Trump's Second Term

The latest claim as to why _____ is imposing tariffs: he wants to frighten investors away from investing in stocks and towards investing in treasury bonds, with the result that the interest rate on treasury bonds will decrease, making it cheaper to finance the federal debt.
www.foxnews.com

Here's what Trump is really up to with high-stakes tariff gambit

Policy analyst Tanvi Ratna breaks down what President Trump is really up to with his tariffs, and it is more ambitious that you may think.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The latest claim as to why _____ is imposing tariffs: he wants to frighten investors away from investing in stocks and towards investing in treasury bonds, with the result that the interest rate on treasury bonds will decrease, making it cheaper to finance the federal debt.
www.foxnews.com

Here's what Trump is really up to with high-stakes tariff gambit

Policy analyst Tanvi Ratna breaks down what President Trump is really up to with his tariffs, and it is more ambitious that you may think.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...

I think people are desperate to try to find some reason to believe the man in the white house is motivated by anything other than his own ego, his fleeting attention span and big macs.
 
Bondi: "Some breaking news -- we pulled all non-essential funding from the Department of Corrections in Maine because they were allowing a men in a women's prison. A giant, 6 foot 1, 245 pound guy ... no more of that."
 
Andy_Ross said:
Dow on +1,290.56

Maybe Donald was right all along!
Click to expand...
Could be a 'dead cat bounce' or some profit taking. Or maybe investors have decided that the previous sell-off was enough to account for the economic impact of the new tariffs.

Or maybe investors are idiots. I mean, its their job to understand stock markets and the economy. Why didn't they start selling off the day after Trump was sworn in, knowing that things were going to get bad?
 
Investors have nowhere else to put their money - it's as simple as that.
Most Institutional Investors have strict rules on what to do with the money under their control - no doubt they have liquidated as much as they are allowed, but there is a limit to that.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Investors have nowhere else to put their money - it's as simple as that.
Most Institutional Investors have strict rules on what to do with the money under their control - no doubt they have liquidated as much as they are allowed, but there is a limit to that.
Click to expand...
My experience of working in the City of London led me to conclude that although there may be some geniuses out there, most traders and fund managers aren't blessed with unusual levels of insight of intelligence.
 
I've been investing £300 a month in a stocks and shares ISA since 2017, it's my long term in-case-I-live-long-enough-to-need-care fund. I sold a chunk of it in February and put the proceeds into my cash ISA, out of concern for what Trump's shenanigans might do to the stock market. It's still worth a bit more than I now have invested, but its value has gone down by about £3000 since I last checked it a month ago, from 28k to 25k. Thanks, Trump. :mad:
 
thaiboxerken said:
So SCOTUS supports the abolition of due process. Wow.
Click to expand...
Why should anyone be surprised about that? Remember, its the same group that said the president is above the law.

I assume you are referring to the recent ruling about deportations under the Enemy Aliens act. In that case, the results were... mixed. Deportations were allowed, but supposedly the supreme court put certain restrictions in place... requiring hearings within a certain time frame, and setting the venue for such hearings.

From: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-backs-trump-224913571.html
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Donald Trump to pursue deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime as part of the Republican president's hardline approach to immigration, but with certain limits.... Detainees "must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs," the majority wrote.... Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with ACLU and lead counsel representing the detainees, framed the court's decision as a win for his side.

Of course the problem is, will the Trump administration actually follow the rules set by the supreme court. I can see a situation where they ignore the rules, still deport people without proper hearings, and the supreme court turns a deaf ear to the rules they themselves set.
 
The scary part of the order is the part where the Court decides that temporary restraining orders may now be construed as appealable. Previously they weren't, because they were temporary. They're paving the way for the Trump administration to challenge every TRO against it on an emergency basis and have the Supreme Court just step in and vacate them.
 
There people are stupid ◊◊◊◊◊.

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the only woman on NATO's military committee, was fired over the weekend by the Trump administration, U.S. officials said Monday.

Although no reason was given, officials said it was apparently tied to comments she has made that supported diversity in the force.

According to the officials, Chatfield got a call from Adm. Christopher Grady, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was told the administration wanted to go in a different direction with the job.

The officials said they believe the decision was made last week by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but it was unclear whether he received any direction from President Donald Trump. Three U.S. officials spoke about the firing on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom