RSD1

Trade deals done: 0 Wars ended: 0 Major infrastructure bills passed: 0 New tax law enacted: 0 Border wall built: 0 miles Obamacare repealed: 0 times

Bloomberg Evening Briefing - 30/July/2025 The US famously bounced back from a pandemic recession that struck like a hammer blow in 2020. Fueled by a massive government rescue effort that pumped tremendous amounts of money into the economy, the nation was soon outpacing rivals in a return to growth. The country that saw more than a million people killed by Covid-19 not only avoided a depression, but eventually reached a level of employment so high it matched a half century-old record from when Richard Nixon was president. But that was then. For Donald Trump, it’s not Nixon but Gerald Ford that comes to mind this week. The president closes out his first 100 days in office able to claim almost-singlehanded responsibility for sending the S&P 500 Index down about 8%. It’s the worst first 100 days for markets since 1974, when Ford took over for his disgraced predecessor. And it gets worse. Unlike the churning US economy of the last half of the Biden administration, Trump now presides over the first US economic contraction since 2022. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product decreased an annualized 0.3% in the first quarter, well below average growth of about 3% in the prior two years. The uncertainty over Trump’s chaotic tariff strategy, his radical push to deport undocumented workers, legal immigrants and foreign students, his mass firings of federal employees and a sometimes overt disdain for the US Constitution have all unnerved investors who a few short months ago were singing his praises. It’s all combined to send the S&P 500 diving into its seventh-fastest correction since 1929. There was however some good news for Trump in today’s hard data, with consumer spending advancing more than economists had predicted. But that comes amid a parade of consumer sentiment surveys—including one yesterday—showing optimism nowhere to be found. Low-income Americans are already facing the hardship of high prices while wealthier individuals have been set back by this year’s drop in stock prices. And a closely watched measure of underlying inflation accelerated to a 3.5% pace in the first quarter—the most in a year. —David E. Rovella - Bloomberg News

I've been using Trump's right hand with used toilet paper for years already. Works almost as good at removing dingle berries as one of Trump's bibles made in China. Try it and you can thank me later.

Trump's recession will be officially announced on July 31. More winning than ever before!

Gotta give Musk credit for his tenacity. Still trying to polish a turd. Too much winning. More winning than anyone knows what to do with! Source: https://www.economist.com/business/2025/04/23/even-republicans-are-falling-out-of-love-with-tesla Apr 23rd 2025 Elon Musk is right to shift his focus back to carmaking “The future of Tesla is brighter than ever.” So declared Elon Musk during an earnings call on April 22nd. According to the carmaker’s boss, Tesla remains on course to become the world’s most valuable firm, worth as much as the next five companies combined, as it churns out fleets of autonomous taxis and armies of humanoid robots. As Mr Musk gazes into the future, however, investors remain transfixed by the car crash that is currently occurring at Tesla. Revenue from car sales in the first quarter was down by a fifth, year on year. Operating profit plummeted by two-thirds. Far from racing ahead, Tesla’s market value has fallen by roughly half since its peak of roughly $1.5trn in December. Earlier this month the company reported that it delivered just 337,000 vehicles in the quarter, 13% fewer than a year before and well below analysts’ expectations (see chart 1). In Europe, which accounts for around a fifth of sales, registrations of new Teslas slid by 40%. In America, the carmaker’s biggest market, sales fell by almost 9%, even as those of all electric vehicles rose by 11%. Can Tesla recover? Slumping sales partly reflect a backlash against the politics of Mr Musk, who has lately refashioned himself into a right-wing activist and nemesis of America’s “deep state”. Tesla’s showrooms have faced protests and arson attacks since Mr Musk took his chainsaw to the federal government as head of Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency. Some analysts had hoped that, at least in America, a boom in Tesla sales to right-wing consumers would balance out declining sales to left-wing ones. TD Cowen, an investment bank, recently estimated that although Mr Musk’s political activities could cut sales by more than 100,000 vehicles a year in America’s Democrat-leaning counties, they could boost them by twice that in Republican-leaning ones. That type of partisan rebalancing was on display last year as Mr Musk completed his maga conversion. Our analysis, drawing on figures from S&P Global, a data provider, suggests that Tesla’s sales shrank in left-leaning cities in 2024 while growing in right-leaning ones. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, which favoured Kamala Harris in the presidential election by nearly three-to-one, sales fell by more than 16% last year; in Tampa, which favoured Mr Trump by a wide margin, they rose by around 18%. Unfortunately for Mr Musk, even Republicans now appear to be spurning his evs. Trends in the used-car market suggest that a growing number of Tesla drivers in both blue and red states are putting their cars up for sale. Figures from MarketCheck, which tracks the inventories of more than 75,000 dealerships across America, show that listings of used Teslas have risen by two-thirds since the start of the year, twice as much as for other evs. Listings for the Model 3 have increased by 63%; those for the Model Y have rocketed by 80%. The pattern can be seen in both left-leaning states, such as Massachusetts and New York, and right-leaning ones, such as Indiana and South Carolina. That hints at a deeper problem for Tesla: stiffening competition. By contrast with its early years, when it was essentially unchallenged, the carmaker now faces serious threats from rivals such as General Motors (in America) and BYD (in China and elsewhere). It cannot afford a distracted boss. To investors’ relief, Mr Musk announced during the earnings call that he would now be spending “far more” of his time away from Washington and at the company. They will be hoping he can speedily reverse Tesla out of its mess.

From the Bloomberg Markets Daily email newsletter I received this morning: 100 days of whiplash Donald Trump promised Americans a “boom like no other” if they elected him president. But based on the stock market’s performance during his first 100 days in office, it depends on what you mean by “boom.” The action certainly has been explosive — just not in the way investors were hoping. By April 30, Trump will have closed out his first 100 days in office. Despite last week’s rally, the S&P 500 Index is down about 8% since his inauguration and on track for its worst run during a president’s first 100 days since Gerald Ford in 1974, following Richard Nixon’s resignation. “It was whiplash after whiplash after whiplash,” said Dave Lutz, macro strategist at JonesTrading and a 30-year Wall Street veteran. Few on Wall Street saw the U-turn coming after two straight years of over 20% gains and what was expected to be a pro-growth agenda. The uncertainty over tariffs, combined with the administration’s aggressive push to deport undocumented workers and its mass firings of federal employees, unnerved investors and sent the S&P 500 spinning into its seventh-fastest correction since 1929. “It was an extreme, for-the-textbooks, systematic risk in its purest form,” said Mark Malek, chief investment officer at Siebert. “The volatility has been wholly different from anything we have experienced in the past, and it indiscriminately spread through all sectors and asset classes like a wildfire, constantly being fueled by random sound bites and shifting policy moves.” Traders went all in on the America First bet immediately after Trump’s election victory, sending the S&P 500 to its best post-election gain ever. The thinking was the administration would loosen regulations and lower taxes, which would boost growth. But the president has instead focused on his tariff fight, sending markets spinning with each new announcement of levies on trade partners. The S&P 500 lost more than 10% in two sessions earlier this month after Trump imposed the steepest US tariffs in a century on April 2. It then soared a week later when the administration reversed direction and delayed most of the duties for 90 days. Stocks have bounced around since then, but traders have struggled to find a direction. “What he was elected for was ‘Make America Great Again,’ the ‘economy will be booming,’” said Eric Diton, president and managing director at Wealth Alliance. “But all the trade uncertainty has actually detracted from economic growth.” —Esha Dey

Worst April since The Great Depression. Winning, the likes of which the world has never seen before! --- Dow Headed for Worst April Since 1932 as Investors Send ‘No Confidence’ Signal Few think administration’s negotiations with trade partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain By Hannah Erin Lang - WSJ April 21, 2025 9:00 pm ET The Trump rout is taking on historic dimensions. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed almost 1,000 points on Monday and is headed for its worst April performance since 1932, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The S&P 500’s performance since Inauguration Day is now the worst for any president up to this point in data going back to 1928, according to Bespoke Investment Group. Worries about trade restrictions and the prospect of President Trump firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell have investors bracing for greater losses ahead. Corporate earnings reports are rolling in, along with executives’ tariff-dented outlooks for the months ahead. Few think the administration’s negotiations with trade partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain. Meanwhile, counterweights that usually strengthen when stocks fall—such as government bonds and the U.S. dollar—are also under pressure, leaving investors with few havens to wait out the storm. “It’s the hallmark of the ‘no confidence’ trade,” said Scott Ladner, chief investment officer at Horizon Investments. The Charlotte-based firm trimmed its U.S. equity position several weeks ago to favor more international stocks. “It’s impossible to commit capital to an economy that is unstable and unknowable because of policy structure.” Here’s how markets have reacted as threats have multiplied: STOCKS In the weeks after Donald Trump’s presidential victory, major U.S. stock indexes soared, lifted by investors’ hopes for tax cuts and a deregulatory push that could boost corporate earnings. But the administration instead pressed ahead with aggressive tariffs that threaten to raise prices and slow economic growth. Many investors still wrote off the president’s threats as mere bluster, a negotiating tactic meant to spur concessions from other countries. That changed on April 2, when Trump revealed steep tariffs that sent markets into a tailspin. TREASURYS Markets still haven’t recovered—even after the president rolled back and delayed many of his tariff plans. Typically, bond prices rise when stocks fall, offering a hedge for investors during stock market turmoil. But that hasn’t been the case in recent weeks. Yields on 10-year U.S. Treasurys, a key benchmark for borrowing costs, have increased 0.16 percentage points in April. Bond yields rise as prices fall, meaning investors are selling U.S. government bonds—widely considered one of the safest and most dependable assets—even when stocks are falling. THE DOLLAR Concerns about the economy, along with fears about Trump’s growing feud with the Fed, are weighing on the U.S. dollar. The ICE U.S. dollar index, a measure of the dollar against a basket of major currencies, slipped more than 1% on Monday to its lowest level in three years. GOLD With other defensive plays falling short, investors have piled into one of oldest hedges there is: gold. Future prices for the precious metal reached another all-time high on Monday. VIX The markets’ “fear gauge” remains elevated, with worries about the trade war and the broader economy adding up to expectations for more volatility ahead. SENTIMENT The mood on Wall Street is darkening as a result. Bearishness levels—or expectations that stock prices will fall—among ordinary investors have hovered above 50% for eight consecutive weeks, according to a weekly survey from the American Association of Individual Investors. That is the longest-lasting bear majority on record, the investor group said, based on data going back to 1987. Source: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/dow-jones-stocks-worst-april-1932-74fe82ac

Most shops are located in high-rent areas and also have running costs like staff, electricity, and so on, so they have no choice but to charge much higher prices per gram. Those prices are fine for tourists who are buying a gram or two and just want a convenient place to buy and smoke, but nearly all expats, as many have pointed out, buy online for about 5 percent of what the shops charge. Presumably, many of these shops are operating at a loss, but there’s long been speculation that some are intentionally doing so because they’re being used as money laundering fronts for other gray market business. Nobody knows for sure, but that’s always been the talk, mainly because it’s hard to understand how they survive while charging more per gram than even a dispensary in Amsterdam or New York.

LINE ID: @fh420

The quoted text below is from the article linked below, quoting an opinion about what might happen to the value of the dollar, equities, treasuries, and pretty much every other US asset in the financial markets if Trump fired Powell. It sounds like a pretty ominous prediction, but I’m wondering how realistic it actually is. Do the markets really care that much about Jerome Powell and his job, or whether the Fed has independence? I’m not sure what to think of the prediction. In my opinion, I don’t think investors are that concerned about the Fed having independence. In fact, a lot of investors don’t really like what the Fed does anyway, so perhaps the market would actually cheer it if Trump fires Powell and cuts interest rates by 200 basis points overnight. I realize there’s a lot of volatility in the market right now, which might suggest that the market is fearful of Powell being fired. That would indicate a possible negative response to his actual firing, but maybe the volatility is just due to the uncertainty. After Powell was fired, maybe the markets would stabilize and find a bottom following an initial sell-off. I don’t really know, and I’m not claiming to know, but I’d be interested to hear some other opinions, especially if anyone has any real understanding of the market dynamics of it beyond armchair speculation. --- Quoting the article: “Were Powell to be fired, the initial reaction would be a huge injection of volatility into financial markets, and the most dramatic rush to the exit from U.S. assets that it is possible to imagine,” said Michael Brown, a senior research strategist at Pepperstone, an Australian-based provider of trading services. “Lower, much lower, equities; Treasuries sold across the board; and, the dollar falling off a cliff,” Brown wrote in a note on Monday. Any sign of the longstanding, independent nature of the Fed coming under threat “would see investors across the globe selling every single U.S.-based asset that they have, and also poses the genuinely scary prospect of upending the entire way in which the global financial system operates. If this were to happen, then the reserve status of the dollar, and haven value of Treasuries, would be wiped out, probably forever in both cases.” --- Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-the-fire-powell-trade-could-look-like-as-trump-attacks-fed-chair-again-53511c3b

Of course, Trump wasn't screwing China when he just whacked them with 154% tariffs? Kettle black innit.

That’s all good, but it still comes across as Google Scholar and YouTube PhD info. I’m not saying any of your points are wrong, but it’s hard to take third-hand information too seriously. Even second-hand insights are often unreliable because they’re based on someone’s personal interpretation. You seem pretty keen on Colombia, and that’s fine, I’m just not. Sure, it has a few upsides, but there are too many downsides for me. It just feels far less balanced than a place like Thailand when you weigh the pros and cons. Like I said before, even a place like Spain would make more sense. Or spending part of the year in some of the more developed countries in Asia. For me, the ideal setup is to base yourself in a country that checks the most boxes, knowing no place is perfect, and then travel a few times a year to change the wallpaper. There’s no perfect country, and even if one came close, its climate wouldn’t be ideal year-round. That’s one of the main reasons I travel to escape the worst weather in the country I’m based in. Take Thailand for example: April and May are brutal in terms of heat, at least in my opinion. The rest of the year is mostly fine, apart from periods of extreme rain or awful air pollution. Anyway, to sum it up, anyone seriously considering Colombia really just needs to go and see it for themselves. No amount of research or advice can prepare someone for how they’ll actually feel in a place once they’re there. I’ve been to places people hated and I really liked, and the opposite has happened too. Personal preference plays a huge role in all of this. There are people who visit Thailand or Bangkok and can’t imagine living there, and yet for others, they’d rather live nowhere else.

Driving in Thailand is stressful. Would never do it for more than a day.

I’ve read your posts about Colombia and watched the video you shared about that apartment complex in the city you’re recommending. But I’m curious, have you actually been to Colombia or spent any amount of time there, or is this just anecdotal information you’ve picked up and are passing along? I don’t mean to sound judgmental, and I admit I haven’t been there myself, but my understanding is that it’s still a pretty dangerous country in many ways. Robberies seem to be common, and the crime can be physically violent, especially when someone wants something from you. That said, I’ve been curious about Colombia myself. I’ve heard good things about the people, the food, climate, and I’ve met some really nice Colombians. But I think there are still a lot of downsides to living there, and it’s not as straightforward as just low cost-of-living. Sure, it’s affordable, but so are other places like Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Ecuador, Mexico, etc, but I wouldn’t want to live in any of those places either. Unless you’re in one of the major cities in Colombia, you’re probably quite limited in terms of shopping and food choices, availability of imported goods, general lifestyle options, reliability of services, internet, and so on. And while the big cities do offer more variety, they’re also where the risks can be highest in terms of crime. On the other hand, the more remote areas might be safer, but they also risk being boring or too limited, even if they’re cheap and have a decent climate. And realistically, if you want to come and go from the country, you still have to go through those big, dangerous cities anyway. If you’re seriously suggesting Colombia as a place to live, I’d recommend digging a little deeper into the realities on the ground. There’s a guy on YouTube with a channel called "Life with David", an American with Latino roots who moved to Colombia and has been living there for a while. He’s posted a lot of very straight-up videos about life there, and he doesn’t shy away from talking about the dangers. After watching a few of his videos, I came away feeling like it’s a very edgy place to live, which kind of cooled my interest. You could probably find a similar quality of life in Spain, for example, but without all the risk. You’d be in Europe, with better infrastructure, reliable healthcare, solid services, and a more stable environment overall. Probably a better long-term option than Colombia.

DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress Elon Musk now says his group will produce only 15 percent of the savings it promised. But even that estimate is inflated with errors and guesswork. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has produced an accounting of impressive-sounding budget cuts using inflated and speculative figures, even claiming credit for canceling a contract that did not exist. By David A. Fahrenthold and Jeremy Singer-Vine - The reporters have been examining the details of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and its online ledger of purported savings. April 13, 2025 Last week, Elon Musk indicated for the first time that his Department of Government Efficiency was falling short of its goal. He previously said his powerful budget-cutting team could reduce the next fiscal year’s federal budget by $1 trillion, and do it by Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Instead, in a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Mr. Musk said that he anticipated the group would save about $150 billion, 85 percent less than its objective. Even that figure may be too high, according to a New York Times analysis of DOGE’s claims. That’s because, when Mr. Musk’s group tallies up its savings so far, it inflates its progress by including billion-dollar errors, by counting spending that will not happen in the next fiscal year — and by making guesses about spending that might not happen at all. One of the group’s largest claims, in fact, involves canceling a contract that did not exist. Although the government says it had merely asked for proposals in that case, and had not settled on a vendor or a price, Mr. Musk’s group ignored that uncertainty and assigned itself a large and very specific amount of credit for canceling it. It said it had saved exactly $318,310,328.30. Mr. Musk’s group has now triggered mass firings across the government, and sharp cutbacks in humanitarian aid around the world. Mr. Musk has justified those disruptions with two promises: that the group would be transparent, and that it would achieve budget cuts that others called impossible. Now, watching the group pare back its aims and puff up its progress, some of its allies have grown doubtful about both. “They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” said Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.” Mr. Musk’s group did not respond to questions about its claims sent via X, his social-media platform. Mr. Musk previously acknowledged the group might make errors but said they would be corrected. The White House press office defended the team, saying it had compiled “massive accomplishments,” but declined to address specific instances where the group seemed to have inflated its progress. Mr. Musk actually promised an even larger reduction last year. When he was Mr. Trump’s most prominent supporter on the campaign trail, he said he could cut $2 trillion from a federal budget of about $7 trillion. After Mr. Trump was elected and Mr. Musk’s group began its work, Mr. Musk lowered that goal to $1 trillion. Even after Mr. Musk’s comments in Thursday’s cabinet meeting, a White House official indicated that this target had not changed. Budget analysts had been deeply skeptical of these claims, saying it would be difficult to cut that much without disrupting government services even further, or drastically altering popular benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Musk’s group has provided an online ledger of its budget cuts, which it calls the “Wall of Receipts.” The site was last updated on Tuesday, to show an “estimated savings” of $150 billion. The ledger is riddled with omissions and flaws. While Mr. Musk said on Thursday that his group would save $150 billion in fiscal 2026 alone, the website does not say explicitly when its savings would be realized. The site also gives no identifying details about $92 billion of its claimed savings, which is more than 60 percent of the total. The rest of the savings are itemized, attributed to cancellations of specific federal grants, contracts or office leases. But these detailed listings have been plagued with data errors, which have inflated the group’s savings by billions. DOGE’s $150 Billion in Claimed Savings Is Short on Detail On its website, the Department of Government Efficiency claims to have saved $150 billion in federal spending. As of early April, however, it has provided receipt-level breakdowns for less than 40 percent of that amount. Mr. Musk’s group has deleted some of its original errors, like entries that triple-counted the same savings, a claim that confused “billion” with “million,” and items that claimed credit for canceling contracts that ended when George W. Bush was president. Still, some expensive mistakes remain. The second-largest savings that the group lists on its site comes from a canceled I.R.S. contract that DOGE says saved $1.9 billion. But the contract it cites was actually canceled when Joseph R. Biden Jr. was president. The third-largest savings that the group claims comes from a canceled grant to a vaccine nonprofit. Mr. Musk’s group says that saved $1.75 billion. But the nonprofit said it had actually been paid in full, so the savings was $0. In other cases, the itemized claims include “savings” that would not happen in fiscal 2026 — or might not happen at all. They start with the largest single savings on the group’s website. Mr. Musk’s team says it saved $2.9 billion by canceling a contract for a huge shelter in West Texas to house migrant children who crossed the border alone. That figure is pumped up by assuming things that might never happen, according to a New York Times analysis of federal contracting data and interviews with people familiar with that contract who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to discuss it with members of the media. One assumption was that the government was going to renew the contract every year for three more years. Another was that the shelter was going to hold hundreds of children every day from 2023 to 2028, triggering a higher payment rate. Both of those assumptions seem less than guaranteed, given that the number of unaccompanied child migrants began falling last year. Around the country, shelters like this had emptied out even before Mr. Trump took office. The Texas shelter had been empty since March 2024. The government paid a lower rate of $18 million per month to keep it on standby, compared to $55 million per month if the facility had been full, people familiar with the contract said. By canceling the contract, the government did save the cost of keeping the facility ready until it expired later this year. But only a fraction of that money — about $27 million — would count as savings in fiscal 2026. That was about 1 percent of the savings that Mr. Musk’s group had claimed. Nat Malkus, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said this approach — casting uncertain events as certain — was common in the data published by Mr. Musk’s group. “It’s like if your kid drops out of college, and you tell your wife, ‘Whoa, we saved money on medical school!’ Well, that doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the same idea,” Mr. Malkus said. “How do you call it savings?” In another example, Mr. Musk’s group said it had saved $285 million by canceling a contract with a South Dakota company, Project Solutions Inc., to perform safety inspections in federally subsidized apartment buildings. But that presumed the government would spend money it had not promised to spend. Robin Miller, a Project Solutions manager, said that the higher figure was calculated using a “ceiling value” — the maximum amount that the government could pay. In reality, she said, the government had agreed to pay only $29 million, of which $1.8 million had been disbursed, and another $3 million was owed for completed work. Ms. Miller said her company supported Mr. Musk’s mission, but his group had its facts wrong in this case. “If it’s not going to be used, it wasn’t truly money saved,” she said. In any event, she said, there would not have been much savings in the period Mr. Musk was focused on: The contract would end on Oct. 3, 2025, just three days into the next fiscal year. Mr. Musk’s group also claimed credit for canceling a contract that was not a contract at all. It involved a request for proposal that the Office of Personnel Management had published, seeking bids for help with human-resources work. When announcing these requests, government agencies describe the work they want done. Contractors submit proposals, with both a plan and a price. The government can choose one vendor, or several. Even after that, it often negotiates with them to push the price below their original bids. Details about this particular request were scarce: Mr. Musk’s group provided a tracking number for the request, 47QFEA24K0008. But The New York Times was not able to find that number in databases of previous government solicitations. The Office of Personnel Management declined to release the request, or say what it had planned to spend on the contract, nor would the office say when it planned to choose a contractor. Despite that uncertainty, Mr. Musk’s calculated the savings involved in that cancellation down to the cent. (It later rounded the claim to an even dollar: $318,310,328.) “Garbage,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor who studies federal contracting at George Washington University. He said it was far too early to know for sure what the government was going to spend — especially in the year that Mr. Musk had targeted. What if the bidders competed to drive the price lower? What if a losing bidder protested, and then the whole thing got canceled? “You don’t know what’s going to happen,” Mr. Schooner said. “It’s silly.” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/us/politics/doge-contracts-savings.html

Trump’s sweeping tariffs, now standing at 20% on most imports and up to 145% on Chinese goods, are meant to revive American manufacturing by making foreign products costlier and enticing firms to build factories in the US. But this plan is flawed and already buckling under economic pressure, cultural shifts, and Trump’s unpredictable leadership. Instead of bringing jobs and growth, it looks set to punish consumers and drive away investment. Prices are rising for basics like coffee, clothing, and many electronics, adding anywhere from $1,300 to $3,800 average a year to household budgets. By 2026, inflation could jump up another 1.5% from these tariffs, while tariff retaliation from China and Canada threatens 740,000 US jobs and could shave 1.3% off American GDP. Farmers are already taking a hit, too. China’s 125% tariffs on US soybean and pork exports to China are crushing rural exporters and pushing grocery prices even higher. Yet Trump still banks on a fantasy that Americans will return to factory floors and companies will risk investing billions on building plants in the US. But the economy has moved on. Services now make up 80% of American GDP, and manufacturing jobs, once 30% of employment in 1970, are down to just 8%. These jobs offer low wages, tough conditions, and little growth potential. Most workers who would be filling those types of jobs now lean toward tech, retail, or gig jobs. Automation cuts factory worker roles even further, weakening Trump’s nostalgic vision. And a new factory can cost up to $10 billion to build, a bet most CEOs will not take lightly. His constant policy reversals only add to the confusion. In 2018, tariff uncertainty froze $40 billion in new project investments. Now, US investment could drop another 15%-20%, with companies eyeing more stable countries like Singapore or Mexico. Corruption rumors make it worse. Exemptions may favor Trump donors or his international real estate partners, tilting the market. Small importers get crushed. Big firms may shift billions to fairer systems in the EU or India. Voters expected jobs and cheaper goods, but rising prices and favoritism have left many already feeling burned. So what happens if Trump's dream of American manufacturing glory just no longer fits the reality of a modern economy?

Albert Einstein: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” --- Maher then told Bannon that he "brought a copy" of the Constitution to the show, and proceeded to read the 22nd Amendment aloud. "Amendment 22. No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice," Maher read, adding, "And yet you keep talking about Trump's — maybe you should have this," before handing the copy of the Constitution to Bannon. The former Trump advisor clarified that "President Trump didn't bring up running for a third term," and that it was himself and others who were the ones who brought up the idea. "President Trump is going to run for a third term, and President Trump is going to be elected again on the afternoon of January 20th of 2029. He's going to be President of the United States," Bannon asserted. "OK, but the thing I just read in there," Maher replied, pointing at the Constitution. "It seemed like there was no wiggle room there, it seemed like it was just, you know, eight or ten words that said only two times." Bannon told Maher that "we have a team of people" who are working on reviewing the amendment. "How can a team do something about that? I don't care if the team is twelve trillion people, the words are still the words," Maher asked. Bannon noted that there are currently "120 lawsuits on what President Trump is doing for his Article II rights," and that those who are suing Trump right now are doing so based off of their own interpretation of the Constitution. While holding up a copy of the Constitution, Bannon said, "The interpretation of this [the U.S. Constitution] is open for interpretation." "How could it be open — could I have it back?" Maher responded, reaching over to take back the copy of the Constitution he gave Bannon. The late-night host, laughing along with the audience, then went through every word of the 22nd Amendment with Bannon. "I don't see what the ‘team’ is finding," Maher told Bannon, adding that the two will just have to "disagree" on the topic. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-is-going-to-run-for-third-term-and-is-going-to-win-bannon-insists-to-bill-maher-on-january-20-2029-hes-gonna-be-president/ https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-going-run-third-term-steve-bannon-tells-bill-maher

Trump pausing tariffs on smartphone and computer components (including semiconductor chips) in his trade war with China means he’s already blinked on 25% of US imports from China, and those are among the most important products the US receives from China. The next question is whether the Chinese will back down on any of the tariffs they’ve already imposed on US goods entering China. Perhaps they won’t pause any of them at all if they decide to use this opportunity to teach the US a lesson in “The Art of War.”

There are so many opinions floating around right now about Trump's self inflicted trade war, mostly about Trump’s intentions, what he understands and what he doesn’t, what he’s trying to achieve, how much of it is ego, bullying, bravado, and so on. But at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is: when and how does this end? I think the simple answer is that it ends very soon, probably next week, because both the US financial markets and the US government’s sovereign debt markets (Treasuries) are now hemorrhaging and are in free fall, and that’s just not sustainable for more than a minute. If it’s allowed to fester for too long, it could become genuinely malignant. As for how it ends, I suspect Trump blinks first. The Chinese are in a stronger position financially and economically. They aren't facing the same financial markets carnage and can wait this out far longer than Trump or the US can, plus the Chinese are used to economic pain, whereas the US isn't. So what I think happens is Trump, pretending to be the great dealmaker, offers China an olive branch next week by announcing a 60 or 90-day pause on the tariffs, giving both sides time to negotiate a deal. Most likely, it’ll just be him kicking the can down the road with no real agreement ever to follow. But in the meantime, the markets will rally, treasury yields will settle, and he’ll be seen as being sensible, at least in the moment. As for the tariffs themselves, it buys him time to spin the narrative, confuse the American public to the point where no one really understands what’s going on anymore, eventually Americans move onto the next big news cycle topic and the whole situation fades away, more or less back to where things were before he started this trade war that he can’t possibly win. Just political theatre and market pain for nothing, but no real progress is ever made on the large trade deficit between the US and China. And the biggest losers in all this? All the investors who panicked and sold out and liquidated their financial positions, thinking the American economy was about to collapse. One other possibility is: Trump has repeatedly expressed his strong desire for the Fed to cut interest rates now, ideally by at least another full percentage point. So far, the Fed has largely ignored those signals, and there’s not much Trump can do about it legally, unless he’s willing to cross more legal lines. But if the stock market continues to tank and the sell-off in treasuries intensifies as a result of Trump’s trade war, it could eventually corner the Fed into action. If things spiral far enough, the Fed might feel compelled to step in and cut rates, effectively reviving what’s known as "The Fed Put", like what happened during the COVID crash, when emergency rate cuts turned the markets around almost overnight. That could be Trump’s hidden play in all this. Knowing he can't win a trade war with China, but if he drags this out long enough and triggers a rate cut, he could then swoop in, end the trade war, and claim victory, thus restoring confidence to the US financial markets, and inflation expectations become re-anchored again, just as rates fall. It’s speculative, but not outside the realm of possibility. If he pushes things far enough, it just might work for his agenda on cutting interest rates and perhaps he's merely using his illusive trade war with China as the red herring to do it.

I’ve seen a lot of weed sellers in Thailand offering trim and shake at very low prices. I think there’s already a consumer market for it. People on a tight budget or those who aren’t too fussed about flowers probably go for it. With trim, you don’t even need to bother grinding it, and it’s great for use in a dry herb vaporiser too. One of the sellers I buy from gave me some to try as a free sample once. It came from one of the same plants they use for their high potency flowers, and I’ve got to admit, it had really good strength. I haven’t bought any myself yet, but if you know it’s coming from a strong strain, then there’s nothing wrong with it. It should still pack a solid punch.

There are quite a few hospices up in the north. I believe there’s a fairly well-known one run by a foreigner that I’ve seen mentioned on this forum before. As for the weed side of things, that’s the easy bit. You can get that anywhere. Though smoking it probably isn’t ideal for him at this stage. The coughing alone could be rough on him, and most facilities likely wouldn’t allow it anyway since the smoke could bother other residents. The best option would be to go to one of the cannabis shops and have them brew up a strong, potent cannabis oil for him to take as an edible. That way he can dose up all day long without disturbing anyone, and live out the rest of his time in whichever hospice he prefers. Have a look at a couple of places – one called Care Resort Chiang Mai, which I think is run by a British bloke, and another called Vivobene Village, which is run by a Swiss guy.

Fully agree, I do exactly the same. In my experience, you’ll never get a completely accurate prescription from any of the shops. Any Eye Department in a hospital should be able to give you a proper one. If you’re in Bangkok and on a budget, Bangkok Christian Hospital is a good option, not expensive. Then you can order your glasses online from Zenni. They get it right every time. One other thing to keep in mind when testing for reading glasses, make sure that whatever you’re reading from is held at a distance of about 30 centimetres from your eyes. The person conducting the test might not pay much attention to that, but it’s really important because that’s the standard reading distance used to determine the correct prescription. You can use a book, phone screen or anything similar, just make sure the print is relatively small and held at 30 centimetres. That should give you a reliable result.