Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Posted May 16 58 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: No he didn’t. There are tariffs on everyone. What was the number going to be? Do you know? I know when I make deals with people I start with the position I have no intent of going lower on. Thereby pi$$ing off and losing customers trust and business.
Roundybout Posted May 16 Posted May 16 1 hour ago, Big Blitz said: No he didn’t. There are tariffs on everyone. What was the number going to be? Do you know? I know when I make deals with people I start with the position I have no intent of going lower on. If the economic outlook of a country IMPROVES when tariffs go away, what does that say about tariffs? 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Posted May 16 The stable genius tariff consequences are just beginning https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/consumer-sentiment-may-inflation-expectations-tariffs.html
JDHillFan Posted May 16 Posted May 16 42 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: The stable genius tariff consequences are just beginning https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/consumer-sentiment-may-inflation-expectations-tariffs.html But another good day* for the markets so you must be happy. You don’t have to piss and moan about your personal financial situation. I know that won’t stop you, but still. *50 minutes before close. Could still go to sh*t.
Doc Brown Posted May 16 Posted May 16 6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Except there were substantial concerns about the potential for market corrections in the 10% range all throughout 2024, as there typically are after substantial increases. So, in adding that to the mix, with fear and hysteria at a fever pitch, and players set to profit off turmoil, again, the resilience was impressive. I’m not that far off from retirement, but cooler heads typically prevail. WW2. Vietnam. Watergate. 2008. Black Friday. Historical trends. I acknowledge Trumps actions impacted the markets. To what degree and what that ultimately means cannot be measured in Fergie’s concerns about his pharmaceuticals over an 34 day period, or the a revisting of the Carter years. What happened post Carter? What was the appropriate course of action thereafter? Both rhetorical questions, of course. Do you mean Black Monday? There's always concerns with market corrections and it's mostly pushed by people who want the stock market to drop so they can buy low. Also, people who make their living selling gold or other metals benefit off of people's fears of the market tanking. You obviously can't prove our 401k's would be higher if Trump didn't implement tariffs. However, I do think his actions made a lot of people's pockets a lot lighter than it should be right now.
sherpa Posted May 16 Posted May 16 24 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: You obviously can't prove our 401k's would be higher if Trump didn't implement tariffs. However, I do think his actions made a lot of people's pockets a lot lighter than it should be right now. And the demonstrated, economic brilliance of Kamala Harris and whomever she chose, would have led us to financial nirvana.
The Frankish Reich Posted May 16 Author Posted May 16 16 minutes ago, sherpa said: And the demonstrated, economic brilliance of Kamala Harris and whomever she chose, would have led us to financial nirvana. Sherpa, as a former military man you are surely familiar with Kurt von Hammerstein's classification of officers. As von Hammerstein stated, Quadrant 4 is the dangerous one. I'll even take Quadrant 3 over that one.
ComradeKayAdams Posted May 16 Posted May 16 On 5/15/2025 at 3:48 PM, Roundybout said: Clinton did it through Congress and created a surplus. Trump’s budget increases the defect by $4 trillion MAGA’s aren’t even thinking about the national debt whenever we’re in Trump Economy Stage “B.” Allow me to elucidate… Trump Economy Stage “A” = Tariffs go up, economy becomes anxious. Insists MAGA: “The manufacturing jobs are coming back! Tariffs will pay off most of the debt! Will we even need an income tax??” Trump Economy Stage “B” = Tariffs go down, economy stabilizes. Better trade deals to benefit Trump’s donors and friends. Exclaims MAGA: “Art of the deal, baby! Woo-hoo!” We generally oscillate between the two stages. I believe there’s a funny internet meme about this. Whoever is successfully riding these buy low/sell high waves is making a lot of money. The rollercoaster fun will eventually end, however, when international supply shocks kick in and stagflation features emerge. 1 1
sherpa Posted May 16 Posted May 16 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Sherpa, as a former military man you are surely familiar with Kurt von Hammerstein's classification of officers. Nope. Never seen it, and not my experience.
The Frankish Reich Posted May 16 Author Posted May 16 Just now, sherpa said: Nope. Never seen it, and not my experience. "I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage." I view Kamala as the stupid/lazy type. Not the worst because she would keep out of her own way and let people who know what they're doing run things. Trump? Stupid and hyperactive. Constantly floating new (90% stupid) ideas, whether it's "I know more about viruses than anyone and why not inject bleach" to "I love tariffs." And that's why he's the worst possible President. Dumb and doesn't know it. 1
Motorin' Posted May 16 Posted May 16 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: The stable genius tariff consequences are just beginning https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/consumer-sentiment-may-inflation-expectations-tariffs.html Liar liar pants on fire "The majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries"
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Posted May 16 (edited) 47 minutes ago, sherpa said: And the demonstrated, economic brilliance of Kamala Harris and whomever she chose, would have led us to financial nirvana. Yup. Staying the course would have been better. Now much of the world distrusts or hates us, thousands of civil servants are unemployed. Tens of thousands to millions of mostly MAGAs will soon have no health insurance and $4 trillion will be added to the deficit. Oh yeah, and goods from Walmart and Amazon will soon be more expensive. I’ll take Kamala’s relatively conservative approach every time Edited May 16 by Joe Ferguson forever
JDHillFan Posted May 16 Posted May 16 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Not the worst because she would keep out of her own way and let people who know what they're doing run things. Chigoose would have described this as wish casting. Staffers have bailed on her left and right in her career. Is that because she gets out of the way and lets them do their thing?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Posted May 16 2 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Liar liar pants on fire "The majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries" And? 3/4 of surveyed spontaneously mentioned tariffs as a source of concern. Do you think it’s good to raise national anxiety and lower consumer sentiment to record levels with any policy decision?
Motorin' Posted May 16 Posted May 16 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: And? 3/4 of surveyed spontaneously mentioned tariffs as a source of concern. Do you think it’s good to raise national anxiety and lower consumer sentiment to record levels with any policy decision?
sherpa Posted May 16 Posted May 16 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: "I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage." I view Kamala as the stupid/lazy type. Not the worst because she would keep out of her own way and let people who know what they're doing run things. Trump? Stupid and hyperactive. Constantly floating new (90% stupid) ideas, whether it's "I know more about viruses than anyone and why not inject bleach" to "I love tariffs." And that's why he's the worst possible President. Dumb and doesn't know it. I am not interested in you reference enough to read it closely, but my experience, with Naval Officers/Aviators over years and years, is that they were the finest people I ever worked with, and are to this day, which includes scores of reunions with people of honorable accomplishments. If your missive is insulting to those people, it is off target, by magnitudes. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted May 16 Author Posted May 16 5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Chigoose would have described this as wish casting. Staffers have bailed on her left and right in her career. Is that because she gets out of the way and lets them do their thing? Her office personality may grate. But she seems aware that she isn't any kind of policy wonk and likely would enjoy all the pomp and circumstance with little policy input. That's her life. 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: I am not interested in you reference enough to read it closely, but my experience, with Naval Officers/Aviators over years and years, is that they were the finest people I ever worked with, and are to this day, which includes scores of reunions with people of honorable accomplishments. If your missive is insulting to those people, it is off target, by magnitudes. No, not at all. I think you're missing the point. 1
JDHillFan Posted May 16 Posted May 16 (edited) 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Her office personality may grate. But she seems aware that she isn't any kind of policy wonk and likely would enjoy all the pomp and circumstance with little policy input. That's her life. No, not at all. I think you're missing the point. Examples? That you want to give Kamala Harris credit for awareness is something that is probably very unique to you. Run with it. you’ve always shown a bit of a misogynistic streak here. Are you saying that she would be fine with being a figurehead because she’s a woman? Edited May 16 by JDHillFan
sherpa Posted May 16 Posted May 16 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: No, not at all. I think you're missing the point. Likely.
The Frankish Reich Posted May 16 Author Posted May 16 First, for @sherpa: it's often called a "classification of officers," but perhaps more accurately is a "classification of leadership potential." The idea is actually fairly sound in any organization. The Quadrant 1 folks - clever and hardworking - are the ones who make policy/strategic decisions, but often are a too studied in their decision-making to serve in the highest ranks. The clever and lazy are what von Hammerstein thought were the best suited to high leadership. They use their "laziness" to come up with shortcuts to making sound decisions, relying, of course, on the clever/industrious below them. The dumb and lazy are, well, most employees. Give them basic tasks and count on them to not have any ambitions to be some kind of chief strategist. And the dumb and industrious? Well, they're dangerous because they have no idea of their own limitations and they do what the great John Wooden warned against: "Never confuse activity with achievement." So where do I put our recent presidents: - Trump: dumb and hyperactive. Not classically "industrious," but will never put his trust in someone long-term who actually knows what he's doing. We see that now with the ping-ponging between being swayed by Peter Navarro vs. Scott Bessent. If any advisor threatens his absolute power, he gets fired. Has to constantly be doing something when very often doing nothing is preferable. - Biden: dumb and lazy. - Obama: clever and lazy. Tried to sell himself as a policy wonk; he wasn't really one of that group. - Bush 43: dumb and lazy. Dumb can mean getting swept away by some clever advisor (Cheney/Rumsfeld), so obviously the Biden/Kamala/Bush types aren't ideal. - Clinton: clever and industrious. Yeah, that can get you in trouble, which is why von Hammerstein didn't find it ideal for the top. - Bush 41: kinda dumb, kinda industrious. I find it hard to classify him. I used to think Reagan fit in the dumb/lazy category. I've changed my mind over the years. I really think he was quite clever, but generally intellectually lazy. But ultimately very successful. It was, as Von Hammerstein would say if he were around today, a feature of Reagan, not a bug. - Carter: smart and industrious, probably a victim of that overthinking things quadrant 2 guy who wasn't suited for top leadership. - Ford: dumb and lazy, refreshing in retrospect, given who he was bracketed by Nixon - largely before my time - is the prime example of the dangers of the smart/industrious type. Always scheming, always trying to outmaneuver someone, ultimately his downfall. Have we had another dumb/hyperactive president? Not that I know of. That's why in modern America Trump stands alone. The Dunning-Krueger poster boy. The von Hammerstein "avoid at all costs" guy.
Recommended Posts