this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
279 points (97.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

31061 readers
2195 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

All things considered, it has only been about 3 months since Trump took office, I feel like there is absolutely no way that this was just a single craze and from here things will even out.

I feel like until 2028 (or maybe 2026?) S&P 500 is going to look like a roller coaster.

What do you think?

(page 3) 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

The stock market is a mood ring for rich people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

it's gonna fall again, sell if you have any stocks at all

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sold it all the moment he was declared the next president, I knew shit would happen but I couldn't have predicted this.

To be honest, I thought he would focuse more on racist, misogynistic and conspiratorial things. I knew he was stupid, but I didn't think he was threatening-war-to-allies-making-a-secret-police-crashing-the-economy stupid

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (6 children)

any economics student could have expected this, even the fact a president can put tariffs to a such incredibly high values shows that it's essentially a fascist state already, somehow USA in three elections managed to become as bad as Hungary, Turkey and Egypt

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 6 days ago (6 children)

The tariffs alone would be enough to cause a recession. It's not just that they're large (even 10% is large by modern standards) it's mostly that they're so chaotic. I've read that most businesses are avoiding hiring, avoiding any expenditures they can, and just waiting to see what happens. Seeing what happens means keeping cash on hand, which means a drop in GDP. The numbers might have been juiced a bit by people making big orders and trying to get them done before the tariffs come into full effect, but once that's done the pain is going to be much more visible.

In addition to the tariffs, there's the firing of federal workers. There are about 3 million in the US, and even if only a fraction have been fired so far, I would bet the rest are cutting back on unnecessary expenses and building up a cash reserve in case they get canned. This will ripple through the economy too.

And then there's the ICE stuff. People with green cards getting deported for exercising their first amendment rights, scientists being refused entry for a post they made on social media in their home countries, Canadian, German and British people being thrown in an ICE detention facility because of a minor paperwork mix-up. This is going to make tourists and business visitors much less willing to take a chance and visit the US, but this won't hit until later. Big tourist season is the summer, and so the lack of business won't show up yet. And some conferences were too close to cancel, but conferences for later in the year might be moved or cancelled.

And there's the invasion threats against Canada and Greenland, and the tariff wars against Canada and Mexico, and the refusal to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia. The biggest visitors to the US were Canadians, Mexicans and Europeans, and all of them are going to be avoiding the country now. And, not just avoiding the country. People are trying to avoid buying US goods and services.

In addition, there are treasuries. Many are held by Japan and China. Even just acting purely rationally, they see the chaos in the US and know the US might not be able to pay its bills, or it might choose not to pay them. The risk has gone up. If they aren't being purely rational and self-interested, they also know that they can hurt the US by dumping treasuries, so they're doing that.

And then there are the scientists leaving the US, or choosing not to come. And there are potential international students who see how risky it is for anybody who isn't white, male and christian. This sort of thing might take decades, but it's going to hurt the US the most. So many of the world's most talented people have come to the US and started businesses, but that is definitely going to slow down now.

Even if Trump were impeached and removed, and all his changes were undone with apologies, there has been some permanent damage done to the US by the MAGA majority. But, since it is a majority, since the MAGAs control the supreme court, the senate, the house and the presidency, there's going to be a lot more damage done before there's even a hint of a stabilization, let alone a recovery.

I think any rational investor is going to get their money out of the US, and the slight recovery the S&P 500 has seen in the last week is going to be dwarfed by the crash over the next few years.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I was so focused on the tarrifs this week that I forgot about the actual fucking threats of war against close allies 🤦

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago

The close allies didn't forget, trust me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean when it comes down to it the market is a minor concern vs the being grabbed by unmarked people into a van and sent to foreign gulag and then say oppsie made a mistake there and then shrug shoulders and say nothing we can do about it now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Well, there are a lot of factors here that I expect would be factors, both increasing and decreasing what he does over the course of the term.

  • Right now, the Republican Party has a trifecta, and thus even GOP legislators who are not very happy with aspects of Trump are going to be very loathe to have fights with Trump, because this trifecta lets it pass lots of legislation that the Democrats would otherwise block; getting in a fight with Trump could mess that up. The incentives there will decline over the course of the term, since they'll have increasingly gotten through the legislation that they want; Trump being happy becomes less-important.

  • A major reason for Trump doing well in the presidential election was public unhappiness with inflation under Biden. Major global tariffs would also tend to drive up prices, and Republican legislators are not going to be happy about that, even aside from recession issues. I've seen both Republican and Democratic legislators commenting on the fact that this would probably be politically-damaging to the Republican Party; that's probably a source of pushback.

  • One threat that Trump has frequently made is to endorse a primary election competitor to a Republican legislator who doesn't get along with them. This meaning something is contingent on Trump's endorsement bearing weight, which requires sufficiently-high public approval of Trump in the district. If Trump takes unpopular actions, that endorsement matters less.

  • Just because you don't see a lot of Republican legislators arguing with Trump doesn't mean that it's not happening, quietly. The Republican Party has good political reasons to keep disagreements behind closed doors. Mike Johnson has made a number of statements about how he has had an extremely difficult job dealing with people getting along; he's an interface between the House and the White House.

  • What happens at midterms is going to be, I think, consequential. The Republican Party has good political reasons not to jam sticks in Trump's wheels as long as he at least keeps things within bounds, and certainly not to do so publicly. The Democratic Party has good political reasons to constantly visibly jam sticks in Trump's wheels. If the Democrats take the House in 2026, they have a lot of room to do things like initiate inquiries and demand information that they just don't have right now.

  • Late in the term, Trump is going to care less about popularity; that's why Presidents tend to do politically-controversial pardons right at the end. So he might be willing to take some particularly controversial actions at the end.

  • Late in the term, Trump is going to have a harder time making changes that last, because it'll be easier to just reverse them or slow them from having effect. Trump laying off people at the beginning of his term is hard to reverse; said laid-off people probably aren't going to just stick around for four years hoping to get their job back. If he does so three months before leaving office and his successor doesn't like that, they're probably largely just going to be rehired. So he has a hard time making lasting actions at the end.

  • Trump's tariff policy is based on a very weak legal structure. Normally Congress sets tariff policy, not the President, but Congress passed a law some decades back that permits the President to impose tariffs in emergencies. Trump proceeded to declare that fentanyl was an emergency and then started declaring that he'd throw up tariffs left and right. Whether or not the tariffs on even Mexico have any real basis in addressing fentanyl is questionable. Tariffs on Canada on fentanyl grounds are extremely questionable, as very little fentanyl enters the US from Canada, and tariffs on most of the world are even more decoupled from that. There's a pretty strong argument that he's got no legal authority there, and the only reason that he's able to do it is because Congress hasn't taken action against it. Congress can, if it wants, simply terminate the emergency he declared, at which point his power also evaporates (and has some more-forceful options as well, like taking issue at the Supreme Court with whether-or-not his use of that power is actually in line with even the declared emergency, or, if a supermajority in both the House and Senate want, simply entirely terminating the Presidential authority to impose tariffs at all, and then override a Presidential veto). The Senate already had a bipartisan bill pass about terminating the emergency over the Canada tariffs; last I looked, it was expected to fail in the House


that is, this is a public statement rather than aiming to force an end


but it's a shot across the bow where the Senate is taking issue with some of his tariff policy. Trump's ability to take action on tariffs is deeply dependent upon Congress choosing not to involve itself. I'm skeptical that Congress will accept global tariffs, even if Trump wants them, and Congress has pretty straightforward routes to avoid them. My guess is that Congress has probably communicated some things about what it'll actually accept to Trump.

  • Speaking even more-broadly, if it actually comes to some kind of real arm wrestling...the President has very extensive direct control over a large organization with millions of people, the Executive Branch. That's what makes him powerful. But the reason that he has virtually all of that power is because Congress gave it to him in the past ("we authorize the President to have this much money to create a department and then tell it what to do"). Congress can take it away, and with a supermajority in each house, override Trump's veto of such legislation. Even in areas where the Constitution very explicitly gives a power to the President, like commanding the military, Congress has written legislation to limit ways in which he can act, like the War Powers Resolution:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

    The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.

    During Trump's first term, Congress passed legislation that disallowed the President from removing sanctions on Russia without going back to Congress and getting an okay.

    Hypothetically, I imagine that Congress could probably impose a lot of restrictions on Trump, or even shift direct authority over Executive Branch departments to itself; it has, in the past, created a small amount of the bureaucracy that reports directly to Congress.

    My guess is that the Republican Party does not want to see any kind of an arm-wrestling scenario like that, though, as it'd be really politically bad. It'd instead warn behind closed doors that it might be willing to do that, and ward off things reaching that point. Hell, the Democratic Party doesn't want things reaching that kind of point either. But my point is, Trump's got real constraints on what he can do. He cannot just go ignore Congress.

That's mostly talking about constraints on Trump's power. So, there's a broader question here: will Trump continue to say outrageous things? My guess is almost certainly yes. He's shown no interest in stopping doing so for either of his terms, and kept doing so right through his first term, so I doubt that that's going to go anywhere.

EDIT: Looking at the executive orders and correcting an error above, the emergency that Trump declared to justify the global tariffs was a separate emergency from the one that he declared over fentanyl.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (4 children)

This was very interesting, but I feel like your arguments as to why things won't be as crazy is mostly based on congress stopping him, but why do you think they will?

Until 2026 is there any real reason to believe that they will? What did they do up until now? This is one of the biggest stock crashes in US history and it feels like they rolled with it and made a profit buying low and selling high

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 155 points 6 days ago (2 children)

What climb? Its still down 8.61% since he took office. Crazy to celebrate losing almost 9%.

By contrast Biden's second to last year was UP 24.23%. His last year was up yet another 23.31%.

To put dollars on this:

  • If under Biden you'd put $100,000 into the S&P500 on Jan 2023 on Dec 31 2023 you'd have $124,230.
  • If still under Biden you left your $124,230 in the S&P500 on Dec 31 2024 you'd have $153,188.01.
  • Under trump if you'd put $100,000 into the S&P500 on Jan 2025 by today Apr 13th 2023 you'd have $91,390

I see no cause for celebration here.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 days ago

I agree, yet so many are thinking thibgs are okay now, wild

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 days ago

I have a very hard time believing that the rest of the world will trust the US for a very long time, if ever, so I can't imagine our financial situation is going to improve for anyone except maybe the ultra wealthy (as usual). I haven't even looked at my retirement because it's not like there's much I can do besides stress about it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago
[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago

i mean he postponed it for 80/90 days or something so i guess this exact thing is going to repeat itself, because to me that looks like it would be the most profitable for trump

[–] [email protected] 42 points 6 days ago

I completely agree with you. The real shit show hasn't even started. The waves from the tsunami will take a while to hit.

[–] [email protected] 151 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›