The Investment Thread

[wallus]

What a waste of time that gets delayed for one month.

The Canada negotiations are even more baffling.

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, owbc said:

The markets mostly see this stuff as negotiating tactics for now. The real damage being done is going to take some time to filter through. 

That's exactly it - they are negotiating tactics and nothing but threats at this point.

However, there is immediate damage.  The company that I work for sells products in Canada.  It's a pretty good market for us where we're #2 in the categories we play in and have been gaining market share.  But the threats of tariffs have created a sense of nationalism in the Canadian consumer.  Retailers are indicating where products are made.  Our #1 competitor in the bigger category is made in Canada...

[owbc]

16 hours ago, LouisEly said:

That's exactly it - they are negotiating tactics and nothing but threats at this point.

However, there is immediate damage.  The company that I work for sells products in Canada.  It's a pretty good market for us where we're #2 in the categories we play in and have been gaining market share.  But the threats of tariffs have created a sense of nationalism in the Canadian consumer.  Retailers are indicating where products are made.  Our #1 competitor in the bigger category is made in Canada...

Right, your company is screwed, but the markets won’t feel that for a while.

Honestly good for Canada — they can’t win this fight on economic might but if they unite and boycott US made goods it will give them real leverage. 

[BrewerFan]

On 1/17/2025 at 2:55 PM, LouisEly said:

That's not what I said. 

I said that tariffs don't cause inflation (sources cited), the administration will not deport millions of illegals due to the cost, and that the California wildfires specifically will not affect inflation any more than the recent hurricanes in Florida.

Trump was confronted with the fact that to deport 1 million people a year, it would cost roughly a trillion dollars a year and he still argued it'd save money. You think 80 Billions dollars is going to get him to retreat from that position?

Hard to see that happening. 

Second, your source did NOT say "Tariffs don't cause inflation." They said the source said specifically the tariffs, introduced the previous 5 years did not cause inflation(then clarifying that they actually did; it was just negligible). 

 

Quote

Tariffs introduced over the past five years were not large enough, and the timing of them is completely inconsistent with them being a cause—or plausible significant solution—for today’s inflation.

 

Quote

the "current events" things are not anything new; they've been around for years and yet we are still under 3% inflation.  Trump threatened tariffs in 2016; they didn't amount to any spike in inflation from 2017-2020.

They are new...unless you can tell me when we've threatened to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico(which I think is in violation of NFTA...or USMCA...which is pretty much the same). But that's certainly new. Putting 25% to 100% Tariffs on Taiwan, namely semiconductors, that's new. 

The deportations in which they're taking Puerto Rican and Native American's or Mexican American Citizens who speak English...pretty sure that's new(and I'd guess a massive lawsuit). 

 

I suppose Tariffs on the scale that Trump's talking about are not new. We tried them under Hoover and they kick started the great depression, so that's a new thing to try again, but most of it is very much new. 

[BrewerFan]

On 1/24/2025 at 11:28 AM, LouisEly said:

Lumber is a very, very small part of the cost of building a house.  And new homes are a small percentage of the housing market.

And the tariffs haven't been enacted yet.

Yes, but you said;

Quote

Shelter - 32% - no/minimal impact (small effect on home repairs for goods, but no effect on labor; houses aren't imported)

That's a bit different than tariffs having no or having a minimal impact.

I'm also just trying to shake off the "Lumber is a very, very small part of the cost of building a house."

Not in Wisconsin. I'm in the process right now, and lumber is over 200K. That's either 250K, or Canada has to do a little dance because there is a trade deficit. I'm not entirely sure how you have ~1/4th of the GDP and expect to have no trade deficits, but that's how we're keeping score now...

Either way, housing is VERY much impacted by these proposed tariffs. 

 

Quote

Transportation commodities - 8% - yes for new cars, but new cars are only purchased about every five years and 2.5x as many used cars are purchased as new cars and won't affect used car prices; if new car prices rise, people will shift to used cars

Ok, lets follow this logic. 

So nobody buys new cars(not great for one our largest industry or those UAW) but...fine.

What do you suppose happens to the cost of used cars?

They don't go down, right? Now if everyone forgoes new cars and looks to used cars?
I was just looking at Trucks last year. The new Toyota Tundra Hybrids. Brand new they were 70-85 depending on the model. The used from the previous two years were selling for ~63-70 because they was a limited supply. 

 

You're just shifting where the costs are going to rise. But you're losing jobs(and estimated 165K) if this goes through and it's a massive tax increase.

 

Quote

Put simply by economist Michael Hicks, "This is the one-time biggest tax increase on America in history. So it predictability has the effect of dampening economic activity. The people affected most will be the people who are renting, people who need to buy cars, people who need to buy computers.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2025/02/03/tariffs-will-raise-prices-of-new-cars-spark-layoffs/78186463007/

 

And this is just housing and cars/trucks. 

What's the cost of mass food deportations? Or tariffs on things like avocados?

It's next to impossible to guess what he's going to do. What's pretty easy to figure out however...is that this is going to be inflationary despite what anyone else says. 

  Hard to brush this off as some menial increase...it won't be....IF he goes through with it. 

 

And then next up is Europe...which should be Congress, but who knows what he'll use to circumvent Congressional powers in order to declare a state of emergency in Europe. Maybe the War in Ukraine(which was so easy, I thought that'd be over on his first day in office). 

[BrewerFan]

On 1/29/2025 at 12:59 PM, nate82 said:

Not really.  Their top models maybe impacted but they also sell other models.  The sell off seemed more like a natural sell off and not something that was impacted by the announcement.  If anything that announcement should have increased the stock price.

Making something more efficient shouldn’t impact a company making a product.  If anything it will allow for more people to get into it thus increasing demand and increasing sales. Decreasing the cost for entry will allow for more sales even if it is at a lower end product.  The efficiency will also help the higher end product by allowing it to do more.

LOL...of course it was because of ChatCCP. NVDA trades sideways for 4-5 months after the timeline for the Blackwell delay becomes more clear and then it dumps 18% on the same day and you don't think it's related? The entire sector was down. It was NOT just a natural sell-off. It's the largest sell-off ever, so....no, not natural.

It was built on this myth that DeepSeek cost 5.6M(despite running on 50,000 H100 GPUs).

The premise is that hyperscalers like META, MSFT, Alphabet, and TSLA may reign in their AI CapEx. Well, they've all had earnings, being the hyperscalers like META, MSFT, Alphabet, TSLA, they may reign in their AI CapEx. Well, they've all had earnings and they're not doing that, but built into NVDA's price is the fact that they're supply-constrained. TSMC can't produce enough of their Blacwell GPUs.

 

If the argument is they can just sell their lower end chips, that's be extremely bearish for NVDA.  That's half the revenue as the GB200 stacks(or less). Why would that push the stock up?

 

On 1/29/2025 at 3:10 PM, nate82 said:

AMD is very close to replicating what NVIDIA is doing in the AI space.  All of this would be already baked into any future revenue.  Efficiency of the software is something that would improve so I don’t see the relevance here from this announcement.

 

No, AMD is not close to doing what NVDA is doing. AMD is hasn't closed the gap at all. Though it is getting cheap enough...I may pick up 1000-2000 shares.

The relevance from this announcement would have been that companies didn't need to buy nearly as much NVDA GPUs. That was not and is not baked into the price.

Luckily that's not proven true this past week, but that was very clearly the reason NVDA, AVGO...TSM dumped from ~220 to under 200. Any business related to GPUs dumped upon this announcement, even those who are about as rock solid(such as TSM).

TSM had also came out and said they expect 100% AI growth this year. Given NVDA is by far their biggest customer, that's why they were touching 150 shortly before this panic sell-off and were down to 110 pre-market Monday. 

On 1/30/2025 at 1:16 PM, PlayerHader said:

Isn't the common assumption that this is a sign that China is finding its way around chip sanctions moreso than their being able to create a comparable product using inferior components?

Yes.

It's also odd that just a couple days after DeepSeek or ChatCCP is released, China would announce a 1T Yuan investment in AI(140B USD).

I mean...if they can build DeepSeek for 5.6M, why on Earth would they invest THAT type of money into their own AI? It...just doesn't make sense, does it? But it's exactly as you said, they purchase from 3rd parties and they can't admit that.

 

Of course, Trump announcing 25%-100% Tariffs on TSMC in an attempt to try and get them to manufacture in the US...at a time when they're building or already built four new Fabs in the US was a bit of a 1-2 punch. Couple that with the fact that they've been trading sideways for the last ~6 months

 

Earnings should have calmed the fears and now AVGO and NVDA should go back up on their own earnings reports. I think some of the more ambitious price targets of 200 or 220 are a little silly, but 175 is a pretty reasonable target. NVDA and AVGO are still the #1 and #2(at least according to Morgan Stanley).

[BrewerFan]

In other news, Google barely misses on it's cloud and is down 7-8%.

For a company that's already the cheapest of the Trillion dollar stocks, getting in at ~190 doesn't seem to bad.

Also, increase their AI CapEx ~30% from 57.5B to 75-80B. That's likely why they fell also.

I didn't hear what they said about missing on Cloud. MSFT said they missed because they simply didn't have the capacity to take on more customers.

I would think with all the Cloud demand and two of the largest cloud providers coming up short, AWS either follows suit and they see a substantial sell off or AWS beats by quite a bit and they get a little bump(they're already pretty expensive, so hard to see a big jump for them). Might be a good stock to sell before earnings given their valuation, but I'll hold on.

[nate82]

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I suppose Tariffs on the scale that Trump's talking about are not new. We tried them under Hoover and they kick started the great depression, so that's a new thing to try again, but most of it is very much new. 

This is not true and is a completely made up lie.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not kick start the great depression. 

[LouisEly]

11 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I'm also just trying to shake off the "Lumber is a very, very small part of the cost of building a house."

Not in Wisconsin. I'm in the process right now, and lumber is over 200K. That's either 250K, or Canada has to do a little dance because there is a trade deficit.

It is a small part.  Labor and land are the biggest costs, accounting for 2/3rds of the cost of building (if you already own the land, that's a different story, but few people do).  Materials is 1/3rd of the cost of a home, and then you have electrical, plumbing, HVAC, concrete foundation, roofing/shingles, siding/brick, drywall, fixtures, insulation, driveway, appliances, etc., in addition to lumber in the materials component. 

Per the article, lumber is 30% of materials cost, which is 1/3rd of the cost of the home, which means that lumber is 10% of the cost of building an average home.  Which means that if lumber goes up 25% due to tariffs, then the cost of building a home goes up 2.5%.  Not a significant impact.

I didn't say it was an insignificant cost, just a small cost relative to the total cost of the home.  I'd be willing to bet that if you're spending $200K on lumber... you're building one helluva house that not many people can afford, or you're building a log home (which also few people can afford).

And new homes represent a small part of the housing market.  A vast majority is existing homes.  That's why I said that it isn't going to have a significant impact on shelter costs in the CPI.  Most of the money spent on existing homes is on labor to repair things; materials is a much smaller cost.

[homer]

9 hours ago, nate82 said:

This is not true and is a completely made up lie.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not kick start the great depression. 

It may not have kicked it off ( Depression started in 29 and Smoot Hawley wasn't passed until 30) but some theorize that it extended the Great Depression and made it worse

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

It is a small part.  Labor and land are the biggest costs, accounting for 2/3rds of the cost of building (if you already own the land, that's a different story, but few people do).  Materials is 1/3rd of the cost of a home, and then you have electrical, plumbing, HVAC, concrete foundation, roofing/shingles, siding/brick, drywall, fixtures, insulation, driveway, appliances, etc., in addition to lumber in the materials component. 

Per the article, lumber is 30% of materials cost, which is 1/3rd of the cost of the home, which means that lumber is 10% of the cost of building an average home.  Which means that if lumber goes up 25% due to tariffs, then the cost of building a home goes up 2.5%.  Not a significant impact.

I didn't say it was an insignificant cost, just a small cost relative to the total cost of the home.  I'd be willing to bet that if you're spending $200K on lumber... you're building one helluva house that not many people can afford, or you're building a log home (which also few people can afford).

And new homes represent a small part of the housing market.  A vast majority is existing homes.  That's why I said that it isn't going to have a significant impact on shelter costs in the CPI.  Most of the money spent on existing homes is on labor to repair things; materials is a much smaller cost.

Also, last i checked trees grow in other places besides Canada...and if the US was ever truly pinched by a group of countries economically it has plenty of its own resources and manufacturing capacity over time to start drawing from to help offset any pain for long enough to cripple the other countries first.  

Other countries depend on the US to buy both raw materials and finished goods far more than the US needs specific countries to provide those items at the cheapest possible cost.  That's why these tariff threats work to at least get other govt leaders to the table to discuss issues related to trade, and frankly completely unrelated issues.

 

 

[BrewerFan]

13 hours ago, nate82 said:

This is not true and is a completely made up lie.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not kick start the great depression. 

It sure as hell did.

[nate82]

3 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

It sure as hell did.

I am curious what is your source?  This should be funny.

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, homer said:

It may not have kicked it off ( Depression started in 29 and Smoot Hawley wasn't passed until 30) but some theorize that it extended the Great Depression and made it worse

 

-Just a quick little addendum on the chronology: yes, the tariffs came after the crash...but they weren't just introduced out of nowhere, as I said. The house passed them in April and caused a lot of angst leading up to the October of that year.

----------

It's been a while, so I don't recall the exact numbers, but the market crash of '29, I believe it was spread over 2 days in late October.

It was earlier that year, it passed the House with both economists that year it passed the house with both economists and titans like Henry Ford imploring Hoover to veto the bill calling it 'economic catastrophe or economic stupidity,' one or other.

Thousands of Economists warned of the repercussions and it stoked fear in the market....as you saw this Monday, even when we were on the whims of Trump who finally stood down when he demanded Mexico place 10,000 troops at the border(they already had 15,000 there, so...he got 5,000 fewer than they'd previously had).

 

Even after the crash and before the tariffs actually went into effect, the market had regained most of its losses.

It was Smoot-Hawley that turned it into...a 1987-type crash to a prolonged DEPRESSION the likes of which we'd never seen before or since.

[nate82]

7 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

It's been a while, so I don't recall the exact numbers, but the market crash of '29, I believe it was spread over 2 days in late October.

It was earlier that year, it passed the House with both economists that year it passed the house with both economists and titans like Henry Ford imploring Hoover to veto the bill calling it 'economic catastrophe or economic stupidity,' one or other.

Thousands of Economists warned of the repercussions and it stoked fear in the market....as you saw this Monday, even when we were on the whims of Trump who finally stood down when he demanded Mexico place 10,000 troops at the border(they already had 15,000 there, so...he got 5,000 fewer than they'd previously had).

 

Even after the crash and before the tariffs actually went into effect, the market had regained most of its losses.

It was Smoot-Hawley that turned it into...a 1987-type crash to a prolonged DEPRESSION the likes of which we'd never seen before or since.

OK your source is trust me bro.  Like I said you are lying and now are trying to say oh it is just what I remembered.  Stop lying.

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, LouisEly said:

It is a small part.  Labor and land are the biggest costs, accounting for 2/3rds of the cost of building (if you already own the land, that's a different story, but few people do).  Materials is 1/3rd of the cost of a home, and then you have electrical, plumbing, HVAC, concrete foundation, roofing/shingles, siding/brick, drywall, fixtures, insulation, driveway, appliances, etc., in addition to lumber in the materials component. 

Per the article, lumber is 30% of materials cost, which is 1/3rd of the cost of the home, which means that lumber is 10% of the cost of building an average home.  Which means that if lumber goes up 25% due to tariffs, then the cost of building a home goes up 2.5%.  Not a significant impact.

I didn't say it was an insignificant cost, just a small cost relative to the total cost of the home.  I'd be willing to bet that if you're spending $200K on lumber... you're building one helluva house that not many people can afford, or you're building a log home (which also few people can afford).

And new homes represent a small part of the housing market.  A vast majority is existing homes.  That's why I said that it isn't going to have a significant impact on shelter costs in the CPI.  Most of the money spent on existing homes is on labor to repair things; materials is a much smaller cost.

I did own the land and I was just talking about the cost of building a house. This is from long before the talk about tariffs.

Close to one-third of the cost of building a new single-family home in America involves framing, flooring and other wood materials. Wood materials remain the single largest cost for new single-family homes in the country according to a new study from the National Association of Home Builders.

https://www.iwfatlanta.com/industry-trends/wood-related-materials-and-labor-make-up-30-of-a-new-home-cost/#:~:ext=Wood materials remain the single largest cost for,cost survey and covers the 2022 building year.

 

I was building my...dream house or "forever" house, and that included a very large "barndominium," as well...which is kinda stupid, but I just got done hearing for two years how 4.99 for eggs was a burden the American people couldn't abide(how's that working out now), and now we're pretending that tariffs aren't inflationary? Or is it only a little inflationary?

I think it's a pretty substantial increase and a bit more than 2.5%. The further you zoom out on a new home, buying the land...I guess I didn't include that in the cost of building my house. The cost of building my house was...how much it cost for them to just build my house. If you include the land I built it on, then it becomes pretty insignificant.

 

[BrewerFan]

29 minutes ago, nate82 said:

OK your source is trust me bro.  Like I said you are lying and now are trying to say oh it is just what I remembered.  Stop lying.

Yeah...I'm "lying." Why don't you allow me the opportunity, to actually respond to YOU there sport...rather than spouting off because while responding to someone ELSE I didn't appropriately cite my sources. Without Smoot-Hawley, the market recovers and doesn't crippled the agricultural, steel, automotive and iron industries.

Quote

Most economists believed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would exacerbate the U.S. recession into a worldwide depression.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

 

https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue74/Beaudreau74.pdf

It destroyed the farming industry as countries hit back. We went from selling 12 million eggs to Canada per to a 99% decrease and just 170,000

Auto, Iron and Steel(pretty big industries at the time) dropped by over 80% further costing hundreds of millions in revenue(pretty big deal in 1930).

 

It had other impacts like crippling the Cuban economy as their Sugar industry fell and changed their political landscape, pushing it away as an American ally.

In response, other Nations put in their own tariffs and crippled the global economy.

 

Smooth Hawley also led to the election(in part) of Roosevelt who ran on rolling back tariffs as they were wildly unpopular just a couple years later and led to a bill in '33 of '34...the "Reciprocal Trade Act," or something along those lines. 

I'm sorry, I don't have my notes from Econ and History sitting in front of me, but I assure you, much as it may SHOCK you, your ignorance does not equate to me "lying."

 

[nate82]

Just now, BrewerFan said:

Yeah...I'm "lying."

https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue74/Beaudreau74.pdf

It destroyed the farming industry as countries hit back. We went from selling 12 million eggs to Canada per to a 99% decrease and just 170,000

Auto, Iron and Steel(pretty big industries at the time) dropped by over 80% further costing hundreds of millions in revenue(pretty big deal in 1930).

 

It had other impacts like crippling the Cuban economy as their Sugar industry fell and changed their political landscape, pushing it away as an American ally.

In response, other Nations put in their own tariffs and crippled the global economy.

 

Smooth Hawley also led to the election(in part) of Roosevelt who ran on rolling back tariffs as they were wildly unpopular just a couple years later and led to a bill in '33 of '34...the "Reciprocal Trade Act," or something along those lines. 

I'm sorry, I don't have my notes from Econ and History sitting in front of me, but I assure you, much as it may SHOCK you, your ignorance does not equate to me "lying."

Again it did not start the great depression.  You said it kicked it off.  No one is saying it didn't hurt the economy during that period.  You were the one who said it was kicked off by the tariffs when it was not.  The article you linked to doesn't even state it kicked off the great depression.  Again you are just lying and now putting up word salads to cover it up.  The real kick off of the great depression was the Federal Reserve. 

From Milton Friedman: https://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/friedman.htm

QUESTION: What happened during the Depression? 

MILTON FRIEDMAN: We have to distinguish what we mean when we talk about the Great Depression. What you had was that in 1929 the United States was in a boom. It hit a relative high point. And the stock market crashed in October 1929. But that was not the cause of what caused the Great Depression. It was, in my opinion, a very minor element of it. What happened was that from 1929 to 1933 you had a major contraction which, in my opinion, was caused primarily by the failure of the Federal Reserve System, to follow the course of action for which it was set up. It was set up to prevent exactly what happened from 1929 to 1933. But instead of preventing it, they facilitated it. 

The Depression, I may say, which started in 1929 was rather mild from 1929 to 1930. And, indeed, in my opinion would have been over in 1931 at the latest had it not been that the Federal Reserve followed a policy which led to bank failures, widespread bank failures, and led to a reduction in the quantity of money. 

What happened was that for every $100 of money, by which I mean the cash that people keep in their pockets, and the deposits they have in the bank, for every $100 of money that there was in 1929, by 1933 there was only $67. The Federal Reserve allowed the quantity of money to decline by a third. While, at all times, it had the possibilities and the power of preventing that from happening. 

[nate82]

9 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Yeah...I'm "lying." Why don't you allow me the opportunity, to actually respond to YOU there sport...rather than spouting off because while responding to someone ELSE I didn't appropriately cite my sources. Without Smoot-Hawley, the market recovers and doesn't crippled the agricultural, steel, automotive and iron industries.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

 

https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue74/Beaudreau74.pdf

It destroyed the farming industry as countries hit back. We went from selling 12 million eggs to Canada per to a 99% decrease and just 170,000

Auto, Iron and Steel(pretty big industries at the time) dropped by over 80% further costing hundreds of millions in revenue(pretty big deal in 1930).

 

It had other impacts like crippling the Cuban economy as their Sugar industry fell and changed their political landscape, pushing it away as an American ally.

In response, other Nations put in their own tariffs and crippled the global economy.

 

Smooth Hawley also led to the election(in part) of Roosevelt who ran on rolling back tariffs as they were wildly unpopular just a couple years later and led to a bill in '33 of '34...the "Reciprocal Trade Act," or something along those lines. 

I'm sorry, I don't have my notes from Econ and History sitting in front of me, but I assure you, much as it may SHOCK you, your ignorance does not equate to me "lying."

 

LOL From the investopedia link you quoted:

You continue to dig yourself in a hole with your lying.

[BrewerFan]

6 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Again it did not start the great depression.  You said it kicked it off.  No one is saying it didn't hurt the economy during that period.  You were the one who said it was kicked off by the tariffs when it was not.  The article you linked to doesn't even state it kicked off the great depression.  Again you are just lying and now putting up word salads to cover it up.  The real kick off of the great depression was the Federal Reserve. 

From Milton Friedman: https://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/friedman.htm

QUESTION: What happened during the Depression? 

MILTON FRIEDMAN: We have to distinguish what we mean when we talk about the Great Depression. What you had was that in 1929 the United States was in a boom. It hit a relative high point. And the stock market crashed in October 1929. But that was not the cause of what caused the Great Depression. It was, in my opinion, a very minor element of it. What happened was that from 1929 to 1933 you had a major contraction which, in my opinion, was caused primarily by the failure of the Federal Reserve System, to follow the course of action for which it was set up. It was set up to prevent exactly what happened from 1929 to 1933. But instead of preventing it, they facilitated it. 

The Depression, I may say, which started in 1929 was rather mild from 1929 to 1930. And, indeed, in my opinion would have been over in 1931 at the latest had it not been that the Federal Reserve followed a policy which led to bank failures, widespread bank failures, and led to a reduction in the quantity of money. 

What happened was that for every $100 of money, by which I mean the cash that people keep in their pockets, and the deposits they have in the bank, for every $100 of money that there was in 1929, by 1933 there was only $67. The Federal Reserve allowed the quantity of money to decline by a third. While, at all times, it had the possibilities and the power of preventing that from happening. 

No, I said it caused the great depression and without the tariffs, it would have been more akin to an 1987 type economic crisis.

I sourced and cited that;

Is that "word salad?"

Most economists believed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would exacerbate the U.S. recession into a worldwide depression.

 

That's exactly what happened as I explained. 

 

But great, a Q and A from Friedman.

I wonder if there's a run on the bank if you don't lose 80% of the largest industries in the United States as a direct result?

If you don't lose 80% of your Auto, Iron and Steel industries leading to massive unemployment.

Some of this requires a little critical thinking beyond 'nuh-uh,' and then a Q and A that addresses ANOTHER problem that was the direct result of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.

 

 

 

[BrewerFan]

54 minutes ago, nate82 said:

You continue to dig yourself in a hole with your lying.

No hole, no lying. Though this seems...oddly personal to you.

 

Again, tell me, if the US doesn't lost 80% of their 3 largest industries and created 34% unemployment, do you think there's a run on the banks?

It's entirely possible there's not even a market crash in '29, but I never said Smoot-Hawley caused ALL the economic conditions, I said it led to the great depression.

 

I know it's difficult to comprehend, but when a country sees ~30% unemployment as  a direct result of the worst economic policy in Presidential History...do you think that THEN contributes to a run on the banks?

C'mon, this takes some critical thinking.

Crippling agriculture in the 1930s. 12,000,000 eggs exported to 170K.

80% of the Auto industry(was that a big part of the economy in 1930?)

80% of the Steel Industry. Was that a big part of the economy?

80% of the Iron industry.

Directly leads to ~30% unemployment.

What happens when you're unemployed? Do you keep money in the banks? Or....do you think you need that money?

 

Arguing the Great Depression didn't stop the run on the banks, the DIRECT impact of Smoot-Hawley...is a fair argument.

Pretty simple to see which came first. After a meeting with the League of Nations in '27 to scale BACK Tariffs, the US then moves forward, enforcing tariffs on ~900 items. That led to what? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? That led to retaliatory tariffs and what otherwise would have been MAYBE the great recession or the Savings and Loan scandal in '87...became a full-on Great Depression crippling not just the US Economy but the Global Economy.

I'm sorry you're not able to track A and then B and then C, but the FIRST domino to fall was the Tariffs passing Congress. The second was the '29 Crash.

The third was the Tariff on ~900 items.

The fourth was the retaliatory tariffs leading to...(I don't really need to explain how it gutted 4 of our largest industries, right)...and THEN you had a run on the banks.

 

Do you see the sequence of events there? Or...is that a lie?

[madbad2000]

Let's bring this back to current investments please.  While I'm down for interesting discussions like this, the temperature is a little high and veering a little too political for the intent of the forum. 

[LouisEly]

15 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I was building my...dream house or "forever" house, and that included a very large "barndominium," as well.

Would love to see pictures of that

[BrewerFan]

Markets bounce back tomorrow...I think.

NVDA and COST earnings are going to be big.

I think the prior will be good, better guidance, the later is...well, if you like options, I'm betting it's not a good reaction. PE of 60, low margins, susceptible to the tariffs.

All these rotations out of big tech, I think with the confidence index, a good NVDA earning...~41B, 10-12B on Blackwell(SMCI filing the 10-K by Tuesday Morning) and you'll see them carrying the markets again.

 

Not saying I feel real confident we're still in the throws of a bull market, but...I don't think we're entering a bear market just yet. I also think the market has priced in 2 cuts whereas I think 3 or at least a sooner one is possible if there's any weakening in the job market(which seems inevitable with the slowing growth).

[otion881]

I believe 2025 will be a big year for real estate. Well, real estate never really crashed, so it's not like it's ""coming back,"" but I think it's going to grow even more.  

I recently invested in three houses in Colorado, betting on it being a prime tourist spot where I can rent them out at great rates (which I'm already doing). I worked with an agency because I find it too complicated and risky to buy on my own.  

If anyone's interested in the agency (they're very good). Check out Summit Colorado Realty.