1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

I'd say your scenario is much more likely, but it's categorically insane that mine is even on the table. The real issue is that it is 100% clear there is no plan here -- just look at the contradictory headlines over the last 24 hours (Trump yesterday China tariffs coming down, Bessent today refutes it). Anyone trying to predict what's next with any confidence is deluding himself. Capital markets are frozen still, trade is collapsing, and no one knows what the off ramp actually is at this point. Even just a long term shift to more regional trade groups and less US domination will have long term negative consequences. The good news is China is hated by most of the countries it should be in a regional alliance with -- Korea, Japan and China have over a millennia of hatred. If I were running China, I'd be offering the moon and the stars to the EU right now.

Right… but that then ends all US involvement in NATO overnight. That leaves Europe totally vulnerable in air defense. I also think it could break up the EU in the process.

You aren’t going to get the eastern or southern countries to agree — and while they are the weaker economic forces, flipping your neighbors from a buffer between you and Russia into a coalition hostile to you isn’t a great idea.

35 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

For ~80 years we've operated on a global financial order predicated upon the US Dollar and its complete lack of any risk in US Government assets. ...

Part of that deal was that the US would act as a reasonable and responsible partner/leader. NATO was a part of this compact, as were trade alliances around the world. In 3 months the Trump administration has taken numerous steps to make foreign countries doubt the US commitment to global leadership -- abandoning Ukraine, declaring nonsensical tariffs on allies based on trade deficits, etc. More importantly, the entire US leadership is now viewed as completely chaotic and unreliable, which frankly is a first in the post war era. ...

So yes, for now foreigners and others are dumping US assets (e.g., treasuries) to raise USD for making payments (dollar denominated debt, trade, etc.). The complete collapse of trade with the US will limit the quantity of incoming dollars. The unknown question is -- if/when trade comes back, will foreigners continue to take those dollars from selling the US goods and buy treasuries, or have we fundamentally cracked global confidence in US leadership? In my opinion we aren't there yet, but it is on the table for the 1st time ever.

This nails the biggest risk that a Trump presidency as it has been executed thus far presents.

The USD may remain the world's reserve currency for as long as Trump is president, but regardless of what happens between now and his final day the confidence in the US as a stable and stabilizing economic force is going to be significantly lessened, and if/when we lose that status a direct line will be drawn back to Jan 20 2025.

The short of it is that with Trump at the helm, and the support he still enjoys from the muppets and clowns in this country, we should not be surprised that our status is becoming more tenuous.

34 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I'd say your scenario is much more likely, but it's categorically insane that mine is even on the table. The real issue is that it is 100% clear there is no plan here --

I think this is the part that should bother everyone, US and abroad.

The almost obvious lack of some kind of deliberate plan. I'd even settle for a bad plan - at least with that you can analyse/deconstruct it later.

15 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

I think this is the part that should bother everyone, US and abroad.

The almost obvious lack of some kind of deliberate plan. I'd even settle for a bad plan - at least with that you can analyse/deconstruct it later.

This is what he meant when he said they had concepts of a plan.

From a foreign relations standpoint, in 2029 either the world goes back to how thing were before the Trump term because it costs them less money, or they worry about how US policy is now as far away from certain as you can get and they hedge their bets by not going back.

The problem with the latter is that whether they like it or not, they're going to go back to how it was, but it's another World War that's going to make them do it. If things keep going the way they are now, another World War moves from a probability to as close to a certainty as you can get.

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

From a foreign relations standpoint, in 2029 either the world goes back to how thing were before the Trump term because it costs them less money, or they worry about how US policy is now as far away from certain as you can get and they hedge their bets by not going back.

The problem with the latter is that whether they like it or not, they're going to go back to how it was, but it's another World War that's going to make them do it. If things keep going the way they are now, another World War moves from a probability to as close to a certainty as you can get.

Obviously it will matter who wins in 2028. Vance will be perceived as a continuation of Trump's brand of protectionism, and his performative pandering and lying to date gives nobody any reason to expect he'll represent a return to pre-Trump era conservative trade policy.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Obviously it will matter who wins in 2028. Vance will be perceived as a continuation of Trump's brand of protectionism, and his performative pandering and lying to date gives nobody any reason to expect he'll represent a return to pre-Trump era conservative trade policy.

Well, that was me operating under the very obviously flawed assumption that there's no way in hell a Republican wins 2028.

Of course stupidity knows no bounds, so all bets are off.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is what he meant when he said they had concepts of a plan.

I guess I get it.

I have ideations of a concept of a plan to wed Lindy Booth.

5 hours ago, TEW said:

Trump is done after 2028.

It's less about distrust in Trump and more about the distrust of the American electorate who'll probably fall victim to the same carnival barking, isolationist, boob, anti-globalist politics that have preyed upon them for the past decades given the chance.

Protectionism is bad for consumers and for the stock market. What’s hilarious about Trump is the amount of time he has spent fixated on consumer prices and the market. Then to be like we’re actually going to pay more for stuff and the stock market is going to tank, but trust me we’re going to have lots of great-paying (but not with any labor unions of course) manufacturing jobs!!! Lmao

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

It's less about distrust in Trump and more about the distrust of the American electorate who'll probably fall victim to the same carnival barking, isolationist, boob, anti-globalist politics that have preyed upon them for the past decades given the chance.

Eh… Trump is a once in a lifetime phenomenon. In any case, the anti-globalism is a shift in the entire western world. And some of those reasons are good or at least understandable. I think COVID put a spotlight on the vulnerability of supply chains.

Outsourcing plastic toys and other junk makes sense. Outsourcing steel, outsourcing pharmaceuticals, outsourcing chip manufacturing, etc. is a bad idea. Aside from the blue collar job argument, it’s simply a national security concern.

He wants to defend the tariffs so badly but he can't figure out a way how to.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Eh… Trump is a once in a lifetime phenomenon. In any case, the anti-globalism is a shift in the entire western world. And some of those reasons are good or at least understandable. I think COVID put a spotlight on the vulnerability of supply chains.

Outsourcing plastic toys and other junk makes sense. Outsourcing steel, outsourcing pharmaceuticals, outsourcing chip manufacturing, etc. is a bad idea. Aside from the blue collar job argument, it’s simply a national security concern.

"Everyone is doing it" when it comes to anti-globalization is a gross mischaracterization of what's really happening here. Yeah there's a social backlash happening against the progressive political swings of the past decades but very, very few countries actually want steel manufacturing or textile jobs and they CERTAINLY don't want to pay 4x more domestically made products. It's why countries we've considered as allies, who also have their own GDP to look after, aren't really in a huge rush to just become slaves to a US economy that demands foreign fealty and puts American interests before their own. Like it or not, this is late stage capitalism in its full glory. First world countries are more than happy to have China, India, and Taiwan keep making cheap products.

Getting back to the original point... if the US population has decided it wants to withdraw from its global trade agreements with partner nations and nuke the orderly flow of money in global markets in an effort to take jobs and money from all other countries, I struggle to understand the value proposition of any country voluntarily letting Trump take them to the woodshed. Sure, there's no painless way of replacing the US as a trading partner or primary reserve currency but if the US has decided their new reason to exist in life is to wage market warfare on the rest of the world because "America first and F everyone else" then I think countries deciding turning to China and the rest of the world becomes WAY less of black swan and more of a necessity to survive.

7 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

"We will never let you have anything in trade and you deserve to be punished but will you please still be our trade partner?"

art of the cave.

10 hours ago, TEW said:

Eh… Trump is a once in a lifetime phenomenon. In any case, the anti-globalism is a shift in the entire western world. And some of those reasons are good or at least understandable. I think COVID put a spotlight on the vulnerability of supply chains.

Outsourcing plastic toys and other junk makes sense. Outsourcing steel, outsourcing pharmaceuticals, outsourcing chip manufacturing, etc. is a bad idea. Aside from the blue collar job argument, it’s simply a national security concern.

The guy who pontificated about the alleged economic ignorance of posters here criticizing Trump's economic policies reactionary and chaotic decision making is now out here trying to sell us on centralizing in Washington economic decisionmaking for select industries.

Peak CVON.

"It's not socialism when I do it"

19 hours ago, TEW said:

Trump’s rash tariff policies are dragging these issues to the present

Trump is helping bring these issues into the light, guys!

Wait, I was told Trump held all the cards and he would crush China

On 4/21/2025 at 7:51 PM, Mike030270 said:

He wants his stimulus checks

https://twitter.com/Magapatriot7777/status/1915137709666168919

18 hours ago, vikas83 said:

The analogy I have used for people outside finance is as follows: you (the US) have a weekly poker game at your house where you win $500 each week, but you spend $100 on pizza and beer and no one else helps pay for it. Trump is basically threatening to cancel the game because his friends won't chip in for pizza and beer and costing himself $400 a week.

Art of the deal.

31 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Trump is helping bring these issues into the light, guys!

americans need to take their medicine, remember?