If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically. 

There's little disagreement about this, at least as explained by people known for honesty and thinking, anyway.

Now, some Trumpers and their adjacents will say:

Oh, he's not going to actually impose those extreme policies. These are simply negotiating tactics, from The Art of the Deal man and fabulously successful businessman.

i.e. His brilliant negotiating skill is to propose something which everyone knows he will never do in order to elicit some great compromise to his advantage.

I'll just leave that there.

Also, everyone please recall that as he attacks Mexico and Canada for their unfair trade practices, that one of the proudest achievements of his first term was to renegotiate NAFTA and replace it with a new agreement, the USMCA.

i.e. our trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

I'll just leave that there too.

I just thought of something.

Exactly what economic problem are his tariffs supposed to solve?

drummerboy said:

I just thought of something.

Exactly what economic problem are his tariffs supposed to solve?

Trump's own financial needs. It's not the tariffs, it's the exemptions - who gets them, who do they have to please in order to get them.

drummerboy said:

I just thought of something.

Exactly what economic problem are his tariffs supposed to solve?

it definitely will help the muskrat to sell his electric cars… and solar panels… and “green” initiatives.. because it’s much more fun to keep the Chinese electric cars and solar panels away from the MAGAts… in case there’s a flood or something… with sharks in the water flowing down the blue mountains.

re NAFTA 2.0, Kevin Drum gives us a trip down memory lane:

https://jabberwocking.com/a-short-trip-down-memory-lane/

Just for the record, I want to remind everybody what Donald Trump said about the new USMCA trade deal with Canada and Mexico back when he signed it:

We have negotiated this new agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity.... This is a terrific deal for all of us....This new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country.... With this agreement, we are closing all of these terrible loopholes. They’re closed. They’re gone. They were a disaster.... We are requiring a large portion of every car to be made by high-wage workers, which will greatly reduce foreign outsourcing.... This deal will also impose new standards requiring at least 75 percent of every automobile to be made in North America.... This landmark agreement will send cash and jobs pouring into the United States.... We formed a great partnership with Mexico and with Canada.... It’s a fair deal for everybody.

Huh. I guess he no longer feels quite the same way.

drummerboy said:

re NAFTA 2.0, Kevin Drum gives us a trip down memory lane:

https://jabberwocking.com/a-short-trip-down-memory-lane/

Just for the record, I want to remind everybody what Donald Trump said about the new USMCA trade deal with Canada and Mexico back when he signed it:

We have negotiated this new agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity.... This is a terrific deal for all of us....This new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country.... With this agreement, we are closing all of these terrible loopholes. They’re closed. They’re gone. They were a disaster.... We are requiring a large portion of every car to be made by high-wage workers, which will greatly reduce foreign outsourcing.... This deal will also impose new standards requiring at least 75 percent of every automobile to be made in North America.... This landmark agreement will send cash and jobs pouring into the United States.... We formed a great partnership with Mexico and with Canada.... It’s a fair deal for everybody.

Huh. I guess he no longer feels quite the same way.

It's almost as if authoritarian narcissists can never actually be satisfied and that meeting their demands -- whether that be a neighboring country declaring itself neutral or trading allies agreeing to change their import controls -- simply leads to the authoritarian seizing what they can and demanding more. This post is obviously only talking about Trump and not at all about any other examples of plutocrats or world leaders with a history of aggression and dishonesty.

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

I just thought of something.

Exactly what economic problem are his tariffs supposed to solve?

Trump's own financial needs. It's not the tariffs, it's the exemptions - who gets them, who do they have to please in order to get them.

the potential for corruption is tremendous. With Trump that's usually all one needs to know to figure out motivation

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

oy.

notice the qualifier in the beginning of the sentence?

please don't start.

for all of you who raise a skeptical eye at youtube, I offer you this, which is the best and clearest discussion of trump and tariffs I've ever seen.

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

oy.

notice the qualifier in the beginning of the sentence?

please don't start.

Okay so yours wasn't a doom-and-gloom prediction about tariffs because you said "if his policies go through".

oooooookay

Smedley said:

Okay so yours wasn't a doom-and-gloom prediction about tariffs because you said "if his policies go through".

oooooookay

Between the two of them (Trump and Drummerboy), only one of them could have a serious impact on the economy via any imprecise use of language. So maybe focus on that one?

Making a prediction and then warning against making such a prediction isn't an imprecise use of language. It's bipolar posting. It's also "weird".

Smedley said:

Making a prediction and then warning against making such a prediction isn't an imprecise use of language. It's bipolar posting. It's also "weird".

At least he has a "stan" keeping track of him.

Well he's not exactly hard to find on here

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

oy.

notice the qualifier in the beginning of the sentence?

please don't start.

Okay so yours wasn't a doom-and-gloom prediction about tariffs because you said "if his policies go through".

oooooookay

I apologize to you for not spelling out every thread of my thinking in every post.

Rather than assume that I'm so clueless that I have contradicted myself within 24 hours on a very visible thread, maybe you should ask why it looks like I'm contradicting myself, rather than just assume.

Because you know about assume, I assume.

drummerboy said:

Rather than assume that I'm so clueless that I have contradicted myself within 24 hours on a very visible thread, maybe you should ask why it looks like I'm contradicting myself, rather than just assume.

Because you know about assume, I assume.

I thought you were being Walt Whitman-esque.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

oy.

notice the qualifier in the beginning of the sentence?

please don't start.

Okay so yours wasn't a doom-and-gloom prediction about tariffs because you said "if his policies go through".

oooooookay

I apologize to you for not spelling out every thread of my thinking in every post.

Rather than assume that I'm so clueless that I have contradicted myself within 24 hours on a very visible thread, maybe you should ask why it looks like I'm contradicting myself, rather than just assume.

Because you know about assume, I assume.

as a person who reads comments in their entirety, I noticed this one included something:

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

that this one doesn't:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea. They're setting a standard for an economic downturn that if not met will come to bite them in the ****.

This thread is meant less as a predictor of what might happen to the economy and more of a question as to what the actual motivation here is.

You realize you said this <24 hrs ago: 

"If his policies go through, specifically tariffs and mass deportations, the economy will tank catastrophically."

oy.

notice the qualifier in the beginning of the sentence?

please don't start.

Okay so yours wasn't a doom-and-gloom prediction about tariffs because you said "if his policies go through".

oooooookay

I apologize to you for not spelling out every thread of my thinking in every post.

Rather than assume that I'm so clueless that I have contradicted myself within 24 hours on a very visible thread, maybe you should ask why it looks like I'm contradicting myself, rather than just assume.

Because you know about assume, I assume.

as a person who reads comments in their entirety, I noticed this one included something:

that this one doesn't:

I should add that I'm not at all convinced that the doom-and-gloom predictions about tariffs from liberals is a good idea.

sigh, ok, let me clarify.

I do strongly believe, as I stated in the OP, that if his policies go through as currently stated by Trump - the broadness of the tariffs, the size and conditions of the tariffs, and the deportations in terms of scope, that it will be very bad for the economy. And if that were to happen, then I don't think that the doom-and-gloom predictions will backfire.

However, if the policies, as enacted, end up being mild enough, softened enough by whatever grown-ups are left in the Republican party, that their effect on the economy is not as bad as the predictions, and perhaps even show some benefit, or even something that can just be spun as a benefit, then I think there is a good chance that liberals lose the PR war that will ensue later in the administration. I'm talking the 2026/2027 time frame as we head into the 2028 campaign. MAGA will, by then, be claiming their econ policies were successful, and will point to this statement or that which predicted we will be in a depression or some such, to show how out of touch and hysterical liberals were in their criticism. And that tariffs and mass deportations work.

Economics is by far the most complicated issue that voters have to deal with, and they can be very easily spun. The view of the economy by the average voter is almost completely based on their cost of living. The price of things that they must deal with every day. They don’t know, or care, about anything else. GDP growth rates, the rate of inflation, unemployment rates, the role of the fed, wages keeping up with inflation - those are just words to them, they have the barest understanding of them. And you don’t need any more proof of that than the recent election.

Pertinent to this is that, from my reading so far, the two areas where tariffs will affect prices the least are groceries and gas, the two things voters are most sensitive to.

Hell, there are good odds we will have a recession in the next few years, tariffs or no. We’re probably due. This could cause prices to go down.

In which case MAGA wins, regardless of any other economic indicator.

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

did you not read the thread title?

Opps I think I posted that last one in the wrong thread.  Sorry. 

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to call the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

PVW said:

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to control the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

holy crap! Tracey makes a reasonable point!

"“neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur"

now, who does this describe here?

PVW said:

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to call the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

Did you read the article?

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to control the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

holy crap! Tracey makes a reasonable point!

"“neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur"

now, who does this describe here?

Tracy points out real, written in stone, neocons such as Bill Kristol and Victoria Nuland.  He's just commenting on how the term is now misused to cover lot of other people, including Trump. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to control the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

holy crap! Tracey makes a reasonable point!

"“neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur"

now, who does this describe here?

Tracy points out real, written in stone, neocons such as Bill Kristol and Victoria Nuland.  He's just commenting on how the term is now misused to cover lot of other people, including Trump. 

I am sure some people somewhere are calling Trump a neocon. Which is silly because Trump has no ideological beliefs aside from being all about Trump. 

ml1 said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The existential question:  

https://www.mtracey.net/p/is-donald-trump-a-neocon

Is Donald Trump a "neocon"?

Michael Tracey    Nov 26, 2024

Exerpt:

The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility. To label someone a “neocon” now most commonly functions as a sort of political pump-fake, with a phantom blob of “neocons” always allegedly conniving to undermine Donald Trump — or whom Trump always finds himself accidentally empowering, despite his best instincts. This self-serving formulation presents Trump as having divergent interests with the reviled “neocons,” even as Trump consistently installs them to prominent government positions and pursues their preferred policy objectives. . . . .

Well, now what are you going to control the sinister cabal the uses secret protocols to control world events?

holy crap! Tracey makes a reasonable point!

"“neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur"

now, who does this describe here?

Tracy points out real, written in stone, neocons such as Bill Kristol and Victoria Nuland.  He's just commenting on how the term is now misused to cover lot of other people, including Trump. 

I am sure some people somewhere are calling Trump a neocon. Which is silly because Trump has no ideological beliefs aside from being all about Trump. 

I don't think he's a neocon but seems to have no problem having them around while talking about ending wars.  Neocons never end wars unless they can trade in a current war for two bigger ones.