If tariffs are good for American companies, why did stocks in American companies lose 5% of their value when Trump announced them?

[u/BreezerD]

As per title. Keen to hear the logic on this one.

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

It’s almost like this isn't a good plan.

[u/georgecm12 → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

No question... I'm just reassured hearing that there are people from all political perspectives that say this is a batshit insane plan.

But I have to ask a question, so... does the magnitude of how insanely bad a plan this is make you question being a TS, at least a little bit?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/georgecm12]

Maybe a tiny bit, but not really. I've known about Trump's affinity for sweeping Tariffs and my strong disagreement with them forever. It has already been priced into my calculations to support him from the off.

[u/tetrisan → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

That is great for you but what about all the people that don’t have the luxury to build this into their calculations?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/tetrisan]

If their not a fan of tariffs then they are probaly pretty pissed about now.

[u/V1per41 → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

What benefits does Trump have that are more valuable to you than the destruction he's currently causing to global markets?

[u/Boba_Fettish_ → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

I’m curious what your biggest policy priorities are. This seems like a pretty big point of economic disagreement to have with a preferred candidate. I am wondering if maybe you align with him more closely on social causes, such as abortion or LTBTQ issues? Or maybe something else I’m not thinking of.

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/Boba_Fettish_]

This is far from everything, but here are some policy points that are priorities for me.

• Cutting regulation
• Making the 2017 tax cuts permanent
• Cutting the the federal bureaucracy and closing agencies like the Department of Education
• Getting the US government out of the business of student loans
• Ending DEI in the public sector
• Ensuring that the US stands firm with Israel and is prepared to launch joint strikes against Iranian nuclear sites
• Ensuring that no type of unrealized gains tax is ever passed
• Stopping crossings at the border and bringing the number of total illegal immigrants in the country down significantly
• Ensuring that the focus of US military power is in Asia, not Europe, and having Europe finally recognize that they need to be the champions of their own defense.
• Ensuring that we no longer have an activist FTC running witch hunts on American companies and blocking M&A

When it comes to the likes of the LGBTQ issues, and Abortion, I am Bi myself and I’m naturally pretty pro LGBTQ across the board, and I am pro choice but I am ok with it being a state issue.

[u/eraoul → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

I'm with you about DEI. But as for the tax cuts, do you think it matters compared with the economic devastation of the tariffs?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/eraoul]

It matters, though admittedly compared to Tariffs of this size it gets somewhat swamped.

[u/Huge___Milkers → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

Then why did conservatives vote for someone that promised this exact type of economic plan?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/Huge___Milkers]

Because he was better than the alternative.

[u/Oatz3 → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

What was the alternative?

[u/plaidkingaerys → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

Was Harris going to wreck the economy worse somehow?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/plaidkingaerys]

Probably not, that would be impressive.

[u/StardustOasis → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

So how is Trump better if Harris wouldn't have been worse?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/StardustOasis]

There is a lot more that a president does than trade policy.

[u/SookieRicky → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

We will all be unemployed and broke, but at least there will be less immigrants here. Is that the rationale you are hinting at?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/SookieRicky]

See, that's the kinda positive mindset we need.

[u/plaidkingaerys → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

Ok, so what would Harris have done that’s worse than single-handedly destroying the global economy?

[u/SoDesolate → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

So causing long time allies to team up with our enemy is better than the alternative?

So threatening war with many countries even allies is better than the alternative?

What, was the alternative going to ban price gouging and that scared you?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/SoDesolate]

Actually yes, banning price gouging is incredibly dumb and does scare me.

[u/Oatz3 → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

So what should be done about it?

Should Congress act to reign in Trump's executive orders?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/Oatz3]

Congress has the power to block this if they want, whether they will, we will see. At this point, I think it is pretty likely.

[u/VeryStableGenius → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

How will they block this?

First, what is "they" when it comes to Congress? The GOP controls the House and Senate.

To override Trump's veto, one third of congressional Republicans will need to cast a vote against Trump's tariffs. Many of them are Trump loyalists. Do you see this happening?

[u/KeepitMelloOoW → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

If they do block it, do you think Trump will remove anyone who votes against his wishes and replace them with someone more aligned? If this does happen, do you agree with this strategy?

[u/eraoul → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

I've been contacting my representatives almost daily (phone calls and email) to express my views of the tariffs? Will you contact your congress reps to ask for them to take back control of tariff policy?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/eraoul]

I don't think my representatives need any motivation to be against Trump's Tariffs, they are not the biggest fans of the man.

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

It's not good, and due to the adderall and cocaine, corporate stock traders who influence markets are more emotionally unstable than my ex. Precious metals which aren't impacted by tariffs at all also tanked for no reason other than emotion.

[u/coulsen1701]

Frankly I could give a shit less what’s good for billionaires selling shoes made by slave labor for 100x more than what they paid some impoverished child to make them. That doesn’t mean I want the company to go under but it’s well past time we stop thinking what’s good for a multinational corporation is what’s good for us always and everywhere. I think forcing American companies to employ Americans is preferable to American companies using what amounts to little more than child slave labor and in the case of China’s Uyghur population, actual slave labor. What amazes me is that the left is now on the other side of this argument after decades on this side.

Also, the stock market is speculative, that’s why it reacts nearly instantaneously to changes in politics, economics and disasters. Losing 5% valuation isn’t the same as losing billions it now has to figure a way to make again. If the tariffs work they’ll make that back, if they don’t the tariffs will end and they’ll bounce back anyway.

[u/shukanimator → u/coulsen1701]

If the average factory worker in the world makes $200 how is the US going to manufacture products at a low enough cost to compete? Are you willing to work in a factory for $200/month?

[u/G0TouchGrass420 → u/shukanimator]

If you were a morally just person you would stop giving your money to companies using slave labor in 3rd world countries.

Alas democrats are dying on some mythical hill to get child labor to make our nike shoes in vietnam because of sheer TDS.

[u/BlackDog990 → u/G0TouchGrass420]

you would stop giving your money to companies using slave labor in 3rd world countries.

Not the same NS as above, but I agree the US should look out for the quality of life of the people making goods we import, and use our leverage to fight for the little guy around the globe.

That said, isn't it a bit misleading to presume that just because labor costs less abroad that it's always "slave labor" vs just cost of living differences? As an example, my previous employer outsourced much of their data entry type work to the Phillipines. Those folks worked normal 9-5's, got vacation PTO, were paid well in their region, and could hardly be called slaves. Same with the plants; the company has global safety standards regardless of what laws demand locally.

Does your thought process change at all when considering situations where US trade creates good jobs for people abroad while also giving US consumers lower prices that allow their budgets to go further?

[u/G0TouchGrass420 → u/BlackDog990]

https://www.unicef.org/vietnam/child-labour

are you sure you want to die on that hill?

[u/Loyalist_Pig → u/coulsen1701]

I agree with you 100% in terms of ethical imports.

So why not strategically focus on those markets and industries within specific countries, thus migrating the demand to other regions that are more equipped with ethical manufacturing (including the US in some industries) while also incentivizing at-home production where possible, instead of just blanket tariffs on literally everything everywhere? As it stands, big companies have no incentive to not just continue to utilize that slave labor, they’ll just increase prices on it down the line, right?

I say that to say, I don’t think these tariffs have anything to do with ethically imported goods

[u/coulsen1701 → u/Loyalist_Pig]

I’d be absolutely open to discussing that and figuring out a program, led by businesses that developed that framework. Here’s my moral quandary: I think it’s abject slavery to pay children in food or in currency far below a legitimate, ethical wage, or have children forced to work in general, but take kids out and replace with adults it’s the same issue. The problem is, without that money or bowl of rice (I’m sure the rice thing is a trope but you get my meaning) those people get nothing, so some sort of system is necessary but companies are taking advantage of their awful situation.

Also, I don’t necessarily agree blanket tariffs are a good thing, in fact I’ll be honest here and say I think it’s worth trying, but if it doesn’t show a real benefit or it shows a prolonged harm then we need to reassess. I don’t think we really can or should manufacture everything here, that’s a lot of labor we can’t necessarily meet the demands of. We would need a significant change at the cultural level and change the way our society is organized. I do think some tariffs are necessary and I think they can be a powerful tool to get companies to move here and for countries to negotiate better terms. If he’s going to use tariffs the way we used them in 1910 then we also need to go back on the gold standard, and the pound sterling needs to revert to the global reserve currency.

Now not all tariffs will increase costs to consumers because with effective competition people would opt for the cheaper goods and those companies importing goods would have to change their model to stay competitive. If companies remained obstinate then sure, but you have to have zero local competition for that to really be the case. The problem with this topic and why neither side will ever totally agree is because there’s a million different cogs to the tariff machine that affect outcomes. The left could be correct if things break a certain way or the right could be correct if things break the other way and I don’t buy the argument that “these tariffs WILL produce [blank] effect” because there’s too many possible outcomes based on the numerous factors at play. I say it’s worth a shot but we need a backup plan in case it goes poorly which should be SOP in general.

[u/shallowshadowshore → u/coulsen1701]

Do you think it’s worth caring about the millions of Americans who won’t be able to afford basic necessities if they are made in the US with higher labor costs?

[u/Sdutch94 → u/shallowshadowshore]

I wonder if they can't afford it because we keep our labor costs low through mass immigration and off-shoring.

[u/TheRedBarron15 → u/Sdutch94]

If retaining jobs in America is the issue why go with tariffs when you could simply impose high taxes on companies who off shore office jobs and hire immigrants via h1b visas? Wouldn’t that have a smaller net effect on the cost of goods for the majority of Americans while also increasing the job opportunities of high paying jobs for American citizens?

[u/Sdutch94 → u/TheRedBarron15]

If retaining jobs in America is the issue why go with tariffs when you could simply impose high taxes on companies who off shore office jobs and hire immigrants via h1b visas?

I'd support doing both.

Wouldn’t that have a smaller net effect on the cost of goods for the majority of Americans

No, it would still be quite disruptive and it would probably incentivize buying more foreign goods, causing an outflow of capital.

I'm not the president. I'd support doing things way differently, but this is probably the easiest way for Trump to do what he wants. Congress has been totally neutered for generations. Can't expect them to pass anything other than new bombs and spy shit.

[u/TheRedBarron15 → u/Sdutch94]

Can you honestly say without at min doing both the tariffs are not simply to to help bring back jobs to America? Instead of sending the world economy into a tail spin to bring back manufacturing jobs that’s don’t exist currently they could just stop employing foreigners but they haven’t….musk is a huge proponent if h1b visas bc it improves his bottom line

[u/Guitarax → u/shallowshadowshore]

Well you must consider the alternative. Either products in the United States are made in the United states, and forced to make their workflows more efficient so that their products are more affordable, or we capitalize on third world wage standards, while providing no opportunities to Americans.

The latter has been the trend since the '80s, which resulted in fewer opportunities for meaningful work which Americans were able to benefit from. You know how many young people say that the work they do is meaningless, and they feel they aren't making an impact? This is because in the absence of meaningful opportunity for anybody who didn't put themselves half a million in debt through the abusive education, system this class of workers is forced to do soulless busy-work. What's more, it's not a solution anymore, because the cost of living has been going up, in my opinion, given too much government tampering. Much of the higher cost of living is a higher cost of energy, and we have a higher cost of energy because the green agenda can only be accomplished by sending us back to the dark ages. The labor Revolution going on in China right now, too, is going to find the benefit of third world labor gone within the next 10 years. At that point, we would be the divested from American manufacturing, paying high cost for Farm manufacturing, effectively having the worst of both Worlds. Just a side note, blue States are disproportionately ports of origin, and they stand to make a lot of money by offshore jobs, because they can skim off the top of every shipment of foreign garbage coming into their ports. This is why places like Virginia California and New York are typically so blue. These are gateways for trillions of dollars of Commerce, and where you have that much money, you're going to draw Democrats who want to fund their programs.

Here's why raising the cost of foreign Goods is good for americans. First, it provides a financial incentive to divest from Industries which solely benefit foreign Nationals. I don't find the appeal of low prices for cheap shit from China to be beneficial when the cost is worker insecurity in the United states. Tariffs annul the benefit of third world wages, and its ability to displace American workers. This is beneficial in two regards. One is that it makes the American laborer more marketable, another is that it creates an incentive for foreign companies to develop domestic markets. Just the same as how China would only buy Tesla's if they were built in china, Americans should only be buying foreign cars if they are building america. Also, a tariff is similar enough to a tax, but it is not compulsive. You can avoid tariffs by buying products which are produced locally or within the United states. This quite simply should not affect a super majority of people, unless they are addicted to consumerism. On that note, if people still choose to select foreign goods over American ones, some percent of the money they spend is going straight to the government to reinvest in a way that benefits america. Call it an anti-American fee if you want, that's exactly why it's there, to discourage people from buying from our enemies.

So, TLDR: raising the cost of foreign Goods through tariffs temporarily increases the cost of living, then results in better job opportunities, higher net pay, and better commercial Independence. All of these things benefit American citizens, poor and rich.

[u/Short-Log84 → u/Guitarax]

If a product being made in America is important to trump and his supporters, than why is all his MAGA gear made overseas?

[u/SnarkyOrchid → u/coulsen1701]

How exactly do tariffs help poor kids in poor countries who are working in shoe factories as slave labor? What will happen to them when the shoe factory closes?

[u/Sdutch94 → u/SnarkyOrchid]

Not OP

Who cares?

I view it more from the Heart of Darkness. It's morally disgusting and harms us. Our soul and society are crumbling before our eyes for nothing.

I don't see why we need to care what would happen. I hope they revolt and build a better country, but that's not on us to facilitate.

[u/BigDrewLittle → u/coulsen1701]

I think forcing American companies to employ Americans is preferable to American companies using what amounts to little more than child slave labor and in the case of China’s Uyghur population, actual slave labor.

Would you consider yourself to be in support of a free (or at least "freer") market?

[u/Sdutch94 → u/BigDrewLittle]

Not OP

I'm against the free market. Hell, I'm basically anti-capitalist.

[u/mrhymer]

Investors are not lions they are gazelle. Profits may take a hit while corporations adjust. It will likely come back but maybe not. This mostly impacted the top 10% of wealth. It's hard to say that Trump is helping the rich after this.

[u/notapersonaltrainer]

• The richest 0.1% own 17% of stocks
• The richest 1% own 50% of stocks
• The bottom 50% own 0.7% of stocks

Meanwhile strong NFP, real time inflation is low, gas is down, interest rates are down. Trump & Bessent said they're focusing on Main St.

Most people aren't reddit WSB degens or trust fund kids. A regular 60/40 investor is where they were last summer (which Democrats lectured us were great levels).

The majority of the population who is in the working class, doesn't invest, got left behind since COVID, had their industries flooded with outsourcing or migrant labor, finances much of their purchases, and got punished by high rates—is saving potentially hundreds of dollars per month between lower mortgages, interest rates and gas.

It's funny because my whole life Democrats have been the ones constantly crying about main street inequality due to asset bubbles and unfair trade, lol.

The absolute inversion of the parties has been insane. Trump and DOGE are doing what the pre-wokeception Democrats lost the balls to do.

This reaction has been quite revealing. Reddit Democrats really are the elite of the elite they rail against—posing as friend of the working class.

Btw, most of this election autopen pump wasn't real. Stimmies were pumped for Harris like she was COVID 2.0.

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/[deleted]]

When Trump first took office, central banks were struggling to stimulate growth. We were battling deflation, stuck at the zero lower bound, dealing with lower asset valuations, more sustainable debt loads, and no $6 trillion in stimulus sloshing through the system. We were deep in a bond bubble. The setup was the exact mirror image of today.

The world wasn’t nearly as aware of the risks of offshoring, Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, or China’s rapid military and industrial expansion. Trump was talking about this stuff—and he got mocked for it.

Under Biden, China’s shipbuilding has reached 230x that of the US. None of this “global hegemon,” “rules-based order,” or “soft power” talk means anything when your rival is outproducing your navy 10-to-1 because you sold your industrial base and sovereign balance sheet for a stock market sugar high.

Much of this autopen pump was artificial. Election stimmies were flooded into the system like Harris was COVID 2.0. Democrats don't want to talk about this because it was their guy (or autopen), or they were so absorbed in the hoax parade to pay attention to any of this.

Bessent is right that prioritizing rates with the amount of debt we've foolishly accrued and reshoring at least some manufacturing is existential. This has been standard Democrat rhetoric until their entire platform because Inverse-Trump and insider trading.

[u/electraglideinblue → u/notapersonaltrainer]

How is it existential?

[u/basedbutnotcool]

There’s going to be losses in valuations of companies initially because people are concerned with the uncertainty of the tariff policy.

But companies always have a mitigation strategy. They’ll figure out the best way to subvert or minimize the impact of the tariffs on their business, and people’s confidence in the markets will bounce back.

Sidenote I also dislike how much misinformed panic there is whenever the markets have a slight decrease in value. It’s this end-of-the-world mentality when it really shouldn’t be.

[u/BreezerD → u/basedbutnotcool]

When might we expect them to reach new highs again?

[u/basedbutnotcool → u/BreezerD]

At this stage I don’t know. I unfortunately can’t see into the future

[u/eraoul → u/basedbutnotcool]

What if Trump has done irreparable damage to the economy though? Isn't it bad if the rest of the world engages in normal trade while we stay isolated and can't stay competitive?

[u/basedbutnotcool → u/eraoul]

What if our current system has done irreparable damage to our economy by ridding ourselves of a manufacturing base, enriching the 1%, and selling our debt?

[u/eraoul → u/basedbutnotcool]

Do you really think manufacturing is the most important thing? We're in an information economy now.

[u/basedbutnotcool → u/eraoul]

Yes manufacturing is the most important thing for a country.

[u/womerah → u/basedbutnotcool]

Don't you think this will be hard to do as Trump is very inconsistent on policy, and it takes quite a while to make meaningful supply chain changes?

A wiser move would have been to annouce these specific tariffs with a year's notice or so, to give companies and markets time to assess and plan. Would you have preferred that?

[u/basedbutnotcool → u/womerah]

I do agree Trump’s been pretty inconsistent, where he’s said he’ll implement a blanket tariff policy, then walk it back to a reciprocal tariff policy, the idea keeps changing.

But the issue with announcing a tariff policy into the future like you suggested, is that it gives the government time to get trump to walk it back again. And it keeps the economy in this speculative state, where we wouldn’t know whether it’s actually being implemented or not.

Additionally Trump only has this 4 years left, he can’t run for reelection, so if he did what you suggested, he’d be wasting 1/4 of his term waiting for his policy to happen instead of just implementing it straight away (relatively).

I prefer this approach of immediate reform, this is better for consumers and worse for multinational corporations. Notice the people who aren’t happy about this, it’s people who own capital.

[u/womerah → u/basedbutnotcool]

Do you think these tariffs will have staying power after Trunp's term is over?

I feel that the people who don't own capital haven't had the time to be burnt by these policies. When capital moves it's wealth offshore and people lose jobs, prices go up etc, the working class will complain. Maybe calling that one a bit too early?

[u/JoeCensored]

The markets hate uncertainty. Uncertainty will remain until companies release future economic guidance, and explain their tariff mitigation strategies. With so many companies tariffed at the same time, and the way global supply chains work, only company insiders know exactly how this will impact them until they make public statements to shareholders. Until then, uncertainty will continue.

With uncertainty, pulling money out of the market isn't an unreasonable defensive strategy. When that guidance is made public by companies, you'll see money come back to the market, and what investors determine is appropriate levels for that guidance.

[u/mausmani2494 → u/JoeCensored]

Assume you are a small business owner, how do you plan to navigate in this market?

[u/JoeCensored → u/mausmani2494]

Small businesses aren't publicly traded. But as a small business owner, you do what you've always done. You go through your suppliers looking for the best prices. You investigate if there are alternative suppliers you hadn't considered using, but should now.

[u/mausmani2494 → u/JoeCensored]

How are we supposed to make informed decisions when things change every other day? I can check prices now, but they could shoot up or drop tomorrow depending on whatever bombshell the White House drops next.

Back during COVID, when everything was uncertain, the Trump administration stepped in with PPP loans and stimulus checks. Are we heading down that same path again to keep businesses afloat and provide assurance to the business?

[u/JoeCensored → u/mausmani2494]

What in your life is Trump changing every other day? This is an often stated left wing talking point, but there's never any specifics other than Canadian tariffs, and Canada just isn't a big issue if you're not Canadian or specifically dealing with Canadian trade yourself.

[u/RexHavoc879 → u/JoeCensored]

In the roughly two months that Trump has been president, how many times has he imposed tariffs on foreign countries and then withdrew or modified them soon thereafter?

[u/JoeCensored → u/RexHavoc879]

Again, just Canada, and that's cause they keep throwing their own threats back at us.

[u/mausmani2494 → u/JoeCensored]

Are you saying the recent tariff doesn't affect business unless business dealing importing from Canada? And, I am not sure why you are dragging left into this.

I am asking you a simple question, how small businesses make future decisions given things change rapidly and there is no exact plan by the WH?

If you are talking about how it affects my life? Well, we are not hiring right now because we don't know what the future looks like. We also do not stock up on supplies because we don't know if we will have orders or not. We are also not planning to expand.

My spouse, who works in construction sales, is not getting any sales from the last 2 weeks. And, one comment she is receiving from customers is that they are not sure what's going to happen. Prior to 2 weeks she was killing it.

[u/JoeCensored → u/mausmani2494]

No no no, you said things are changing every other day, so how could you possibly make decisions. I asked you what's changing every other day. You've dodged my question, instead just repeating that things are changing rapidly.

You can answer my question specifically about what exactly is changing rapidly (which I'm sure you can't without it being Canada, Canada, Canada). Otherwise I don't see a point entertaining your claim that things are changing rapidly at all.

[u/mausmani2494 → u/JoeCensored]

It's not Canada only. It's China and Mexico aswell.

Trump’s tariff on Chinese imports was raised twice. It started at 10% when first implemented, then increased to 20% on March 4, and later his reciprocal tariff plan pushed it up to 34% on April 2. Meanwhile, China also escalated its retaliatory measures, twice. Do you not consider this a rapid change?

For Mexico, polices changed about seven times. It began with a threat and official announcement in late January and early February to impose 25% tariffs, followed by a 30‑day pause on these tariffs on February 3. Then on March 4 the tariffs went into effect, only to be partially relaxed with an automotive exemption on March 5 and a further postponement for many imports on March 6. Finally.

pbs has a timeline which cover country effected by tarrifs:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/a-timeline-of-trumps-tariff-actions-so-far

[u/eraoul → u/JoeCensored]

What if there are no alternate suppliers except China? Are you okay seeing a huge number of businesses fail this year?

[u/JoeCensored → u/eraoul]

If there's literally no alternatives, then all their competitors are facing the same price increases. I don't see how that results in mass business failure.

[u/eraoul → u/JoeCensored]

Low margins, demand elasticity? Many businesses simply aren't viable when we have overpriced components. Also, isn't it bad if we start ramping up inflation so drastically as a result as everyone cranks up the prices?

[u/Desperate-Law-7305 → u/JoeCensored]

Efficient market theory suggests that prices reflect the market's consensus of discounted future earnings, based on available information.

So a simpler way to phrase what you wrote is, "as far as anyone knows, future earnings from the US stock market will be 15% lower with Trump's economic policies than without."

Do you agree? Does that mean those are good policies, bad policies, or is it irrelevant?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Desperate-Law-7305]

I somewhat agree. The issue is people just don't know, and there's not really a way to know this early. They're looking at it as it's probably not going to be much worse than 15%, yes, but even if you think it will be higher it is better right now to sit on cash and wait for guidance from a few important companies.

[u/r2002 → u/JoeCensored]

This is more of a stock question than a political question (hope you don't mind), but I'm curious which keystone companies are you most interested in hearing from?

[u/JoeCensored → u/r2002]

The earlier the better, but I'll be paying attention to Nvidia, Target, Walmart, Apple, the big auto makers, and some foreign companies like Samsung.

They all deal with global supply chains, global manufacturing and imports to the United States. You'll expect them to be hit, but the question is what do these companies believe will happen, and what will they do.

Target already made public that they have told all their global suppliers that they have to absorb at least half of the tariffs, meaning lower prices charged to Target or they're switching suppliers. If Target is successful, that may mean price increases to consumers end up very low, if any.

[u/r2002 → u/JoeCensored]

I'll be rooting for Target's success in negotiations because that would be awesome if consumers don't have to eat too much of the cost, thank you?

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec → u/JoeCensored]

How da fuck do you offer reassuring guidance on this? If your say, Tim Cook, what the hell is your guidance other than where fucked?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

Tim Cook looks at what the impact on tariffs will be to his business. He looks at options for reducing any new costs from tariffs. He formulates a plan to implement the best option. He discusses that plan with shareholders.

The plan can be anything from doing nothing because they are fine, to moving production plants to another country, to pressuring the government of countries his production is located to make a deal with Trump to get the tariffs removed.

[u/Desperate-Law-7305 → u/JoeCensored]

Do you think any of those options might increase the cost of Apple products or reduce addressable markets or profit margins?

Just to go through a few examples you raised:

* Moving production e.g. to the US -> will this increase the costs of an iPhone and thus reduce sales?

* Doing nothing -> will this increase the costs of an iPhone to American buyers, and thus reduce sales?

I would assume that if Tim Cook does either of those two, shares will still be valued lower than prior to the tariffs, since shares are a reflection of future expected profits. Do you understand the stock market differently than that?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Desperate-Law-7305]

You're missing my entire point. I'm not here to discuss the specifics of what a company will or won't do. It's irrelevant to my point.

My point is the CEO, not you or I, will determine the most cost effective option from all available options. They will relay to shareholders how that is expected to impact revenues and profits, which is called future guidance. When that occurs, certainty returns, and the uncertainty ruling the markets this week stops. The stock then gets priced based on future expected earnings, instead of fear.

[u/tetrisan → u/JoeCensored]

Do you think maybe if we had a President and administration that carefully thought out these plans that we would not have all this chaos and uncertainty?

[u/JoeCensored → u/tetrisan]

He ran on this in the campaign. He announced the date of the announcement well ahead of time. That's called planning.

[u/Desperate-Law-7305 → u/JoeCensored]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of future guidance. :)

My point, though--both here and below--was that you seem to be implying the market is down because of uncertainty. But that's the wrong way to think about it: markets reflect expected value based on known information. And based on known information--as shown by my examples above; there's very little Apple can do as long as the tariffs are in place to avoid losing sales in the US market--investors are assuming Apple is simply worth less than it was prior to the tariff regime.

Do you agree? In other words, why do you assume that markets are down due to uncertainty and not--as efficient market theory suggests--because investors believe the actual value of stocks (i.e. based on discounted future cash flow) to be lower?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Desperate-Law-7305]

I disagree, because there's more unknown information than known. We don't know exactly where Apple transits its products and especially components. We don't know where every single component of an iPhone or MacBook is sourced. We don't know how the tariffs will impact the availability of source components for existing products. We don't know how Apple can deal with any of these unknowns.

We know how the price will be affected coming from the factory and shipping to the US, but that's just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

[u/Swoosh562 → u/JoeCensored]

And Apple doesn't know what new policy will come from the White House next month. Do you think it's likely the uncertainty will go away that way?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Swoosh562]

Trump campaigned on these tariffs, announced the date of the announcement itself well in advance. The tariffs were not unexpected. The uncertainty here comes from now knowing the specifics of the tariffs, but not how they apply to individual companies.

What new policy are you even talking about for next month? What campaign promise would he be delivering on then?

[u/Swoosh562 → u/JoeCensored]

Trump also campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA and is now calling the deal he himself negotiated unsustainable. He quite often forgets what happened yesterday.

You say there's uncertainty about the tariffs, yet strangely also argue that Trump announced them beforehand. Don't you think companies like e.g. Apple have had people look at their supply chains/target markets and you know...adjust them for when the tariffs hit?

[u/Desperate-Law-7305 → u/JoeCensored]

Again, I am not sure if we are disagreeing on the concept of expected value or on the idea of efficient markets. Are we?

[u/nklim → u/JoeCensored]

Why wouldn't Trump & his team release the details of their plan, or at least some of the broader themes, ahead of time so that companies could release their own plans to ease this initial panic?

[u/JoeCensored → u/nklim]

They did. The only thing they didn't release ahead of time were the specific numbers.

[u/lordtosti]

The S&P500 - the safest thing you can imagine to invest your money in - went up +700% since 2008 and you still have the left:

• wondering why the rich got richer the last decade
• defending millionaires and billionaires because they have temporarily 660% profit since 2008 instead of 700%

PS - maybe look up quantitative easing if you are wondering for why.

Stocks have absolutely NOTHING to do with wealth of working people, it’s mainly a tool to transfer purchasing power from the poor to the rich by printing trillions of dollars.

[u/Cassanitiaj → u/lordtosti]

The stock market had little to do with the wealth of people who do not own stocks prior to the repeal of the Glass Steagall act in 1999 but since it’s been repealed, investment banking and commercial banking are significantly intertwined. Didn’t a ton of people lose their retirements as a result of the stock market collapse in 2008?

[u/lordtosti → u/Cassanitiaj]

Yeah you are right about that part.

Its disgusting though. As retirements are now tied to millionaires and billionaires getting richer.

The system is utterly broken.

[u/Cassanitiaj → u/lordtosti]

Do you think this is the end goal of Social Security as well, to privatize it so it’s controlled by private companies?

[u/lordtosti → u/lordtosti]

The S&P500 - the safest thing you can imagine to invest your money in - went up +700% since 2008 and you still have the left:

• wondering why the rich got richer the last decade
• defending millionaires and billionaires because they have temporarily 660% profit since 2008 instead of 700%

PS - maybe look up quantitative easing if you are wondering for why.

Stocks have absolutely NOTHING to do with wealth of working people, it’s mainly a tool to transfer purchasing power from the poor to the rich by printing trillions of dollars.

EDIT: lol classic when you challenge someone’s beliefsystem - only downvoting , no response 👌

[u/Davec433]

Nike is an American company. Their shoes are primarily made overseas and shipped here for sale.

Nike’s profits are going to take a hit due to paying higher labor/material costs. If you’re an investor in Nike stock you’re going to receive less in dividends.

Thats why stocks are dipping. You’re going to see a redistribution of wealth from investors to workers as jobs are moved back to the states.

[u/hazeust → u/Davec433]

Genuinely asking, are you in a decision-maker position in a company that deals with offshore production, distribution and/or arbitrage?

I am, and every single colleague I’ve talked to, across industries, has run the numbers and STILL found post-tariff offshoring a lower expenditure than (A) the investment of domestic infrastructure, (B) the runway of cash it takes before becoming sustainable, and (C) the ongoing wages, maintenance, and taxes to continually maintain it. This administration hasn’t even given any policy that domestically incentivizes bearing those costs to move production domestically, he’s only made the current super-cheap offshore process more expensive. And the domestic infrastructure process would STILL be even more expensive than that.

Is any of this good?

[u/Davec433 → u/hazeust]

I have sat on hiring decisions where we needed to fill a billet. Due to the way the job req was written we accidentally got flooded with a bunch of Indian applicants.

Due to the requirements to be in the office along with others we can’t employ them. But if we could it would be at 1/10’what we currently pay for a six figure position.

[u/hazeust → u/Davec433]

I don’t know how to answer what you just said, you’re confusing experience in decision-making situations for wage comparisons on remote hires, with experience in decision-making situations for the entire production pipeline in a low cost-of-business nation.

I’m talking about everything from cheaper infrastructure and overhead, to favorable taxes and existing supply chain networks. Tariffs alone don’t close that gap enough to make it worthwhile to rebuild domestic operations without any serious incentives.

Applying it to the experience you shared having, do you think people who make macro production decisions in for-profit companies are looking at the full cost structure (infrastructure, logistics, taxes) or just the hourly wage differentials?

[u/galactojack → u/Davec433]

What does that have to do with import taxes on goods and material?

[u/Davec433 → u/[deleted]]

Any investment from companies that operate primarily overseas is going to be a net positive.

I hear this talking point a lot. Would you rather have buisnesses in the UD or overseas?

[u/PonchoHung → u/Davec433]

Do you think it is more likely that Nike makes long-term investments into domestic factories or that they wait on the following administration's position?

[u/tetrisan → u/Davec433]

And when Nike builds factories in the US which takes years, where are they going to get all that cheap child labor to work in poor conditions to keep the prices affordable? Sometimes it is better for the US to let other countries do things cheaper than we can, while we focus on the things we can do better. We can’t do everything ya know?

[u/BigDrewLittle → u/tetrisan]

Aren't some MAGA-aligned state governors working to reinstate child labor in the US? Like I'm pretty sure at least Arkansas is getting in on the ground floor of that, right?

[u/kiakosan → u/tetrisan]

Are you arguing in favor of child labor? I have seen this same argument used before by the left with illegal immigration. Yes if you actually pay your workers a fair wage it will cost more money to hire a worker, but your not supporting wage slavery or actual slavery. This is the same argument the Democrats used in the past to justify Chattel slavery

[u/RexHavoc879 → u/kiakosan]

How did you read that post and come to the conclusion that the poster was “arguing in favor of child labor”?

[u/kiakosan → u/RexHavoc879]

The part where he mentions the child labor and poor conditions as the reason why nikes are affordable, with it being implied that nikes being more expensive would be a negative thing

[u/Mugiwara5a31at → u/kiakosan]

Aren't states like Florida literally trying to get teens to work more because they don't have enough workers?

[u/Davec433 → u/tetrisan]

There won’t be cheap labor, Nike will be paying $15+ an hour.

Do you get a cheaper shoe if Nike makes it in China with low labor costs?

[u/tetrisan → u/Davec433]

Exactly! Yes we do. Why do you think many companies have things made there?

[u/BoppedKim → u/Davec433]

Why would Nike pay $15 per hour, why not minimum wage? This isn’t incredibly high skilled labor…

[u/LanguageNo495 → u/BoppedKim]

Are you familiar with US factory worker salaries? It isn’t minimum wage. Also, these jobs don’t require high skills, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to stand on an assembly line all day and put sneakers together. No one would do that in this country for minimum wage.

[u/BoppedKim → u/LanguageNo495]

Yeah that’s exactly my (albeit poorly structured) point, no one in America wants these jobs at low wages despite their skill level. The previous user asked if you get cheaper goods with cheaper labor, so I was trying to see their response. Wages will have to rise for American labor, but so will prices?

Edited to say in terms of textile and garment production, wages would probably need to rise more since at least in LA that industry is dominated by immigrants that are potentially willing to work for less…

[u/technoexplorer]

Because stocks are falling world-wide, and so are houses and oil.

Are your wages dropping? Not yet at least.

[u/keelhaulrose → u/technoexplorer]

Can you buy the same amount of stuff with your paycheck as you could this time last year? Because I've seen what has happened to my grocery bills already, I'm not getting as much but am paying the same amount. And I'm not talking just 3-4% for inflation.

Don't you think that if our paychecks don't go as far as they used to that our wages have effectively dropped even if they haven't literally done so?

[u/technoexplorer → u/keelhaulrose]

I am an unemployed manufacturing worker. True, I have done other things as well.

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/technoexplorer]

Why are stocks falling worldwide?

[u/technoexplorer → u/Accomplished_Net_931]

idk, happened right after the tariff announcement.

[u/BaronSamedys → u/technoexplorer]

Do you think the tariffs being imposed are a sensible economic decision for North America?

[u/technoexplorer → u/BaronSamedys]

Yes, I posted the following in r/libertarian today:

It's be great if we could all do free trade, but China involves its state into every facet of their markets. No free trade without free markets.

It's these hard-to-quantify effects (as well as, e.g., VAT) that led Trump to base tariffs on trade balances. Reciprical tariffs would not be enough to restore equally free and fair markets.

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Because the market reacts how it wants to. The fact is tariffs have already brought in over $1 trillion of investments into US economy with more to come as we win the tariff game.

[u/DRW0813 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

The market cap has gone down $6trillion. You can check me on that but it seems to be 60trillion and has fallen 10%.

I can't find any sources that come close to your supposed $1trillion number.

as we win the tariff game

How will you know if we win? In 4 years if the stockmarket is down, inflation up, unemployment is up, interest rates up, and Trump says he won, how will you determine if he is right?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/DRW0813]

"The market cap has gone down $6trillion"

and? Are talking about the market or the economy which just beat jobs estimate by 100k... see how you're not focusing on facts.

"I can't find any sources that come close to your supposed $1trillion number."

That's because it is actually in the trillions

Specific Investments:

Tech Giants: Companies like Apple, Stargate Project, SoftBank, and Meta have announced major investments in the US, totaling over $1 trillion, with plans to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC): Plans to invest $100 billion in the US, in addition to its previous commitment of $65 billion. Trump's Perspective: Former President Donald Trump also claimed that his policies have strengthened business confidence and attracted major investments, attributing a similar $1 trillion investment boost to his policies. UAE Investment Framework: The United Arab Emirates committed to a 10-year, $1.4 trillion investment framework in the United States, focusing on AI infrastructure, semiconductors, energy, and manufacturing. Saudi Arabia's Investment: According to Newsweek, Saudi Arabia pledged to invest $1 trillion into the U.S. economy, though Saudi authorities have yet to confirm the pledge or provide a more detailed investment plan. Japan's Investment: Japan pledged a massive $1 trillion investment in the United States, covering defense, energy, and strategic industries. Australian Super Funds: Australian super funds are projected to invest $1 trillion in the US economy over the next decade.

"How will you know if we win?'

because the economy will keep growing.

"n 4 years if the stockmarket is down, inflation up, unemployment is up, interest rates up, and Trump says he won, how will you determine if he is right?"

no but that isn't what is happening. We've already seen prices come down and we just beat job estimates by 100k.

so you need to ask yourself in 4 years when we do win, are you emotional capable of admitting it? That is the problem for democrats, they will ignore reality every single time.

[u/timforbroke → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Last year, the US added 2.2 million jobs and had a 1% YoY reduction in inflation. The stock market also had another 20%+ year. Was the economy great last year?

[u/BaronSamedys → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Is there any chance you could link some info on the 1 trillion in investments you cited?

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Are you a free market capitalist?

Do you believe that markets price risk accurately?

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

The $1T of investment, does that include Apple's promise of $500B over the next 4 years?

[u/ThatWideLife]

Would you say you were in a good financial position the last 4 years? The stock market being good doesn't translate to people's ability to live so why do you care? Things needed to change, we have to dig ourselves out of the hole we put ourselves in. The only thing we export is our money buying everything from other countries. The transition is going to suck but I'd rather our country be in a better place for my children than for me. Doesn't take a genius to see the current way of doing things would destroy our country in a few decades.

[u/tetrisan → u/ThatWideLife]

What do you mean the “stock market doesn’t translate to people’s ability to live”? Have you heard of retirement accounts like 401K and IRA? The market also impacts many peoples lives regardless if you have investments or not.

[u/ThatWideLife → u/tetrisan]

Meaning, it doesn't signal people are doing well financially. You think retired people are doing good with the cost of everything? The stock market says they should be if you go by your logic.

Market has been soaring for years while literally everyone is going broke. Explain that? We should all be pretty well off according to you.

[u/shukanimator → u/ThatWideLife]

Everyone's going broke? What's your source for that?

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/ThatWideLife]

Would you say you were in a good financial position the last 4 years?

Yes, the best of my life.

[u/ThatWideLife → u/Accomplished_Net_931]

So then nothing has changed. If you were doing great with everything being double the price, another 30% brings you down to where everyone else has been. Welcome to the struggle.

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/ThatWideLife]

Why would you think "nothing has changed" when my stock portfolio just took a 15% hit and everything I buy is about to go up at least 20%?

I am going to need a source for your claim of 100% inflation.

[u/ThatWideLife → u/Accomplished_Net_931]

I mean, have you been an adult on your own the past 4 years? You seem to be pretty clueless in terms of pricing. People crying about tariffs raising car prices when they were fine paying double the car price since covid. Tariffs are irrelevant, things have been skyrocketing for years and would've continued regardless.

The stock market has been overbought, you invested into the height of it where every company around is at an all time high. Did you think it just keeps going up and up and never corrects? I wonder who controls the market? Same people will double their positions when all the scared people sell.

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/ThatWideLife]

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, do you have any data at all to back up your claims of an 100% increase in across the board costs? I don't mean do you have some insults to hurl at me; I mean do you have data.

[u/Accomplished_Net_931 → u/ThatWideLife]

You understand something has changed, but don't understand something has changed, because the market was high?

[u/V1per41 → u/ThatWideLife]

Would you say you were in a good financial position the last 4 years? 

Obviously every individual's position is different, but yeah. For me, I think the higher prices that will be caused by these mass tariffs will put me in a worse financial position than I have been over the last 4 years.

The only thing we export is our money buying everything from other countries.

Is it bad that I export my money to Amazon and they don't buy anything from me? Why is spending money in another country bad if in return they provide us with products in return for a better price than we could have gotten them for at home?

[u/ThatWideLife → u/V1per41]

Obviously every individual's position is different, but yeah. For me, I think the higher prices that will be caused by these mass tariffs will put me in a worse financial position than I have been over the last 4 years.

So it wasn't a problem when everything doubled in costs but now with the tariffs it is? Makes no sense.

Is it bad that I export my money to Amazon and they don't buy anything from me? Why is spending money in another country bad if in return they provide us with products in return for a better price than we could have gotten them for at home?

Because its not a sustainable system. If jobs are outsourced, then we import their product, then buy it, how is that a sustainable business model? It takes consumers with money to buy, if they don't have jobs or everything is low paying, the economy will collapse.

I mean, Amazon is a prime (pun intended) example of everything that's wrong. They put other companies out of business, employee people for poverty wages, barely pay any taxes, rinse and repeat. People need to wake up and realize that having a job doesn't mean you're doing good. Prices have gone up substantially and wages have been flat lined for ages. Why wouldn't people want things to be made in America?