Tractors and (upcoming) tariffs?

[Mtsoxfan]

Once again, just trying to get some info, as it's been harder and harder to trust any one/two/three etc sources...

Why do we/them need tarrifs?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, we need a government for the people, trouble is, our population is so much larger than when we started, and everyone has a different idea of what's best.
I think we can all agree we have a spending problem, unfortunately, we all disagree on spending cuts, because of how it will affect "their" constituents. And that's how we grow our voter base, which gives "them" more power. (and more money)

 

[2manyrocks]

There are probably those who wish they' liquidated their portfolios before 1999 and 2008.

 

[5030]

I see China is retaliating over them and upping their tariff's accordingly. I also see the price of crude is plummeting. Gonna be some pain involved with them for us but I've adopted a wait and see approach at this point.

Here in this country, people want instant results and that isn't gonna happen.

 

[5030]

There are probably those who wish they' liquidated their portfolios before 1999 and 2008.

Short sighted people maybe. I ignore the ups and downs with my 401 and I have a wad in it. I let my financial advisor handle it as it is for me, just a 'slush fund' I finance my hunting trips with.

 

[Mtsoxfan]

I changed my mix of investments to treasuries and bonds, didn’t take them out. Wait and see. We could be headed for a great, Great Recession. You talk about something needing to be done? In December the stock market was at an all time high and unemployment was very low. It seems that both of those things are now heading in the opposite directions.

I look at my investments once or twice a year. That's what I pay an advisor for. Paying a small amount to someone to alleviate the worry etc. is worth the price of admission. Up 2.8% January, 2.6% February, down 4.3% March. I'm still OK with that given all that's going on. Most of that loss was just my personally managed stocks, which are all long term, and always bounce back pretty quickly. I don't touch my stocks, just let them ride. has worked for the last 35 years when I dipped my toes in. helps to be invested in can't lose stocks, like utilities, insurance and defense/areospace... YRMV

 

[jyoutz]

There are probably those who wish they' liquidated their portfolios before 1999 and 2008.

It depends on how close to retirement someone is.

 

[WinterDeere]

Do you understand our previous course was unsustainable?

I agree with this. A country that produces nothing, ultimately dies as a financial superpower. Net exports must exceed net imports.

Our primary exports have transitioned over 400 years, from furs, to lumber, to metals, to grains, and then eventually manufactured goods during WW2. In the 1980's and 1990's, our exports changed from physical to intellectual, we became the technology leader of the world. Most of us could see where this was headed 30 years ago, you can't move manufacturing out of a country without Engineering soon following, and you can't move Engineering out of a country without Research soon following.

So to those who say "our exports need not be physical", they're right in the short term, but it's hard to outsource one part of a vertical integration without another country expanding on what you've now taught them. People freak out about China stealing technology, and it does happen, but we handed them more "second-generation" technology on a silver platter than they will ever steal from our "latest-generation" technology.

So for this, I was advocating tariffs 30+ years ago. Although implementing them today still is still a good idea, it is very late in the game, most of the horses have already left the barn. At this point, it's not about protecting American manufacturing and limiting how much we help fund the growth of our technology in other countries, but rather just saving the last meager threads of our former might.

What did you want the gubmit to do?

A clear and consistent plan, that doesn't change every week, based on one man's personal dealings with another. Fiscal policy is to be set by Congress, and implemented by the Executive. It is not to be set and implemented by just one man.

A little “chaos” might do us a lot of good, but I know you’ll never see it that way.

It will do some good for some lucky winners, and some bad for those who did careful planning that was undone by the whims of one man. To consistently win in business, we need to plan, and that requires a set of rules that aren't changing without reason. Hard work put into careful planning and strategy is the only way to remove luck (good or bad), and actually ensure some level of success.

On our current trajectory, the careful planning of any business can be totally up-ended overnight. We may need tariffs, I believe they're a good thing, but I have serious problems with the implementation.

 

[Hay Dude]

I agree with this. A country that produces nothing, ultimately dies as a financial superpower. Net exports must exceed net imports.

Our primary exports have transitioned over 400 years, from furs, to lumber, to metals, to grains, and then eventually manufactured goods during WW2. In the 1980's and 1990's, our exports changed from physical to intellectual, we became the technology leader of the world. Most of us could see where this was headed 30 years ago, you can't move manufacturing out of a country without Engineering soon following, and you can't move Engineering out of a country without Research soon following.

So to those who say "our exports need not be physical", they're right in the short term, but it's hard to outsource one part of a vertical integration without another country expanding on what you've now taught them. People freak out about China stealing technology, and it does happen, but we handed them more "second-generation" technology on a silver platter than they will ever steal from our "latest-generation" technology.

So for this, I was advocating tariffs 30+ years ago. Although implementing them today still is still a good idea, it is very late in the game, most of the horses have already left the barn. At this point, it's not about protecting American manufacturing and limiting how much we help fund the growth of our technology in other countries, but rather just saving the last meager threads of our former might.


A clear and consistent plan, that doesn't change every week, based on one man's personal dealings with another.

I’m not sure about that. I believe the ability to “bob & weave” (an old boxing term) isn’t a big advantage. Keeps your competitor guessing where the next punch is coming from. What we have to realize is the tariffs are about making other countries concede to better trade deals for America and bringing back vital industries for national security in times on pandemics or wars.

Fiscal policy is to be set by Congress, and implemented by the Executive. It is not to be set and implemented by just one man.

Well, it should be. Problem is, when they do, it’s always an advantage for our competitor. In this case, I believe Trump knows more than the entire body of congress. Polls show a VERY LOW approval rating for Congress. Most Congressmen/women are in for it for themselves. They want to enrich members of Congress, not We The People. I have a lot of evidence of this.

It will do some good for some lucky winners, and some bad for those who did careful planning that was undone by the whims of one man. To consistently win in business, we need to plan, and that requires a set of rules that aren't changing without reason. Hard work put into careful planning and strategy is the only way to remove luck (good or bad), and actually ensure some level of success.

On our current trajectory, the careful planning of any business can be totally up-ended overnight. We may need tariffs, I believe they're a good thing, but I have serious problems with the implementation.

I believe thats old school thinking. It tells the countries we compete with exactly what we are doing and we aren’t changing. Then they change and we stay where we are. IMO, ability to change, although it’s unsettling at times, gives us an advantage to stay ahead of competing countries.

sorry about the bold. I dont know why that happened.

 

[jk96]

Used car auction prices are already spiking.

Trade in offers from carmax and carvana are showing 10-20% increases from a week ago.

There's also some degree of chaos as carmakers don't know if they should wait out the storm short term (some are holding cars at the port) or swallow the tarriffs for the next few weeks and see if there's some sort of backtrack or deal made for automobiles.

I'm assuming the info you're hearing about holding cars at port is not correct. These cars would have already been shipped on the final vessel prior to the new tariff rules and as such are not subject to the increased tariffs for executive order.

"products loaded onto a vessel and shipped on the final mode of transit prior to 12:01 a.m. EDT on the day the new tariffs take effect will not be subject to the increased charge."

 

[WinterDeere]

I’m not sure about that. I believe the ability to “bob & weave” (an old boxing term) isn’t a big advantage. Keeps your competitor guessing where the next punch is coming from. What we have to realize is the tariffs are about making other countries concede to better trade deals for America and bringing back vital industries for national security in times on pandemics or wars.


Well, it should be. Problem is, when they do, it’s always an advantage for our competitor. In this case, I believe Trump knows more than the entire body of congress. Polls show a VERY LOW approval rating for Congress. Most Congressmen/women are in for it for themselves. They want to enrich members of Congress, not We The People. I have a lot of evidence of this.



I believe thats old school thinking. It tells the countries we compete with exactly what we are doing and we aren’t changing. Then they change and we stay where we are. IMO, ability to change, although it’s unsettling at times, gives us an advantage to stay ahead of competing countries.

sorry about the bold. I dont know why that happened.

I agree with most of what you're saying, Hay Dude. But I'll admit I'm concerned about how this will all turn out. I know Congress has a very poor track record, and while fixing that is the better approach, I also realise that is an unrealistic goal... at least in the short term.

I do expect that public reaction to Trump may actually result in more people wanting to do the work to make Congress better. In the same way the Boy Scout Carter got elected in reaction to the public becoming fed up with the corruption that was Nixon, reaction to Trump's strong policies may cause more to become interested in reversing this course of giving our prime Executive more free reign with each administration.