Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

Sensationalist headline. The US market being down (temporarily) is a good thing for America - it lowers bond rates and makes it much easier to manage the out of control national debt. This is a good thing for investor confidence in the long term.

View on HN

Whatever you need to tell yourself. For those of us outside the US many of us are tired of the antics. Most of the rest of the world is long tired of Americans shouting everyday that they are the best and they should come first.

Say it enough times and we’ll look for other more relational and reliable trading partners.

There's nothing substantive about a comment like this. The US has dominated indices for decades and the amount of money those indices have generated non-US investors is huge. Belief in the US based indices domestically and abroad is still superior, just look at the numbers.

The US has a gargantuan debt problem to handle, and reciprocity in tariffs seems far from an 'antic.'

There is, actually. Instability where you win or lose based on which loony is next in driver's seat is not super appealing for folks on the outside, you know, those who get the stick.

WRT tariffs, both economists and more layman's explanations make it clear that, at the very, very least, the Trumpian view is out of touch with reality.

For example country A, having a massive trade deficit with country B, because you buy raw materials which you refine into products and sell to country C can absolutely be a good thing for country A - and it's very conceivable that imposing a tariff on the materials from B just undermines the profitable business in your country, as the margins from that industry is squeezed by the tariffs you imposed.

For an interesting walk through tariffs, subsidies and whatnot, see https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXGUGFncgk&pp=ygUPcGVydW4gdHJ... (Perun on trade wars).

That belief was based on a lot of suppositions like the gold in Fort Knox being there(had that fight with Europe already and resolved it until recently), the backing of NATO allies, the backing of long term allies like Canada and Britain who we have threatened with annexation and referenced as losers militarily, respectively in the past month, or even basic rule of law in line with our own systems.

We have become a source of absolute chaos and until we settle down into an understandable and, critically, stable set of behaviors three is no belief in us.

You can’t rely on past behavior as a source of trust for counter parties when you are simultaneously telling those counter parties that every agreement you enter into is worth nothing upon tomorrow.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

The US is actively stopping honouring its international engagements and relations. It’s already starting to have an effect. Confidence once lost is hard to regain the same goes for trust.

The headline is what people want to read but has little to do with reality.

My non-US positions have done shockingly nothing the past few years.

Chinese equities were practically being given away a year ago.

At some point there was going to be rotation but believe what you want. Of course, news headlines about the market are never wrong!

> The US market being down (temporarily) is a good thing for America - it lowers bond rates and makes it much easier to manage the out of control national debt. This is a good thing for investor confidence in the long term.

Can you stop lying to yourself and to our faces? How can you claim that a this is

1: temporary

2: if it is temporary this is a good thing because it will make debt repayments easier

3: (the part you may disagree with, but I’d give you the same consideration as someone telling me the sky was actually neon pink usually) national debt payments take longer to pan out than a “temporary” down market

I have interest and hard question for you. Please read carefully and answer very seriously.

1. It is obvious, Trump moves lead to shrink federal govt spending and with high probability could shrink national debt and lower taxes.

2. It is obvious, after market shrink could be great grow, because market economy tends to expansion, and it will be even better because lowered debt.

3. It is not so obvious, but after great wars, like in Ukraine now, appear large demographic problems, so significant grow could begin only after demography will return to health state.

So questions are:

1. Do you think, Trump administration could so much affect demography, so it could brake market down? How this could be done in US?

2. If you are not considering significant demographic problems, please explain, from where you considering market brake?

Sorry, I made typo: meaning dawn, not down. But questions still same.

> with high probability could shrink national debt and lower taxes.

Lowering taxes for at least some people is a given, but he raised the debt by $5T last time and the proposed budget this time around is similarly raising the deficit further. Serious deficit reduction is not a “high probability” without some convincing reversal.

> he raised the debt by $5T last time and the proposed budget this time around is similarly raising the deficit further

Could you provide links to respectable non-subjective sources?

Even before the pandemic, he was slated to significantly increase the deficit. The CBO had predicted $2T in 2017 but even by 2018 they had updated the deficit predictions by several trillion dollars because the Republican spending increases were paired with lower growth in revenue.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/12/trump-vow...

This time around, they’re looking at additional tax cuts which would only increase the deficit rate. We don’t have a final plan yet but there’s no sign of willingness needed to restore tax rates to anything like previous levels, which is the only way to make the math work:

https://apnews.com/article/cbo-budget-outlook-treasury-26b1f...

> Trump’s proposed extension of his 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire after this year along with new cuts could easily exceed $4 trillion

> before the pandemic

I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but I sure, asked about current Trump policy, not about nearly 10 years ago.

- 2000s was one case; 2010s was another case; 2020s are totally new case.

And what I really seen on previous Trump, and see now, he is like a burning flame, really looking like he want to do something great.

BTW, if you want to remember pandemic, I remember nearly best was Germany chancellor Merkel, but what make me curios, she retired just few months before Russia began war against Ukraine.

So I want to see considerations relevant for current case. Thank you.

You can’t just ignore his first term: not only is that debt still here but the reason this is coming up in every conversation now is that the 2017 tax cuts were justified on two grounds - that greater economic growth would make up for the losses (the opposite happened) and that tax rates would return to previous levels in 2025. That places Republicans in an even harder position because simply preserving the TCJA rates makes it impossible to avoid taking on trillions in new debt and they’re trying to make deeper cuts (see my previous comment). There’s no way to make those numbers work without massive cuts to Medicare and the military, or taking on huge amounts of debt.

They had originally been hoping to make this a problem for whoever became president after Trump’s second term but Biden winning in 2020 means they have to deal with it, or simply pretend they never cared about debt. Currently they’re trying to see if they can get away with new accounting methods to produce better-sounding numbers: https://www.barrons.com/articles/lutnick-government-spending...

> You can’t just ignore his first term

I don't ignore. I just say, if you are programmer you must understand, 10 years is millennia for computers, and federal level is one of most affected fields.

So, if Biden don't use new technologies effectively, does not mean, these technologies are not valuable.

And nobody is better than trio of Musk-Bezos-Zuckerberg in using new technologies, and they agree to cooperate with federal government.

This new pivot is something very special, for some reason, Biden have not such tight relations with independent tech leaders (and Trump on first presidency also failed to do this).

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/...

So, what I trying to say, President should not do all things himself, this is just direct violation of management best practices (in management such violation named micromanagement). Instead, President should hire best managers and delegate key functions to them, so they will do best possible. And that is what we exactly see now.

For about timing, scientific management also have direct answers - from change tops to begin work need at least two months, plus at least one full month of work. So adequate people with really good understanding, usually considering to see some results after first 100 days of new top executive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com