BrewerFan

Yeah, I love those Bears picks. Hopefully there is someone the Bears really want at 23. 39+41 would be great(probably a bit of an overpay). I liked last years class a lot more...and even then Mitchell nearly fell to us(in hindsight, that would have been a time to trade up). I'd say at 40 as well with DeJean, but I think the Cooper we got is going to be a monster.

You write for the Packers Wire? LOL...they just had a write up on him calling him an ascending player. Projected salary 4/66M...so right in that Za'Darius Smith range. I'd be on board as long as the guarantees aren't too much. Spending could get stupid this off-season with a lot of teams improving their cap situation and the Cap jumping up more than projected(though it pretty much always does outside Covid). Gutey's comments were interesting as well. I'm paraphrasing, but he essentially said he doesn't like going into the draft with just 7 picks, that despite the draft being held in GB, he'd still consider moving back. When asked about trading for an edge, he said it'd have to be "the right edge," which...no kidding. I don't think he's just itching to trade away a 1st for Sam Hubbard.

I think a lot of the pressure has been taken off NVDA to have these 10-15% beats. Especially this quarter. It'll be more about guidance with Blackwell. The tech sector has been getting hammered all week, SMCI didn't help waiting until 4 minutes before to file their 10-K. That was dragging NVDA down. AGain~40-41B, 11B fom Blackwell and if the Margins stay closer to what management said vs expectations(~74 vs 71) then I think the strong demand for Blackwell could push it back near ATHs in the next week or two(and then probably back down). I think the next couple quarters are going to be bigger catalysts. NVDA now makes up 70% of TSMs CoWoS. Up from 40 two years ago to 60% last year. And that is really the main thing holding NVDA back right now. Not being able to meet the demand... I'm just just in awe of SMCI. I invested too heavily after ChatCCP came along...and then didn't sell at 66 or yesterday. They said nothing about the 10-K all day while they released these stupid tutorials...and then 4 minutes before the deadline. No release, 'the 10-K is on schedule,' just...letting people freak out about it. I know SMCI has a great product and I know based on their revenue(and projected revenue) they're undervalued and could easily see 100+ in the next few months, but it also seems like they need some better leadership. I was also stupid to hold...but I'll take stupid and lucky on this one.

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).

If you believe the Mavs GM...it actually sounds like they think this is their best chance to win a title. Kyrie has been pretty locked in and pretty good. And that team is more well rounded now. I'm still definitely going for the haul than the short term and unlikely title run. I just can't imagine what OKC would have given up for him(there is a suggestion in a link below). I think he's a little too similar to SGA, but worry about that later. They suggest Ant Edwards for Luka. That's one I don't know if Minnesota does. He's such a fun dude to watch, but I bet they think about it. Or Houston(though I don't know if Dallas would deal with their rivals). Both Houston and OKC include a lot of picks and young stars. Seguin could have been thrown in there. OKC, Jalen Williams stud and they have all those picks. Or Chet? It kinda feels like the possibilities seem outrageous now, but at the time only Anthony Edwards would have been a debate. It'll be interesting to revisit this in a year, two or more and see which team is better off, but as you alluded to, there's no shot this was the best Dallas could do. https://fansided.com/constructing-3-better-luka-doncic-trade-packages-mavs-easily-made-happen

Dallas probably gets more back in return for Luka after he signs that extension. Any team in the league would have given that to him...but with it signed, it just guarantees you have a 25(soon to be 26) year old Superstar who JUST took your team to the NBA Finals putting up ~34PPG and...by the way, the injuries...you better be right about that as Dallas....otherwise you just gave up a historic player who was playing a LOT of minutes and staying healthy for a player who is historically unreliable and injury prone and 6 years older. And I'd be shocked if they don't give AD that same extension after all of this. Comparing him to Zion...he consistently plays more minutes than Giannis. You gave up the potential of injuries for the guarantee of injuries. And the Beer thing, that was Michael Finley, it was after they won the West(or at least in the WCFs) and I don't know the context. Maybe something comes out...I'd just think you better try everything before you take this type of step. I'm thinking this deal would be on the table in a year from now. I think the Mavs actually made the argument(maybe believe it also) that they're closer with Kyrie as the primary ball handler and AD as their big. As for LeBron...I think a retirement this year would be shocking. He's still probably a top 10 player. Having Luka next to him, that may extend his career 2-3 more seasons(not to mention his son). I don't think he's going one and done with Bronnie....no matter how worthy he is of a roster spot. Hell, I expect Thanasis back next year. I get it with Luka, but you'd think at his age and coming off a finals run, you'd exhaust all other options. He could definitely become a Zion type of a Derek Rose type(more fluke than anything) type. At the moment though, he's one of the greatest offensive players in NBA history and just 25 years old. I'd be sick as a Mavs fan...even if this ends up being the right move.

Ah....I didn't realize that. I guess I was getting his timeline and Simmons mixed up. Tom and Jenkins can play there, but they leave behind massive holes. Tom more so than Jenkins, but you'd just be creative a massive hole at RT(or potentially LT as I think Tom ends up there). I think putting Monk in that conversation is putting a lot on Monk. I think this OL needs to get better. They graded out much better it seems the 2nd half of the season, but I don't trust the OL to hold up against good DLs. So taking Tom leaves you vulnerable to the more athletic edge rushers on the outside. Rhyan doesn't really fit the scheme at at Center. He's a bigger, slower, more physical guard. Hopefully Morgan can step up in his 2nd year and they can add another player via the draft or FA, but I'd be uncomfortable losing Myers and going into next year with the OL that finished the season(plus Morgan). I don't think that's the type of team that can hold up vs the Lions with Hutchinson, McNiel or as we saw, the Eagles.

I think the Center class looks bad because most of the guys who'll likely play Center from this class played OT in College. Mbow is a guy who could step in and be an immediate starter at center. Zabel can play probably anywhere, but could also be a Center. Charles Grant is another guy who looks like an NFL Center, though...probably not someone you'd want to start year one. It's certainly not a great class, but I think there are more options there when you look at smaller, mobile OTs. Dalman would be a great guy to give a 2/18M type deal, but the lack of guys who actually played Center in College or FAs could push his price up. I've seen some scouts really high on McLaughlin, the C from OSU. There's also the fact the Packers seemed to have a different opinion of Myers than most of us, so maybe he's brought back(though I think we'd be best served looking elsewhere). WR is tough, but Slaton could be a guy who just needs a better fit. BJ Hill is a really nice player who I would have thought was older. And again, if Calais Campbell is going to play for a few million dollars again next year, I'd like the Packers to bring him in. #1 graded DT vs the run by PFF and he'd have been by far our highest graded DL. Great locker room guy. Obviously not part of the future, but he just keeps playing well.

I think that's exactly what they need at WR and what they should be looking at. Not MVS, but they have a well rounded WR core. Watson taking that extra safety with him was why the offense opened up so much more with him on the field. A lot more room for Doubs, Reed, Wicks and the TEs to work. Obviously Higgins would be a great addition, but I'd prefer you put that money toward...Trey Smith or Ronnie Stanley(and I don't think we'll sign either).

Barron is also by most accounts a safety who can cover in the slot. A Brian Branch. An oustanding player, but after putting so many resources into safety last yer with a ~18M AAV signing in McKinney, a 2nd rd pick, a 4th and a 5th rd pick to move up for Williams, Oladapo...he's not the type of guy the Packers should be targeting at CB. Even if Barron can play CB...he'd be more of a Ronde Barber type. He's a zone corner. Texas dropped 7 and rushed 4 most of the year. They had a coulple of studs on that DL who were Freshmen and another a Soph. So they got pressure, but I don't think he's as good of a corner as Cooper DeJean and many didn't want DeJean as an outside CB. Safety, Star/Nickel, yeah, but not boundary CB. Press corners make more sense. Until we know what the actual cap is...which should be announced in the next week or so(maybe 2 weeks) and I'm guessing will be ~280 but could come in around 285...leaving a LOT of teams with a LOT of cap room, I still think it makes the most sense to keep Jaire one more year while adding a couple CBs. Thomas from FSU reminds me the most of Mitchell from last year. Revel, if he tests as expected has a Antonio Cromartie type profile. Morrison was on track to be a top 10 pick. Assuming we don't get a big upgrade long the DL, we're still going to need a vet. Doubt we'd go from Jaire to Asante Samuel Jr, Paulson Adebo, or get a vet and go with Stephon Gilmore. I don't think 17M is all that much to pay for a CB, especially as you have no depth there. At the very least, see how the market develops. You're in no rush to cut Jaire. If you can trade him, that's different, but I don't see anyone taking on that deal knowing he'll likely become a FA. Best case Rd1 Revel, Morrison, Trade down Rd2-Deon Walker, Zabel, Azareye'h Thomas Rd3-Mbow, Zy Alexander, Collins(DT Texas). A CB, DL and someone who can slide in and start at Guard or Center would be perfect. I think Revel will test great and Morrison will also be gone before us(and I don't think we trade up this year).. So I'm going with option B. Trade up and try and attack it with numbers. Easy to trade down in mocks, but these seemed like good deals(probably too good and one extra pick. Either 93 or 111 if not more, but that's what was offered. I don't like Amos. Should have just taken Thomas, but...it's an outline from a fansite, so...and then Kobe King. I think he could be a base 2-down starter. Not Yr1, but in another year. Combine changes all of this. Savion Williams runs a 4.4, he's an early 2nd. I really like Isiah Bond from UT. He's Jayden Reed, but with 4.3 speed IMO(And just not as tough, but a willing blocker). Deone Walker and Grey Zabel could make or break a draft. You could get a couple of 1st division starters, Zabel an AP at C/OG or a PB at OT. Change the names and I'm good, just...fine an impact starter on the OL, a high upside guy on the DL(both dominated the Sr Bowl) and at CB, wouldn't be surprised if Alexander is the better CB than Amos, but I'm going off projected draft status. Thoughts Louis? Any favorites?

Yeah, it looked like it was probably during Covid if at all, but...I just don't see the point in changing things up with him either way. Maybe if you have bad luck and you want to start stretching him out and having him go 3-4 innings once a week later in the year, fine, but I'd love to see him just get back to where he was last year coming in that huge role for us.

I don't know that it's better for your arm to get up and down and throw back to back days in the pen vs a scheduled start with 4-5 days of rest... I just don't know where this is coming from. Has anyone suggested he may be to the rotation from the Brewers? Not real worried about the fatigue from last year. They ued him a lot. I don't remember or know when he had TJ. You have a time frame for that?

There's definitely a profile over-production trend with him...and then you talk about fans being upset...they're going to be upset almost no matter what. Three of the players who are very viable picks in Rd1, Revel, Morrioson and Simmons, all guys who could have been top10(may still be) if not for injuries...well, they had injuries and missed much of the year. So if they don't come out of the gates strong, it'll be how Gute picks guys with injury histories(another issue with Gary). I'm certainly with you on the DL for reasons I've gone into. They impact the other 10 players more than any other defender if they're elite. No, I particularly dislike Tuimolau. I think he'll be a bust. Ivey is stiff and we've already got LVN who is more of an elephant in the 4-3, good vs the run, but doesn't have the best bend around the edge. I love Barron if he can be a boundary CB and I don't think he can. Revel, Simmons and Morrison, lets see how they test, but I'm good with those three, but if they test well, they're likely gone. Walker is one of my favorite players, but I'd look at moving down to 40 and pick him up. He has upside, OL, Zabel could be a day 1 starter and a Travis Frederick type Center(just in that he's moving to Center and a big of a surprise to go Rd 1). I see you have Scourton on there but no Stewart. DL-Kenneth Grant is another guy who could be available. I see a lot of Kenny Clark similarities.

1-This was the year that Bakh was going to be back at LT. He was "progressing well," and started week 1 at LT. Tom was the fill in at LT as a rookie the year before, so I think it was just timing. So Tom was getting all the reps at RT(actually battling for the job...which is a bit amusing) and they were using NIjman as the backup...and then even when Bakh got hurt, they kept playing both until Walker took the job and ran with it. There's LITTLE doubt Tom can play LT, but I think they just thought by that time, it better to leave Nijman/Walker at LT rather than flip them for positional value. 2-Yeah, you're right of course. But RT is becoming as important. The best DL are starting to line up on their left(So over the RT)...more and more. Josh Simmons would be an unpopular pick given the Josh Morgan pick(which I still think was a good pick, but when a guy doesn't perform Yr1...fans get anxious) but I'd be more than find with it. Unless something fluky happens and a guy like Jeanty is available, I'd take the best OL/DL/CB available. Looking at this draft waay too early, moving down 15 spots and adding two seconds or even moving down to the end of the 1st and adding a 2nd/3rd would be ideal. Josh Simmons did look really good at times. Revel, Morrison, there are a few guys in this draft with enormous upside who were potential top 10 picks but missed the past year due to injury. The combine will play as big of a role as ever this year...and many Packers fans will likely be upset as we drft a long lanky CB who was injured, another extremely talented edge who is raw and didn't have great college stats or an a OL who...may not step in and start year 1.

Yeah, it wasn't about him being a bust so much as...just several comments about our last 3 first and no mention of him. AV isn't a very good way to evaluate players either. I don't think it really shows how great Garrett has been. If this was Baseball I suspect it'd be ~60WAR or more and of the rest, maybe Stokes has 2.5 or so as a rookie, Stokes, Quay was best as a rookie, but in MLB terms, I think you have about 6-7 WAR combined. In fairness, Garrett was the 1st overall pick and we normally pick late and you have a pretty good chance to get a star early. Bosa, Hutch, Jevon Carter, all players who went in the top 10 for the 3 most physical teams in the NFC(Sewell is another) who changed their front. I still believe the Eagles make a move for one of the two(or three with Trey Hendrickson, but I'm not giving up a 2nd 1st for him). Gutey's comments. And remember, they were in on Mack and lost because the Raiders thought the Bears picks would be better; “When you trade a high pick for a veteran player, you’re trading a young, really good contract for a player who’s proven but is probably expensive,” Gutekunst mentioned. “I think you’ve got to weigh that. And if it’s the right player, if you feel like he can be a dynamic player who can change your football team, I think you’ve got to consider that because there’s not many of those guys out there. But I think you have to also understand what you’re giving up. They mention Josh Sweat, Mack among others as FA optins and then again, Garrett, Crosby and Hendrickson as trade options. Also worth noting, Myles Garrett, 92.5 PFF grade. #92.4 Pass Rush 2/211 Run D 78.4 #11/211(really well rounded). Maxx Crosby 74.1 35/211 overall, 70.1 43/211 73.0 Run Grade 24/211 Crosby was banged up and had his worst rated grades in a few years and a 1.5 years yonger than Garrett and over 3 years younger than Hendrickson. Trey Hendrickson 88.1 overall(8 of 211), 90.4 pass rush #5/211 Run D 65.9 67/211 And one last note, Packers DL was graded 11th coming into last season. Gary, Clark, Preston Smith, Wyatt, LVN, Preston Smith, Enagbare...should have been one of the ~10 best DLs. With one of these three, they almost certainly would be.

Yeah, but...teams don't do that and the Browns, Raiders...they don't trade players like that for conditional picks. A conditional 2nd. Why would they when there are so many who are willing to give up 2 1sts? I'm thinking Seattle for Adams, The Packers with the Saints, KC when they drafted Mahomes. I don't recall the Giants trade that netted tham multiple 1sts, the Texans did it with the Cards. Would you accept a 1st and then a conditional 2nd for a Myles Garrett or Maxx Crosby type player? Nick Bosa, maybe Chris Jones, Quinnen Williams, Micah Parsons, TJ Watt, Aiden Hutchinson definitely Dexter Lawrence I'd say Jevon Carter is...close to that level but not there yet. Jeffery Simmons, Barmore...Trayvon Walker are also probably guys who would comment a 1st, but not another first. Sure I'm missing plenty like Thibs from the Giants, DeForest Buckner. Oh, and Will Anderson is almost certainly someone who is worth two 1sts.... But say you have TJ Watt. Are you saying give us the 23rd pick and a 2nd next year just in case you suck? No, the potential that you end up with two premier picks is exactly what makes you take that pick. The NBA you protect your picks. For middling QBs, MAYBE and even then, it's tied to playing time more often than wins and losses. I don't remember one tied to wins or losses. Favre? Wentz and Rodgers were playing time. I think the idea makes sense, it's just not how NFL teams operate.

Long overdue. He played before the rules swung even more for the offenses with the illegal contract rules that came in around 2004 and the head-to-head, defenseless receiver. He was "just" 6' 210 and the Packers didn't have a viable #2 options until his last year and they got Robert Brooks, but he would still take a 4 yard hitch and pick up 10 yards finishing the run like Josh Jacobs just punishing CBs. And, of course, he could take the top off the defense as well. Gotta be the last Packers player who isn't active(Rodgers, maybe Adams) who should get in at the moment. We got Kramer and Butler in. Maybe Bakh will be healthy NEXT year and he'll finish with a good 4-5 year stretch to get into the HOF. I hear his workouts are going well and he's really ready to get back!

I think we could be a missing DL piece away. Putting the QB under pressure constantly? And they're going to double Garrett constantly. Now instead of Gary being one of the most doubled Edge rushers, he's getting 1 on 1s. And sure, I like LVN also. He's not talented like Garrett. Garrett is a HOF type talent. I think LVN COULD be a really good player. He's stiff, he doesn't bend well, but he could be a Preston Smith type player with more effort. He's not physically capable of beating guys and getting that clean rush and changing a possession like Garrett. Gary is...something has just been missing with him. He was playing at an elite level when he went down with that ACL. As for being 4.5 points better...we beat the Saints and 49ers 34-0 and 38-10 with Watson not catching a ball. He definitely changes the game when he's out there. He makes you respect the big play, but I think that stat may be a bit skewed. What's not skewed is 102.5 sacks in 8 years. That is Myles Garrett. He's a near lock to give you ~15 sacks and he plays the run. And to make one more connection to the Mack trade, I really believe our biggest...rivals in trading for him will be the Lions and Eagles. Both are so young, so talented and in good cap shape. The Eagles have less space, but guys like Slay come off, they've got about 40M in dead money net year. So you'd be keeping him away from other contenders(I'm sure there'd be AFC teams who'd want him). That's an ancillary benefit. Can you remember a time when an NFL team traded a 1st rd pick and they protected a 1st? I don't believe you can and that's half the reason you trade for future 1sts. There have been probably half a dozen trades in the last 10 years that have resulted in a team acquiring a top 10 pick the following year. I don't recall ever seeing a pick protected for the top 10 in the NFL. The closest I've seen have been conditional, but that's exclusively due to the Players performance, not the team's pick.

Everyone keeps forgetting about Wyatt! The last time there was a player of this caliber and the Packers were interested, it was Mack. The Raiders reportedly took the Bears offer because they thought the picks would be better, but when you add a DPOY caliber player, you tend to get better. The next two first we had were Rashan Gary and then we had the Saints 1st that year IIRC and picked Savage and the following year it was Jordan Love. You still make that deal. If the Packers are that convinced that Jordan Love would be a good starting QB, they could have moved up to get him. Garrett isn't 30. He just turned 29, but just as important, he's been extremely durable. Reggie was 32 when we signed him. This Packers defense is more talented that the Packers defense in the 90s without both Reggie and Garrett. There are only a handful of players I've give up two 1sts for. Wirfs or Sewell Maxx Crosby, guys like that, but Garrett has to be one of them. Just the deal the Bears did for Mack. It was something like the Bears got Mack a 2nd a 6th and they gave up 2 1sts, a 3rd and a 7th. I might have the late-round picks mixed up, but what are you waiting for? Being the youngest team in the league for a 3rd year? Sooner or later you start paying those young players or losing them. Probably a good idea to see if you can win now. You'll still have 7 picks to fill out the roster, you can also trade up or add picks. Trade for Garrett, hope Covington can get the rest of the DL to play with less pressure on them. Add Garrett with Edge Cooper, Evan Williams, this could easily be the top defense in the league next year.

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?

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.

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."

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.

-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.

It sure as hell did.