US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment

[Value Hunter]

I think a lot of people who talk about how increased tariffs by Trump amount to a tax on consumers (true) neglect to mention the fact that he plans on simultaneously cutting income taxes. When you tax something more you tend to get less of it and when you tax something less you tend to get more of it. Therefore shifting the tax base from income taxes to towards more consumption seems prudent as people will be incentivized to work more and generate more income (due to lower income tax) while at the same time being incentivized to spend/consume less. Higher income + lower spending equals higher savings rate = more capital investment to grow the economy. This is supposed to be bad somehow?

Personally I feel a GST/VAT tax is preferable to a tariff but I still think Tariffs are preferable in terms of taxation than an income tax.

 

[divs4ever]

I think a lot of people who talk about how increased tariffs by Trump amount to a tax on consumers (true) neglect to mention the fact that he plans on simultaneously cutting income taxes. When you tax something more you tend to get less of it and when you tax something less you tend to get more of it. Therefore shifting the tax base from income taxes to towards more consumption seems prudent as people will be incentivized to work more and generate more income (due to lower income tax) while at the same time being incentivized to spend/consume less. Higher income + lower spending equals higher savings rate = more capital investment to grow the economy. This is supposed to be bad somehow?

Personally I feel a GST/VAT tax is preferable to a tariff but I still think Tariffs are preferable in terms of taxation than an income tax.

well the tax cuts remain to be enacted ( they need to go through the two houses )

a better way would be to slash government spending/waste , but good luck getting that through ( all the pollies seems to have their favorite grifts and slush-funds )

better than the Biden/Harris policy to be sure , but still will be painful to the US residents and tax-payers

 

[Knobby22]

I think a lot of people who talk about how increased tariffs by Trump amount to a tax on consumers (true) neglect to mention the fact that he plans on simultaneously cutting income taxes. When you tax something more you tend to get less of it and when you tax something less you tend to get more of it. Therefore shifting the tax base from income taxes to towards more consumption seems prudent as people will be incentivized to work more and generate more income (due to lower income tax) while at the same time being incentivized to spend/consume less. Higher income + lower spending equals higher savings rate = more capital investment to grow the economy. This is supposed to be bad somehow?

Personally I feel a GST/VAT tax is preferable to a tariff but I still think Tariffs are preferable in terms of taxation than an income tax.

Tax cuts are only for the top rate and companies, ordinary Joes get nothing except tips.

 

[JohnDe]

This YouTuber gives a great explanation of the election outcome, and I believe that some of the comments are relevant to Australia.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I think a lot of people who talk about how increased tariffs by Trump amount to a tax on consumers (true) neglect to mention the fact that he plans on simultaneously cutting income taxes. When you tax something more you tend to get less of it and when you tax something less you tend to get more of it. Therefore shifting the tax base from income taxes to towards more consumption seems prudent as people will be incentivized to work more and generate more income (due to lower income tax) while at the same time being incentivized to spend/consume less. Higher income + lower spending equals higher savings rate = more capital investment to grow the economy. This is supposed to be bad somehow?

Personally I feel a GST/VAT tax is preferable to a tariff but I still think Tariffs are preferable in terms of taxation than an income tax.

It doesn't quite work that way, tax experts in the US have spoken about it.

The big problem they have, like here in Australia is that the basic cost of living is too high, and there are family households that have no money left over to save in the first place. The income tax that they pay gets returned to them with the current system, in the case of the tariffs it will cause further inflation and the money will go to manufacturers with their overpriced products and the Govt tariffs without being returned to poorer taxpayers.

Local manufacturers know that they don't have to try to cut down on production costs because the tariff on exports will make their products sustainable at higher prices. you're basically taking out all the competition.

Another problem is that even if the current amount of exports were taxed with the tariffs it wouldn't fill the hole created lost by income tax revenue being dumped. So in fact it will help the rich get richer and they'll end up with a bigger revenue deficit to fill.

 

[farmerge]

I saw the two best USA stocks to be in were private prison companies, up 42% and 33%. As an Australian, I wasn't even thinking that way.

Money in behind them thar walls.

 

[divs4ever]

IN THEORY ( not so likely to happen in the street level economy )

tariffs make imports dearer ( and locally produced goods more competitive )

the probable outcome is the citizens will buy less imported goods which sounds fine and dandy , but will they be able to afford the current rate of consumption with locally produced goods ( maybe not )

if the consumer stops buying , tax receipts go down , more ( retail-facing ) businesses will struggle/fail , AND the US is currently a consumer-driven economy , now sure manufacturing will try to fill the void .. but that takes time ( the US has a massive current debt to service )

and the monkey with the wrench IS , those nations that create a trade surplus when dealing with the US often buy Treasury Bonds ( to generate a little extra profit ) so if a nation is no longer generating a trade surplus .. will they continue to buy US bonds ( of any type )

... but all that said Trump had the better plan of the two candidates ( even if it seems like measuring the height of chalk-marks on the pavement )

now the unthinkable option is .. the US officially defaults on it's debt

almost equally unthinkable is the entire US government system slashes spending so much they can use the budget surpluses to pay down the existing debt ( not just service the interest payments ) putting millions of government employees ( from municipal to federal ) out of work

 

[divs4ever]

How Trump's Victory will Change the Economy

 

[qldfrog]

This is not good for the US citizens but better for the USA and definitely the world.
The elephant in the room is the US debt
Now impossible to pay unless you:
Default. And no US politician will do that unless you can put the blame on:
A plague, a war,or an alien invasion...
That was/is the WEF / Harris puppeteer plan
That is not exactly great for either American poors, even less rest of the West aka us.
The Trump way: use that fake money and tariffs for insourcing.
As mentioned by many, this means inflation strong relentless inflation
The debt disappear if you can reign gov spending ..a way out wo default or war.
As @Knobby22 mentioned, not good for the poors ..but better than being vitrified especially if you are an Ukrainian, Taiwanese or Lithuanian baby, or dying of the latest plague.
And that American poor will have a job, not great but a job, crime will be reduced and illegals will stop flowing in at 250k a month.
So better for the USA IMHO, and definitely for the world.
Buy Gold farming land ...

 

[Smurf1976]

Just my thoughts but the big thing as I see it is Trump's election is yet another piece of evidence, and a very substantial one, of a major paradigm shift underway.

For the past ~50 years progressive politics has overwhelmingly called the shots. Sure it hasn't always been in government, but take a look at the US, Australia or other Western democracies and ultimately it has got what it wanted, its agenda has been implemented on both the economic and social fronts.

My contention is we're seeing a major shift away from that, one that'll play out over the coming decades, with the key theme being away from globalism and toward localisation.

In the Australian context if we go back to the pre-globalisation period, then Australia's exports included the following:

Iron ore = zero. Australian law did not permit the export of iron ore, only if it were processed here could the metal be exported.

Natural gas = zero. No export facilities existed, and nor was it legal to build them.

Coal = coking coal was a significant trade, around 10 million tonnes a year in the late 1960's, but thermal coal was essentially non-existent at less than 200,000 tonnes per annum. For context coking coal exports peaked at 188 million tonnes in 2015-16 and were still 156 million tonnes in 2022-23. Thermal coal peaked at 212.7 million tonnes in 2019-20 and was 182.1 million tonnes in 2022-23. Data from Australian government stats.

Point being mining wasn't a big thing at all. The idea that Australia is a resources country isn't the historic position, it's just a consequence of globalism and progressive politics that favoured mining over manufacturing. Trends that now look to be exhausted.

So my thought is contracting global trade and, for Australia, a forced pivot back toward much greater self-sufficiency. Likely with considerable pain as we're slow to realise what's happening and try clinging to the past due to our own political issues.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another thing I note is Trump used an approach including long form content on non-traditional media.

That's in sharp contrast to the past few decades where increasingly short form content has dominated. Full length journalism having been pared back first to 30 second "sound bites" then ultimately to short Tweets.

Trump's gone in the opposite direction.

Implications for media companies of all sorts, it doesn't really fit with any existing business model other than traditional forums (like this one) and YouTube both of which facilitate long form content. It's very much at odds with mainstream media and most social media.

 

[over9k]

Harris did plenty of long form interviews etc smurf, they were just utter trainwrecks.

The harris campaign was just atrocious all round IMO. I can't think of a single thing they actually got right. Clinton fought trump well and hard but harris was just woeful. I can't think of a single thing harris even stood for other than "I'm not trump".

The big thing trump got right was campaigning using trusted media forms/platforms. Even if harris interviewed well on traditional media (she didn't) nobody trusts traditional media anyway so there was never going to be an upside even if she interviewed well, there was only a potential downside.

I simply cannot think of a left wing/democrat equivalent of the platforms and antics that trump campaigned on. There's no female joe rogan, there's no female "YMCA", there's no female garbage truck with a huge trump logo/flag, there's no democrat version of the "maga" hats, the list just goes on and on and on.

Aside from give an endless list of trainwreck interviews I can't think of a single noteworthy thing the campaign actually did. Not one. If they had a younger woman that actually has a bit of "spunk" (high energy) they might be in with a shot but harris gave people absolutely nothing to get excited about. Nothing.

Ali wong has the kind of energy I'm talking about.

 

[over9k]

Meanwhile, over on tiktok, a full on civil war is breaking out:

 

[Knobby22]

This is not good for the US citizens but better for the USA and definitely the world.
The elephant in the room is the US debt
Now impossible to pay unless you:
Default. And no US politician will do that unless you can put the blame on:
A plague, a war,or an alien invasion...
That was/is the WEF / Harris puppeteer plan
That is not exactly great for either American poors, even less rest of the West aka us.
The Trump way: use that fake money and tariffs for insourcing.
As mentioned by many, this means inflation strong relentless inflation
The debt disappear if you can reign gov spending ..a way out wo default or war.
As @Knobby22 mentioned, not good for the poors ..but better than being vitrified especially if you are an Ukrainian, Taiwanese or Lithuanian baby, or dying of the latest plague.
And that American poor will have a job, not great but a job, crime will be reduced and illegals will stop flowing in at 250k a month.
So better for the USA IMHO, and definitely for the world.
Buy Gold farming land ...

I don't mind Trump trying something different, and the people voted him as a change agent.

I just don't get why he has to give unfunded tax cuts to the top end of town and greatly increase the debt even more than last time he was in.
We are talking huge levels of debt, that may destabilise the US currency not to mention the bond markets.

If Trump at least delayed the tax cuts for a couple of years to see how things went there would be much less risk.
Honestly, billionaires don't need an unfunded tax cut and the company tax rate cut could be for manufacturing only.

I am scared he is going to take the USA, and us with them, to hell in a handbasket. If things go bad he will likely takeover the Fed decisions to lower rates and make it worse.

The last person to give unfunded tax cuts was Liz Truss and we know what happened to her.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I don't mind Trump trying something different, and the people voted him as a change agent.

I just don't get why he has to give unfunded tax cuts to the top end of town and greatly increase the debt even more than last time he was in.
We are talking huge levels of debt, that may destabilise the US currency not to mention the bond markets.

If Trump at least delayed the tax cuts for a couple of years to see how things went there would be much less risk.
Honestly, billionaires don't need an unfunded tax cut and the company tax rate cut could be for manufacturing only.

I am scared he is going to take the USA, and us with them, to hell in a handbasket. If things go bad he will likely takeover the Fed decisions to lower rates and make it worse.

The last person to give unfunded tax cuts was Liz Truss and we know what happened to her.

The markets have had good warning about his tariffs and tax cuts, and they'll be ready to adjust and change the way they trade with the US.

If he thinks other countries won't retaliate to his tariffs he has another problem coming his way.

 

[JohnDe]

The markets have had good warning about his tariffs and tax cuts, and they'll be ready to adjust and change the way they trade with the US.

If he thinks other countries won't retaliate to his tariffs he has another problem coming his way.

It might even help reduce inflation in Australia. China will have to unload all the excess stock at reduced prices to countries like Australia.

 

[qldfrog]

I don't mind Trump trying something different, and the people voted him as a change agent.

I just don't get why he has to give unfunded tax cuts to the top end of town and greatly increase the debt even more than last time he was in.
We are talking huge levels of debt, that may destabilise the US currency not to mention the bond markets.

If Trump at least delayed the tax cuts for a couple of years to see how things went there would be much less risk.
Honestly, billionaires don't need an unfunded tax cut and the company tax rate cut could be for manufacturing only.

I am scared he is going to take the USA, and us with them, to hell in a handbasket. If things go bad he will likely takeover the Fed decisions to lower rates and make it worse.

The last person to give unfunded tax cuts was Liz Truss and we know what happened to her.

Let's see what happens...

 

[qldfrog]

It might even help reduce inflation in Australia. China will have to unload all the excess stock at reduced prices to countries like Australia.

Indeed, but they won't need fmg io anymore or our coal...
Overall Australia will suffer but might be a blessing in disguise

 

[DannyB0000]

For those wondering what Trump's tariffs will do to the global economy if he makes good on his promise need only look at Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act June 1930 in America which you can google it yourself. Back then the US imposed 20% tariffs on foreign agricultural products and manufactured goods. Herbert Hoover, then the president had the option of raising tariffs to 40%. The government of the day was trying to protect farmers. The new tariff act was opposed by 1000 economists trying to tell Hoover don't do it but the president ignored them.

The result was 25 countries retaliated by imposing tariffs of their own. Between 1929 and 1934 international trade dropped by 66%. Both US exports and dropped quite a bit. The tariffs made the Great Depression worse not better. Hoover was booted out of office in 1932 and replaced by Roosevelt. Smoot and Hawley both lost their seats in congress.

Clearly Americans have not learned anything from history by electing Trump, dejavu moment.

 

[JohnDe]

Clearly Americans have not learned anything from history by electing Trump, dejavu moment.

Says you, and all the left leaners before any policies have been enacted.