Comments
355
Commenting has been turned off for this post
Ts Blue's avatar

Lock in income that meets your needs, forget waiting for returns, manage your money to meet what you need, it took over 50yrs for the "market" to recover from the crash of '29. Managing to "beat the market" is a fools game. If you don't know who the sucker at the table is it might be you.

Expand full comment
I_C_DeadPeople's avatar

As soon as I read “In a recent poll…” I move on to the next news item

Expand full comment
vsm's avatar

That's what I do as soon as I read "River Page on tariffs."

Expand full comment
Ts Blue's avatar

How can they be worse from off tariffs that haven't been imposed yet? I agree they are dumb, but they are not causing instant changes, give it a little critical thinking.

Expand full comment
heatherjm's avatar

I don't know about them, but I am, as are anyone with investments. The markets go up, the markets go down, but at a certain point, I'll be getting too old to wait for a recovery.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Well, it seems like Elon/DOGE are responsible for the internal/social infrastructure. Trump is responsible for the external/global.

Good luck, everyone.

Expand full comment
PoiLarry's avatar

Madeleine - I question your framing of the June 14 parade story.

"Trump, long denied his D.C. parade, appears to have settled a plan for the four-mile-long show of military might."

This is also the 250th anniversary of the birth of the United States Army. Could that not possibly be the more relevant reason for the date and size of the parade?

Unless you think that the "long denied" Trump arranged, in utero, to be born on that same date?

Expand full comment
The Outsider's avatar

I was prepared to make the same comment. 50 years ago, I led the production of a special event on the west coast for the Army's 200th birthday and I don't remember anyone criticizing the existing president. This is true TDS. One of the best memes I ever saw had Trump curing cancer and all the left protesting that he was being unfair to cancer and they wanted their cancer back. TDS truly is a disease.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Nah. His birthday.

Some Kim Jung Un stuff.

Expand full comment
Bradley Goodwin's avatar

Every one in the media is running around in like chicken little because of the tariffs, yet, or probably because, none has any idea what's going to happen, even though President Trump has pretty clear on the matter; these are reciprocal tariffs. Most of not all the countries in the world has tariffs on US made goods, yet the US has practically none (except China but I'll discuss that in a moment). Why do you ask, because no recent US President has had the political courage to demand or pressure the countries to lift them. President Trump plainly said, the US is one of the leading consumers in the world, this means countries need us to buy their products, much more than we need to export our products. Konstantin Kisin explained that the Trump tariffs are a tactic, not an action, meaning their sole purpose is to make the other countries drop theirs; and we will drop ours. Comparing this to Nixon's price and wage freezes and tariffs is simply a non sequiturs, as they were both actions and a price and wage freeze were literally socialist market control (contrary to popular belief Nixon was the definition of a progressive),and not a tactic in anyway. Further there is a huge difference between a price increases brought on by tariffs and those that results from inflation. Right now the US is suffering from 4 years of trillions of dollars being pumped into the economy by the Biden Administration; this is what has been fueling the Stock market. Obviously this can not continue and the Stock market is due a correction. But consider that high prices due to tariffs, will reverse when the tariffs are lifted (a tactic is temporary), but when prices go up because of an increase in the rate of inflation, the prices never go back down, only the rate of inflation may decrease (as has happened) meaning the effects of inflation are far more painful and permanent than tactical tariffs.

China is a different story, the US (and first world economies) attempt to turn China into a capitalist country worked somewhat worked (keep in mind China's middle class is only 1/3 of it's population) until Xi Jinping took power in 2013. Since that time China has reverted back to a Moaist form of Communism and Facism. Xi Jinping now has one goal, Communist world domination by any means necessary, led by China. The end result is their economy has stalled and begun to erode as they try to artificially control the market through massive government subsidies and profits have taken a backseat to central market control and dominance. This has lead to the forced devesting of international manufacturing in China. Further China views the US as it's primary adversary, which has lead to their undermining the US unilaterally. But it has a problem, it desperately needs US markets for it's exports, especially as it domestic economy is collapsing along with its main driver, which was the real estate market. In a trade war, prices will increase in the US but the Chinese economy will implode. This leads to two possible scenarios, in one Trump works out a deal where China will be able to save face, but back off it's tariffs and undermining the US, such as it's manufacturing of fentanyl precursors and sale to the Mexican cartels, or China will become desperate and start to strike out militarily, let's hope it's some form of the former.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Oh, yes. The math equation was top notch.

This all going really well, and will continue to do so.

Expand full comment
Bradley Goodwin's avatar

It's a math equation with a lot of unknown variables.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Yes....and that's the perfect type of equation to use when implementing global tariffs.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

I appreciate your perspective. I hope you are right. Can a leader be a fascist and a commie at the same time?

Expand full comment
Bradley Goodwin's avatar

Fascism was the invention of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini was an academic scholar and prolific writer on socialism. Like many socialist at the time, he believed WWI would have resulted in the Revolution of the Proletariat. When it did not happen he theorized it was because nationalism was stronger force than casting off ones chains. He also saw that Socialism was floundering in post WWI Italy, as they over promised and under delivered. He theorized that a collectivist government based on nationalism and strong economics, with a corporate* structure would succeed where socialism had failed, he called his system Facism (from the Italian term fascismo is derived from "fascio" meaning 'bundle of sticks', eluding to the concept of collectivism) describing it as Socialism with an economic engine.

So to answer your question, yes, one was an outgrowth of the other. Both are totalitarian and collectivist; with Communism, the means of production are run by the government intelligencia, with Facism, there is a realization that it takes knowledge and experience to control the means of production (something the government intelligencia does not have), so they leave business owners and productive farmers in place, but have oppressive government oversight and regulations controlling them.

*Corporatism is a political system of interest representation and policymaking whereby corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, come together and negotiate contracts or policy on the basis of their common interests.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Thanks so much for the detailed response! The background on Mussolini was very illuminating.😎

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Bradley is a big fan of gaslighting himself. Hence, the verbosity.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 8Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Don't need to. Your post was long enough.

Don't worry, Bradley. The tariff math was spot-on. The team and leader are supremely competent.

This is going well and will continue to do so. :)

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Finally....it's about time....

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/9dfoQfB1OA

Expand full comment
Betty McDonald's avatar

June 14 is Flag Day for those who no longer remember or knew.

Expand full comment
Herodotus II's avatar

Oh and our old friends the Hamasniks of NY took over Grand Central Station and locked commuters in and out at 6pm. Any mention in the NYT? Nah.

https://thepostmillennial.com/radical-anti-israel-agitators-occupy-new-yorks-grand-central-terminal-lock-out-commuters?utm_campaign=64483

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Man, luckily they didn't stop access to a certification or something.

Expand full comment
minky's avatar

the catholic news right underneath the pedophile news had to have been intentional

Expand full comment
DrT's avatar

The Axios founders are completely full of crap. They've deluded themselves into believing in group think, timidity & wishful thinking. And they don't see it - AT ALL!!! In spite of noting the performance of their reporter, Alex Thompson, they ascribe the behavior of everyone else to innocent mistakes and typical behavioral issues of reporters. It is unadulterated horse manure. All you had to do was look and not avert your eyes. It's unbelievable justification of the behavior of the rest of the mainstream press and the White House staff as well.

Expand full comment
frank tarascio's avatar

Surreal the navel gazing the press is doing. 'Why don't people trust us? ... they (people) must be stupid.'

Expand full comment
DrT's avatar

And then to justify the reporters actions by saying they were "clueless", "following the herd", or "not wanting to stand out" is simply insulting. Any real person couldn't have helped but see the cognitive decline of the President up close, as the reporters must have surely seen. And yet they said nothing. And the White House staff ... what's their excuse?

Expand full comment
memento mori's avatar

This was the first time I heard of this Trump military parade. If it turns out to be a real plan, it is foolhardy (putting it mildly). I voted for him; I have mostly supported him, but if he decides he wants to emulate some nasty dictators of the past, I might wonder if I was bamboozled.

Expand full comment
Unwoke in Idaho's avatar

So don’t celebrate the Army’s 250th birthday because we hate Trump?

Expand full comment
Elisa's avatar

Of course nothing is ever as presented by most media:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is having early discussions about a grand military parade in the nation’s capital this summer, something that is a long-held dream of President Donald Trump.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said Monday that the administration had reached out to the city about holding a parade on June 14 that would stretch from Arlington, Virginia, where the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery are located, across the Potomac River and into Washington, D.C.

The Army is in early discussions about potentially adding a parade to the Army’s 250th birthday festival, which is being held June 14, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are ongoing and no decisions have been made.

June 14 is also Trump’s 79th birthday.

The White House in a statement said that “no military parade has been scheduled.”

The Army birthday festival, which has been in the planning stages for about two years, is to include an array of activities and displays on the National Mall, including Army Stryker armored vehicles, Humvees, helicopters and other equipment.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Some Kim Jun Un stuff.

Expand full comment
LonesomePolecat's avatar

I wish TFP would stop calling reporters journalists. They are political propagandists.

Call them anything but journalists. Disgusting liars will do.

Expand full comment
Unwoke in Idaho's avatar

Actually calling them journalists is correct. It’s like middle schoolers journaling their feelings for the English class journal. What we need and don’t ever get is reporters reporting facts without feelings or spin.

Expand full comment
MMajor's avatar

How about FP identifying these ‘polls’ from the mainstream legacy media that have no bearing on reality.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Everyone knows Trump has a 70% approval rating.

Expand full comment
John Polis's avatar

The WSJ was blasting the president in every story, every headline for the last week. Every inkling that I had that the WSJ might be an even-handed news organization was shattered. I had subscribed but since then I've cancelled. Newspapers and publications must get rid of every bit of advocacy that exists within their walls, unless it's a properly labeled editorial on the opinion page. It has creeped so far into the bloodstream of the WSJ that I don't think you even realize you are slanting the news, ever so slightly, with misleading headlines, misplaced nuances, and dubious sourcing.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Trump shall not be criticized!!

Expand full comment
Betty McDonald's avatar

At $38.99 a month, the WSJ is no longer worth the money. The elitist EB speaks from the mountain top and thinks it's the Oracle at Delphi. And the "news pages" are even worse. I cling to the readers comments, but it's getting tougher to tolerate.

Expand full comment
T-1000's avatar

Trump shall not be criticized!!

Expand full comment
Elisa's avatar

That inkling that I had was shattered during the election! I dropped my subscription days before November 5th.

Expand full comment
Lauren L's avatar

From the WSJ, which was doom and gloom a few hours ago. Maybe everyone should just chill? The news moves too fast for opinion pieces.

"Investors took heart from signs the U.S. could strike deals with major trading partners, even after Beijing said it was prepared for a prolonged battle over tariffs.

U.S. indexes advanced more than 3% shortly after the open, with the Dow industrials rising 1200 points. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration was open to negotiating to reduce tariffs, saying the U.S. could "end up with some good deals."

Expand full comment