Trump's trade agenda on the verge of imploding

[TLK Valentine]

The tariffs they're placing are on $60 Billion. And no, 179 Billion is not very much, really.

Unless you're an American farmer who's one bad harvest away from foreclosure...

 

[mama2one]

co. where husband works used to manufacture at least 70 percent of their products in U.S.

their customers wanted products lower and lower cost
co. had no choice but to have more parts/goods produced in China

one big customer wanting even lower costs dropped company where husband works and decided to go directly to China themselves for the goods

consumers have had lower prices for a long time and now we'll have to pay more

 

[Root of Jesse]

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) continued its credit crisis slump and fell to 7,550.29,"

The Dow closed at 19,827.25 on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017

So under Obama, the DJIA went up more than 12,000 points, much more than doubling.

So in 8 years for Obama, less than 2 for Trump...

Right now, the DJIA sits under 26,000, so under Trump it has gone up ~6,000, much less than doubling.

In both absolute and relative terms, your statement is false.

Extrapolate, but that's speculation. I spoke of my own portfolio, not the DJIA, which I said specifically.

Flooding is not their only problem. The trade war with China has affected soybean farmers and others quite significantly. That's why Trump himself has been talking about using the tariff money to buy products from farmers hit by the trade war.

I think it's great when you talk specifics and they talk generalities, or vice versa. I didn't speak of flooding being their only problem, but what you brought up is interesting...Trump has a solution to take care of the farmers. Obama wanted to shut down coal miners and didn't do much to help them...

 

[LoAmmi]

Unless you're an American farmer who's one bad harvest away from foreclosure...

They'll just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (until election time when we need those red votes)

 

[wing2000]

consumers have had lower prices for a long time and now we'll have to pay out more

Very true.

And we live in a throw-away culture - enabled by cheap goods. Consumers fall for the newest and latest ______ rather than pay higher prices for higher quality products. Will Americans pay $250 for a pair of American made boots that last for 10 years or a $40 for a Chinese knockoff that will be replaced next season?

 

[Root of Jesse]

co. where husband works used to manufacture at least 70 percent of their products in U.S.

their customers wanted products lower and lower cost
co. had no choice but to have more parts/goods produced in China

one big customer wanting even lower costs dropped company where husband works and decided to go directly to China themselves for the goods

consumers have had lower prices for a long time and now we'll have to pay out more

Yeah, that's part of the problem. Americans want cheap stuff. A big part. My own father's company stopped producing ships in the US because the cost was prohibitive. Some of that is because of the unions. The problem of US economics has many layers. And they're hard to unravel. And they weren't caused yesterday. And won't be solved in one administration.

 

[Nithavela]

Not much except for food...

Frustration Mounts Among Farmers as China Trade Talks Break Down

Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on farmers

Pinched by Trump's tariffs, farmers signal their patience is limited

Who needs food when you have patriotism?

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's why you shouldn't pay much attention to the DJIA or the S&P 500. You do realize that the DJIA is 30 stocks, and the S&P is 500. How many stocks are listed on the Dow Jones or the NASDAQ?

Besides, all I can go by are my own investments. I don't do much on indexes. But a 10% increase per year is very good. Even 8% is good. I'm just trying to get my portfolio to recover from 8 stagnant years of Obama's economy, where I didn't even cover inflation.

I understand how indexes work. Based on your performance, you should probably pay more attention to the S&P 500. If you couldn't even cover inflation during the Obama years, that wasn't the fault of Obama's "stagnant" economy - you just did a lousy job investing. Most traders don't beat the market in the long run; that's why index funds are such a good investment for most people.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So in 8 years for Obama, less than 2 for Trump...Extrapolate, but that's speculation. I spoke of my own portfolio, not the DJIA, which I said specifically.

Your original statement was:

"I don't care if the DJIA is 'jittery', it's still higher after less than 2 years of Trump than it was after 8 years of Obama."

Your statement was about the DJIA, and as read it cannot be interpreted to allow extrapolation.

Obama wanted to shut down coal miners and didn't do much to help them...

Well, he tried to give them $1 billion to rebuild their local economies and retrain them for other jobs. But presidents don't make the law, and the Republicans in Congress killed the idea.

As part of the 2016 budget, the Obama White House created something called the POWER Plus plan specifically to help Appalachian communities that were getting left behind because of the rapidly changing energy market. The acronym stands for Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization, and it proposed a suite of projects including to convert $1 billion from the Abandoned Mine Lands reserve—a pot of money that had been growing since the Carter administration—funding for projects to clean up abandoned mine lands, mostly underground, that are linked to local economic development strategies. For Kentucky alone, that would mean $20 million a year for five years. The money would likely have gone to promote other businesses sectors like manufacturing and tourism and to retrain miners for new jobs like writing computer code.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I understand how indexes work. Based on your performance, you should probably pay more attention to the S&P 500. If you couldn't even cover inflation during the Obama years, that wasn't the fault of Obama's "stagnant" economy - you just did a lousy job investing. Most traders don't beat the market in the long run; that's why index funds are such a good investment for most people.

I musta done something right. I'm getting great returns now.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your original statement was:

"I don't care if the DJIA is 'jittery', it's still higher after less than 2 years of Trump than it was after 8 years of Obama."

Your statement was about the DJIA, and as read it cannot be interpreted to allow extrapolation.




Well, he tried to give them $1 billion to rebuild their local economies and retrain them for other jobs. But presidents don't make the law, and the Republicans in Congress killed the idea.

As part of the 2016 budget, the Obama White House created something called the POWER Plus plan specifically to help Appalachian communities that were getting left behind because of the rapidly changing energy market. The acronym stands for Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization, and it proposed a suite of projects including to convert $1 billion from the Abandoned Mine Lands reserve—a pot of money that had been growing since the Carter administration—funding for projects to clean up abandoned mine lands, mostly underground, that are linked to local economic development strategies. For Kentucky alone, that would mean $20 million a year for five years. The money would likely have gone to promote other businesses sectors like manufacturing and tourism and to retrain miners for new jobs like writing computer code.

Good ole' 'whataboutism'...
I didn't follow it much, but I'm very sure there was pork that they didn't like in there. And I'm not a Republican-they're just as bad as the Democrats. All politicians do what we like to do-keep their job. But they do it on our backs.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I musta done something right. I'm getting great returns now.

In the short term, sure.

Anyways, my point was that it wasn't Obama's fault you chose poorly for 8 years. Everybody who bet on the market did fine.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Yeah, that's part of the problem. Americans want cheap stuff. A big part. My own father's company stopped producing ships in the US because the cost was prohibitive. Some of that is because of the unions. The problem of US economics has many layers. And they're hard to unravel. And they weren't caused yesterday. And won't be solved in one administration.

Actually, it's not strictly because of unions. The cost of living is simply higher in the USA than most other countries. While a living wage may be $13-18/hr in the USA (depending on locale), it may be 75 cents in Vietnam or Laos or China. If a worker in Vietnam can do the job just as well as the worker here, why wouldn't you go to the Vietnamese worker?

In this regard we are the victim of our own wealth. Even without unions we would not be able to compete.

 

[Pommer]

consumers have had lower prices for a long time and now we'll have to pay more

Sounds like a good reason to raise the minimum wage!

 

[Root of Jesse]

In the short term, sure.

Anyways, my point was that it wasn't Obama's fault you chose poorly for 8 years. Everybody who bet on the market did fine.

Whether I chose poorly or not isn't the issue. I haven't changed anything. ANYTHING. The exact same investments, with one exception, which neither gained nor lost during the OBama years, have jumped since President Trump took office. This is not to say that Trump did it. But Trump's policies have certainly made a difference. And his attitude.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The issue here, regarding "Trump's Trade Agenda" is not about whether China should be paying tariffs. It is ALL about an imbalance in tariffs. China has imposed tariffs on everything we make that comes into China, while we only tariff a small portion. What the President has done is balance the imbalance.

 

[PeachyKeane]

The issue here, regarding "Trump's Trade Agenda" is not about whether China should be paying tariffs. It is ALL about an imbalance in tariffs. China has imposed tariffs on everything we make that comes into China, while we only tariff a small portion. What the President has done is balance the imbalance.

I'm sorry, what?

We started this trade war. Or Trump did.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Whether I chose poorly or not isn't the issue. I haven't changed anything. ANYTHING. The exact same investments, with one exception, which neither gained nor lost during the OBama years, have jumped since President Trump took office. This is not to say that Trump did it. But Trump's policies have certainly made a difference. And his attitude.

It is the issue if you're trying to pin the blame on Obama and/or draw a comparison between him and Trump:

I don't care if the DJIA is 'jittery', it's still higher after less than 2 years of Trump than it was after 8 years of Obama. <snip>
My retirement account has grown 45% in two years.

I'm just trying to get my portfolio to recover from 8 stagnant years of Obama's economy, where I didn't even cover inflation.

And then there's this:

So in 8 years for Obama, less than 2 for Trump...

When Obama took office on 1/20/2007, the DJIA was at 8729.63. When Trump took office on 1/20/2017, it was at 19795.06 for a total increase of 126.8% or a compounded annual rate of 10.77%. Today, the DJIA closed at 25324.99, which gives Trump a compounded annual rate of 11.211%.

That looks better than Obama, sure, but not enough to justify your rhetoric. Additionally, there's the fact that (as you pointed out) DJIA is a rather small index and, more importantly, DJIA is price-weighted, which means it gives more weight to those stocks that have a higher sell price, regardless of the percentage they move. IOW, the more expensive a stock gets, the more it juices the numbers for the Dow. A 10% climb for Boeing (current: 337.37) is equivalent to an 84% climb for Pfizer (current: 40.57), yet both move the DJIA by the same amount. As such, DJIA isn't a great indicator of much of anything.

The S&P 500 is a better indicator. That went from 849.64 to 2269.96 under Obama, for a compounded annual growth rate of 13.06%. It's currently at 2811.87, which gives Trump a compounded annual growth rate of 9.675%. Sad.

 

[variant]

Actually, it's not strictly because of unions. The cost of living is simply higher in the USA than most other countries. While a living wage may be $13-18/hr in the USA (depending on locale), it may be 75 cents in Vietnam or Laos or China. If a worker in Vietnam can do the job just as well as the worker here, why wouldn't you go to the Vietnamese worker?

In this regard we are the victim of our own wealth. Even without unions we would not be able to compete.

If you lived like a Laotian your cost of living would be more comparable.

 

[USincognito]

Not sure how much weight give this.. some truth yet.. Politico leans left.

If you think Politico "leans left" then your political compass is broken.

Also - genetic fallacy.