. Then shut down line number 2 and do the same. Etc. Same with the workforce - no new hiring, just repeated consolidation into remaining parts of the operation with some redundancies along the way.

In due course 10 production lines has become 2 still functional production lines and that's the point where the inevitable announcement comes that it's closing.

In the case of the second approach I'm aware of examples in Australia where it took close to 30 years to actually shut the place but ultimately it happened and followed that path. Slowly but surely just whittled away until there was nothing left - the final announcement was a technicality given more than 90% of the workforce was already gone by that point anyway, there was really nothing left to argue about.

So any shutdown of manufacturing somewhere else, in order to relocate it to the US, won't happen rapidly in my view but once the decision's made that sets in motion either of the above scenarios depending on the detail of it.

Another thing that often happens toward the end is quality drops off in a big way, something to be wary of. There's a good reason why anyone who wants to obtain something for historical purposes (museums etc) usually tries to get one made at the peak, not one made at the end. Because in the dying days product specification tends to be down to a price not up to a standard meanwhile the actual production's being done using worn out equipment run by a demoralised workforce - every possible corner's being cut by the end.

and the monkey wrench in the shift is the regulations of starting a new plant in a different nation , most staff won't be easily relocated , so a lot of skilled staff will be left behind , swap to robots well you have to buy and train them as well

i will be watching to see how this all plays out

( and i have a very dark sense of humor )

let's see how many young Americans rush to sign up for a factory job ( in an era of online businesses )

 

[Bellcose]

And that's where money is. No wonder some in the USA have to decide between eating or not living at all.

Prescription Drug Spending

Patients, private payers, and the federal government (including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Veterans Affairs) all help pay for...

www.gao.gov

 

[TimeISmoney]

That rang bell. I remembered reading a publication from some years ago and, after a bit of searching, found it. I don't know if the situation has changed since then.

"The United States no longer manufactures a number of lifesaving essential medications.1 Early warning signs of our dependency on foreign manufacturers include the 2001 anthrax attacks during which the U.S. government purchased large quantities of doxycycline from foreign sources and the closing of the last penicillin fermentation plant in 2004, largely driven out of business by global market forces.1,2 Over the past decades, the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain (USPSC) has increasingly relied on international sources for pharmaceuticals and pharmacists continue to dedicate a sizable amount of energy responding to, and mitigating the impact of, medication shortages, drug recalls, and the adverse outcomes of low-quality medications.3,4 Concerns related to these topics have been highlighted in previous publications over the past decade yet continue to persist and may even be worsening in 2020.5,6 These issues may be symptoms of a larger problem related to the dissolution of our domestic drug manufacturing industry and shortcomings in our regulatory framework, impairing our ability to ensure the availability, quality, and safety of U.S. medicines.7,8"

The U.S. medicine chest: Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain and the role of the pharmacist - PMC

The U.S. capacity to manufacture key essential medications has diminished. The U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain (USPSC) has diversified and now relies on international sources of active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished drug products (FDPs). ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I understand the current tariff's exclude pharmaceuticals for the present. Not sure if it also excludes the ingredients to manufacture pharmaceuticals though - assuming there are still some manufacturing processes remaining in the USA.

The pharmaceutical business has been cutthroat for a long time, I know the family who used to run one of the main warehouses in Brisbane and they sold up after the govt introduced the multi-subscription orders. Other family members bought it and run the same business from overseas.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I found this on a US stock site. Some of the sectors don't correlate with our ASX but it is interesting to see the losers and few gainers.



gg

 

[DannyB0000]

and the monkey wrench in the shift is the regulations of starting a new plant in a different nation , most staff won't be easily relocated , so a lot of skilled staff will be left behind , swap to robots well you have to buy and train them as well

i will be watching to see how this all plays out

( and i have a very dark sense of humor )

let's see how many young Americans rush to sign up for a factory job ( in an era of online businesses )

And there’s automation and AI meaning less jobs for unskilled workers. The last warehouse where I worked at moved to a new automated warehouse with less hours and less need for workers. Things like Apple gadgets are going to cost more if they are made in America. Are people going to be willing to pay extra for these products.

 

[over9k]

Not to be that guy, but the very purpose of the tariffs is to bring the manufacture of the stuff, whatever it may be, onshore.

There is a reason why the chips act of a couple of years ago was both a carrot and stick approach - tariffs on chips were put in place but grants for chip manufacturing plants were given too.

I can't say I went and looked at the sums but I wouldn't be surprised if the expected tariff revenue was then given right back to them in the form of grants.

Now such corresponding grants haven't been put in place along with these new tariffs but these new ones are nowhere near as specific/not about anything near as mission critical as microchips so they were kind of a special case there.

With that being said, if enough of a tantrum is thrown trump might redirect at least some of the tariff revenue into subsidies/grants or just income tax cuts. Fact is that they're a tax increase and are going to bring in a pretty big chunk of money so he is going to have the extra cash to do something with.

I still think it should be used to balance the budget but I ain't trump.

 

[divs4ever]

And there’s automation and AI meaning less jobs for unskilled workers. The last warehouse where I worked at moved to a new automated warehouse with less hours and less need for workers. Things like Apple gadgets are going to cost more if they are made in America. Are people going to be willing to pay extra for these products.

one MIGHT think manufacturers would keep a plant in a low cost domain ,( for sales in Asia and Africa ) , and start a new one if they need access to US markets

but now the tariff genie has been woken up , will tariffs be the new trend ( tariffs everywhere )

BTW less unskilled workers translates to less potential customers ( because they don't have surplus cash )

World Population is Collapsing​

 

[divs4ever]

Not to be that guy, but the very purpose of the tariffs is to bring the manufacture of the stuff, whatever it may be, onshore.

There is a reason why the chips act of a couple of years ago was both a carrot and stick approach - tariffs on chips were put in place but grants for chip manufacturing plants were given too.

I can't say I went and looked at the sums but I wouldn't be surprised if the expected tariff revenue was then given right back to them in the form of grants.

Now such corresponding grants haven't been put in place along with these new tariffs but these new ones are nowhere near as specific/not about anything near as mission critical as microchips so they were kind of a special case there.

With that being said, if enough of a tantrum is thrown trump might redirect at least some of the tariff revenue into subsidies/grants or just income tax cuts. Fact is that they're a tax increase and are going to bring in a pretty big chunk of money so he is going to have the extra cash to do something with.

I still think it should be used to balance the budget but I ain't trump.

but China is liable to reciprocate with pinpoint accuracy

but will they target Trump ( financial ) supporters or US industry in general ( say the tech industry/military industrial complex )

it isn't China running trade deficits to over 100 nations ( more likely the reverse )

 

[Smurf1976]

let's see how many young Americans rush to sign up for a factory job

I think in all of this it needs to be considered that there's a wide range of things that fall within the broad definition of manufacturing just as there's a wide range of things that fall within the broad definition of (say) the medical profession or the transport industry. There's a wide range of things that fit within it. Some are low value, some are high value.

In the context of heavy industry, and that's the kind of manufacturing people like me have more in mind in the context of Australia in particular, bottom line is it's seen as highly desirable work by many and pays well.

The problem with heavy industry isn't with getting people to do the work on account of pay and conditions. It's with weeding out the unsuitable people and getting the good ones since there's no room for mistakes with this stuff, it needs the right attitude much like flying planes or underground mining does.

I don't know what it's like in the US but certainly in Australia relevant backgrounds are engineering (electrical, mechanical, chemical, process, systems etc), trades especially electrical, mining, emergency services, aviation (ATC, pilot or maintenance), etc. That's the sort of people they want, people with some smarts who grasp the idea of failure bringing serious consequences.

That's very different from sewing shirts together and so on.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Not to be that guy, but the very purpose of the tariffs is to bring the manufacture of the stuff, whatever it may be, onshore.

There is a reason why the chips act of a couple of years ago was both a carrot and stick approach - tariffs on chips were put in place but grants for chip manufacturing plants were given too.

I can't say I went and looked at the sums but I wouldn't be surprised if the expected tariff revenue was then given right back to them in the form of grants.

Now such corresponding grants haven't been put in place along with these new tariffs but these new ones are nowhere near as specific/not about anything near as mission critical as microchips so they were kind of a special case there.

With that being said, if enough of a tantrum is thrown trump might redirect at least some of the tariff revenue into subsidies/grants or just income tax cuts. Fact is that they're a tax increase and are going to bring in a pretty big chunk of money so he is going to have the extra cash to do something with.

I still think it should be used to balance the budget but I ain't trump.

Have you sat down and thought about what you've said?

The general population is going to pay tariffs in more or less as a tax, so that they can be employed by multi-nationals who make large profits and contribute nothing to the original tax.

Trump's a genius, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I think in all of this it needs to be considered that there's a wide range of things that fall within the broad definition of manufacturing just as there's a wide range of things that fall within the broad definition of (say) the medical profession or the transport industry. There's a wide range of things that fit within it. Some are low value, some are high value.

In the context of heavy industry, and that's the kind of manufacturing people like me have more in mind in the context of Australia in particular, bottom line is it's seen as highly desirable work by many and pays well.

The problem with heavy industry isn't with getting people to do the work on account of pay and conditions. It's with weeding out the unsuitable people and getting the good ones since there's no room for mistakes with this stuff, it needs the same attitude as flying planes or underground mining and has much the same consequences if it goes wrong.

I don't know what it's like in the US but certainly in Australia relevant backgrounds are engineering (electrical, mechanical, chemical, process, systems etc), trades especially electrical, mining, emergency services, aviation (ATC, pilot or maintenance), etc. That's the sort of people they want, people with some smarts who grasp the idea of failure bringing serious consequences.

That's very different from sewing shirts together and so on.

Most manufacturing industries are robotic these days. I've been to a few food and beverage packaging sites and you still need forklift drivers and people who pack machines. Unless you're one of the maintenance crew, most of the jobs are mundane. Even that can be boring, oiling and greasing the same machines for weeks on end or replacing the self-greasing cartridges even worse.