38 minutes ago, Liam S said:

The markets down bigger than previous days today so far. Seems like reality has set in that these tariffs will probably go ahead. I imagine the American markets will be similar so today will be a big test of Trump can ignore the noise and stick with the plan

It’s a complete disaster. If it’s not scaled back things are going to get really bad. Someone is dumping US bonds in the background too, which are usually a safe investment during economic turmoil. Probably going to get even worse when the retaliatory tariffs are announced.

If the Trump adminstration holds this course they will very quickly go down as one of the most financially incapable administrations in history. They've already turned a good-performing market into one of the worst crashes in its history in an entirely self-inflicted move, so they're arguably already there.

I have to imagine that business interests (outside the clique of insiders playing the market) are going to lean heavily on them in the next few weeks and government interventions both in the US and abroad will stop any fantasies of this being some accelerationist strategy that collapses the system.

You can never fully second guess certain things and obviously people are negotiating for a reason and who knows what is being offered and might be agreed but really I don’t see why there would be any real change of course. It’s a philosophy a plan you have to carry it out. You can’t abandon it because it’s causing disruption this was unavoidable

Seems like most markets have recovered from the initial unnecessary panicking today.

The BBC are still reporting markets down huge and Nasdaq down 5% when it’s now UP

It’s my belief that the elite prefer the world order as it is but ultimately the wealthy can adapt to any situation and once they accept they cannot manipulate Trump to change course they will give up on manipulating the markets

Nasdaq now up 4% from being down 5% 50 minutes ago, 9% swing. You don’t see that every day

Edited April 7Apr 7 by Liam S

Not sure what is going on a lot of crazy movement. Will have to let it play out. I’m assuming false information caused some sort of spike in activity

26 minutes ago, Liam S said:

Not sure what is going on a lot of crazy movement. Will have to let it play out. I’m assuming false information caused some sort of spike in activity

Stocks rose as there were rumours of a tariff pause. Now they’ve fallen again as that was fake news. The markets are open to manipulation at the moment which is not good.

There’s no global conspiracy. Most people don’t want tariffs as it’s bad for growth. Chances of a recession are huge at the moment and all currently self inflicted.

1 hour ago, Rooney said:

Stocks rose as there were rumours of a tariff pause. Now they’ve fallen again as that was fake news. The markets are open to manipulation at the moment which is not good.

There’s no global conspiracy. Most people don’t want tariffs as it’s bad for growth. Chances of a recession are huge at the moment and all currently self inflicted.

It’s about a philosophy change. Growth and all this talk is for the talking heads in reality there is a clear pattern. The world order is that the rich get richer at the expense of the middle class. In fact you could argue the trend is that the middle class essentially are being slowly eradicated. You have inequality growing at a fast rate. So clearly it’s not a system working for the majority of people. THEN you look at countries. American debt was 5 trillion in 1999 it’s now 33 trillion. UK debt was 660 million it’s now close to 3 trillion.

If a system that is increasing debt rapidly (which restricts public spending and leads to such things as austerity) and a system that is also creating a much bigger divide in inequality it then begs the question who the hell is it benefitting? The Vietnamese workers earning £50 a month? I don’t think so. It’s a broken system where pseudo intellectuals get on TV and tell people it’s good for everyone due to lower prices. It’s complete nonsense. It needed an overhaul and this is the blueprint. Stock market losing 20% of its value mostly just effects people who can afford to lose it quite frankly. For most people if you’re planning to just leave it there forever anyway you didn’t really lose anything and it’ll probably recover one day anyway. If things continued on the path they were then China and India would be having their economies and military paid for by US and European debt. That’s an insane situation.

For Liam!!

17 minutes ago, Liam S said:

It’s about a philosophy change. Growth and all this talk is for the talking heads in reality there is a clear pattern. The world order is that the rich get richer at the expense of the middle class. In fact you could argue the trend is that the middle class essentially are being slowly eradicated. You have inequality growing at a fast rate. So clearly it’s not a system working for the majority of people. THEN you look at countries. American debt was 5 trillion in 1999 it’s now 33 trillion. UK debt was 660 million it’s now close to 3 trillion.

If a system that is increasing debt rapidly (which restricts public spending and leads to such things as austerity) and a system that is also creating a much bigger divide in inequality it then begs the question who the hell is it benefitting? The Vietnamese workers earning £50 a month? I don’t think so. It’s a broken system where pseudo intellectuals get on TV and tell people it’s good for everyone due to lower prices. It’s complete nonsense. It needed an overhaul and this is the blueprint. Stock market losing 20% of its value mostly just effects people who can afford to lose it quite frankly. For most people if you’re planning to just leave it there forever anyway you didn’t really lose anything and it’ll probably recover one day anyway. If things continued on the path they were then China and India would be having their economies and military paid for by US and European debt. That’s an insane situation.

And who do you think gains from a stock sell and burn off!? Exactly like what happened with Brexit, the people closely connected her either richer and you end up with an oligarch situation like Russia.

Stocks and shares affect everyone and it shows the naivety. For starters you’ll contribute to a pension, which will be invested and currently tanking value. Of course plenty of time to grow again but slightly unfortunate if you’re due to retire in 2025. Likewise if a companies share price dwindles then the company is more inclined to reduce costs and headcount. Likewise people are now forecasting a US recession, which as we know will then spiral globally.

People live their entire lives on credit which is not good, but the answer to solving these situations is not a self imposed self destruct button where everyone loses!

50 minutes ago, Rooney said:

And who do you think gains from a stock sell and burn off!? Exactly like what happened with Brexit, the people closely connected her either richer and you end up with an oligarch situation like Russia.

Stocks and shares affect everyone and it shows the naivety. For starters you’ll contribute to a pension, which will be invested and currently tanking value. Of course plenty of time to grow again but slightly unfortunate if you’re due to retire in 2025. Likewise if a companies share price dwindles then the company is more inclined to reduce costs and headcount. Likewise people are now forecasting a US recession, which as we know will then spiral globally.

People live their entire lives on credit which is not good, but the answer to solving these situations is not a self imposed self destruct button where everyone loses!

Mate the rich own 90% of stocks as it is. To believe poor people lose from a sell off and rich benefit is just not reality. Pensions and such are becoming at risk the other way. We’re already seeing Labour trying to slash the welfare bill. Pensions aren’t far away. And the stock market losing value doesn’t necessarily effect pensions anyway.

The reality is Apple made 180 billion profit last year. Nike made 23 billion.

How does that work?

$250 for trainers. Take out cuts for small retailers and such let’s say $150 of that goes to the rich. The average person is transferring their wealth to Nike who give a large amount to already rich athletes so very few people profit they’re already wealthy and the average person is spending $250 on shoes that some Vietnamese guys made for $15

It’s the same formula everywhere give or take. Are Nike going to make those trainers $350 or are they going to make less profit? Will they give LeBron less money? That’s all that will happen. There isn’t unlimited money. We have a system that syphons money to the rich from everyone else. The other system isn’t perfect but it allows for people to at least own their own homes, have a better standard of living and not see their countries waste their taxes on funding the Chinese military.

You appear to have entirely forgotten about non-state pensions. We’re not talking about the UK state pension, that’s just straight up taxpayer funded. Roo is on about private pensions. The big funds have countless billions invested in stocks.

I say „forgotten“ but given the rest of your posts in this thread it’s probably more accurate to say „didn’t know“

11 minutes ago, Liam S said:

Mate the rich own 90% of stocks as it is. To believe poor people lose from a sell off and rich benefit is just not reality. Pensions and such are becoming at risk the other way. We’re already seeing Labour trying to slash the welfare bill. Pensions aren’t far away. And the stock market losing value doesn’t necessarily effect pensions anyway.

The reality is Apple made 180 billion profit last year. Nike made 23 billion.

How does that work?

$250 for trainers. Take out cuts for small retailers and such let’s say $150 of that goes to the rich. The average person is transferring their wealth to Nike who give a large amount to already rich athletes so very few people profit they’re already wealthy and the average person is spending $250 on shoes that some Vietnamese guys made for $15

It’s the same formula everywhere give or take. Are Nike going to make those trainers $350 or are they going to make less profit? Will they give LeBron less money? That’s all that will happen. There isn’t unlimited money. We have a system that syphons money to the rich from everyone else. The other system isn’t perfect but it allows for people to at least own their own homes, have a better standard of living and not see their countries waste their taxes on funding the Chinese military.

Anyone who has saved or has a pension likely has some of their value invested in the stock market as it has been a mostly reliable way to grow savings faster than interest. That can still be true with the rich owning 90% of the stock market, they own a similar percentage of all wealth. Sure, investments go down as well as up, but it's also widely accepted that intentionally crashing the markets is a pain point that is unacceptable and over here saw a PM get removed from power.

I guess what I'm struggling to see is how you get from Step 1, where we are, to the 'other system' that you describe in your last sentence, and if that is even better with people's savings taking a huge hit. Especially when Trump is not a proponent of such a system (only Americans will benefit and only those in the types of jobs he wants to bring back), and does not have the power alone to make his strategy bring the benefits that he claims it will.

A far more likely route out of this is that markets react to slow the pain, banks introduce the latest version of QE, Trump eventually has to abandon his strategy, everything settles down under a further entrenched neoliberal consensus and everyone is slightly worse off than before with the rich who managed to buy into this market dip the only beneficiaries.

(true societal change to achieve better living standards and less corporate exploitation in general comes about from just straight up making people's living standards better, in line with the markets until they are accessible to all)

20 minutes ago, Silas said:

You appear to have entirely forgotten about non-state pensions. We’re not talking about the UK state pension, that’s just straight up taxpayer funded. Roo is on about private pensions. The big funds have countless billions invested in stocks.

I say „forgotten“ but given the rest of your posts in this thread it’s probably more accurate to say „didn’t know“

Or I’m making the point that pensions are at risk if a country loses jobs and has huge debt continually increasing..referring to the state pension. Who is going to fund it if we keep going in the direction it’s going? If you can start going after disabled people then pensioners are next. Private pensions can be protected if need be but they use the money in stocks to gain on them anyway right? It’s a risk. You can make safe investments or risky investments. I don’t think we should continue on a terrible path because others took a risk

23 minutes ago, Iz 🌟 said:

Anyone who has saved or has a pension likely has some of their value invested in the stock market as it has been a mostly reliable way to grow savings faster than interest. That can still be true with the rich owning 90% of the stock market, they own a similar percentage of all wealth. Sure, investments go down as well as up, but it's also widely accepted that intentionally crashing the markets is a pain point that is unacceptable and over here saw a PM get removed from power.

I guess what I'm struggling to see is how you get from Step 1, where we are, to the 'other system' that you describe in your last sentence, and if that is even better with people's savings taking a huge hit. Especially when Trump is not a proponent of such a system (only Americans will benefit and only those in the types of jobs he wants to bring back), and does not have the power alone to make his strategy bring the benefits that he claims it will.

A far more likely route out of this is that markets react to slow the pain, banks introduce the latest version of QE, Trump eventually has to abandon his strategy, everything settles down under a further entrenched neoliberal consensus and everyone is slightly worse off than before with the rich who managed to buy into this market dip the only beneficiaries.

(true societal change to achieve better living standards and less corporate exploitation in general comes about from just straight up making people's living standards better, in line with the markets until they are accessible to all)

Yeah Trump is doing it in America’s interest but if it works everybody else will follow. I think it’s just a lot of hysteria and panicking out there by people who can’t see outside the current system as it is. Ultimately I think many huge companies will make less profits at the expense of more tax and better wages and overall this can be redistributed by the Gov this is a transfer wealth that keeps the middle class and gives a better standard of life to the working class. To me Rooney was maybe giving a roundabout argument for trickle down economists. If thinking Nike losing stock value leads to firing workers then really it’s just a defense of trickle down economics which doesn’t really work. These companies aren’t struggling. This is not a perfect solution but it’s the only solution and nobody has an alternative because there isn’t one. I’ve already seen Labour figures agreeing globalisation hasn’t worked and it’s ending so maybe it’s just others wanting someone like Trump to take the risk first

47 minutes ago, Liam S said:

Yeah Trump is doing it in America’s interest but if it works everybody else will follow. I think it’s just a lot of hysteria and panicking out there by people who can’t see outside the current system as it is. Ultimately I think many huge companies will make less profits at the expense of more tax and better wages and overall this can be redistributed by the Gov this is a transfer wealth that keeps the middle class and gives a better standard of life to the working class. To me Rooney was maybe giving a roundabout argument for trickle down economists. If thinking Nike losing stock value leads to firing workers then really it’s just a defense of trickle down economics which doesn’t really work. These companies aren’t struggling. This is not a perfect solution but it’s the only solution and nobody has an alternative because there isn’t one. I’ve already seen Labour figures agreeing globalisation hasn’t worked and it’s ending so maybe it’s just others wanting someone like Trump to take the risk first

A company makes less profit, so they either reduce supplier costs, make higher prices, find efficency savings or absorb some of the costs. The reality is companies will do a combination of all 4. I've asked this before, but what secto/business area do you work in? Most companies make billions of profit and sure you can call it greed and I would not disagree with that, but they have a board and shareholders. To entice investment they will promise profits. If a company isn't making good profits an investor/fund will move their money elsewhere. That's without any category/market challenges, inflationary costs or consumer spending habits. To think your suggestion of Nike will absorb 25-50% extra costs is ludacris. They might absorb a portion of it, but the rest will either be passed on to the consumers or they will squeeze

The state pension isn't at risk because of the stock market. They are a cost of the State because it's free money. You're regularly critical of the Labour government who have just increased employer NI contributions and again, companies will either absorb the costs or find savings. You seem to be under the impression there's gonna be a mass exodus of jobs which is not going to happen by people moving manufacturing elsewhere. This current economic situation (which is all self inflicted btw) is likely to lead to global economic downturn and in turn bring about a recession which = job cuts. Everyone has a private pension and it is invested in stocks, indexs, currency etc. and over the space of a week its lost at least 10% in value which is disasterous.

It's not the only solution though. It's far from the only solution (to I assume late-stage capitalism and the specifically American problem of corporations holding control over their governance). Effective corporate regulation would be a far more effective and delicate operation to move the US towards an economy that works for the people and the politicians they choose to elect.

Most forms of governance keep markets working - full-blown socialism still has markets. The stocks aren't the enemy of the people. Globalisation isn't either (also it's not ending, as soon as Trump's measures are removed it's all back on), the only route to a fair and just world is through international cooperation, as with strategies like Trump's isolationism there will always be an other that is a 'threat' to prosperity.

Also virtually no one in politics is sharing Trump's view on this, any agreeance with him is just an acknowledgement that for now he's calling the shots until such time as he is dissuaded from this course - Labour have been very careful in how they deal with Trump, though they certainly do not agree with his strategy.

58 minutes ago, Rooney said:

A company makes less profit, so they either reduce supplier costs, make higher prices, find efficency savings or absorb some of the costs. The reality is companies will do a combination of all 4. I've asked this before, but what secto/business area do you work in? Most companies make billions of profit and sure you can call it greed and I would not disagree with that, but they have a board and shareholders. To entice investment they will promise profits. If a company isn't making good profits an investor/fund will move their money elsewhere. That's without any category/market challenges, inflationary costs or consumer spending habits. To think your suggestion of Nike will absorb 25-50% extra costs is ludacris. They might absorb a portion of it, but the rest will either be passed on to the consumers or they will squeeze

The state pension isn't at risk because of the stock market. They are a cost of the State because it's free money. You're regularly critical of the Labour government who have just increased employer NI contributions and again, companies will either absorb the costs or find savings. You seem to be under the impression there's gonna be a mass exodus of jobs which is not going to happen by people moving manufacturing elsewhere. This current economic situation (which is all self inflicted btw) is likely to lead to global economic downturn and in turn bring about a recession which = job cuts. Everyone has a private pension and it is invested in stocks, indexs, currency etc. and over the space of a week its lost at least 10% in value which is disasterous.

Profit is profit. It’s not costs. If you’re making 180 billion profit you don’t need to increase costs or reduce staff. You just make less profit. Amazon became so big they had cities and countries begging them to locate there while paying next to no tax due to the jobs they bring. That’s an insane situation. They should be paying hundreds of millions probably billions in tax. How you get companies like this to act right is by essentially threatening them through tariffs that it will be worse not to be paying these things.

With regards to Nike. Look at the competition available. Do you really believe Nike can make everything 15% higher and not lose the business the 15% will bring in? They have it so good right now that they’re giving NBA players nobody knows signature shoes and 100 million contracts. They have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.

The state pension is at risk because the country producers next to nothing anymore. People are living longer. That’s why they keep making the age higher. You cannot sustain a large pension society without a workforce which will dwindle if you become a country of consumers. What happens when the UK debt is 5 trillion and you have to sustain an ever cost increasing NHS with everybody with money deciding the country is a disaster and moving somewhere else? That’s the future unless people change course. The UK just keeps sticking to the idea cheap immigration is the answer. So they’ll need new homes and decide British construction workers cost too much so they’ll think importing cheap immigration saves costs but they have no idea what they’re doing and realise it ends up costing more in the end as the British construction workers end up going on the welfare bill or clogging up the NHS.

Today the US markets closed barely down even up in one case.

Trump was voted in to change the system and that’s what he is doing. I’ve seen Crypto go from $17k to $3k to $65k to $14k to $102k markets go up and they go down the idea it’s all bliss when they go up or all doom when they go down is for reactionaries. Long term a country is more secure with a thriving middle class and if you eliminate that you just get people stealing everything everywhere and drug ridden streets