What worked 100 years ago is NOT applicable to 2025. Only things that don't change would be how the human mind thinks and reacts, given a set of circumstances. Morals and manners wax and wane, but let's pray good 'common sense' prevails.
I am fortunate to have a few things (articles and letters) written by my PhD mechanical engineer great grandfather. Based on what he wrote about over 100 years ago, our making Washington, D.C. less consequential is highly unlikely to happen.
I'm debating, to myself even, if Pres Trump is a paradox, an oxymoron- type, eccentric, or all the above- the 'golden trinity' of sorts. Some great effective moves, then BAM, off the rails again. Dicey.
I believe Pres Trump is 'coherent' all right, and it is more about his way 'at any cost' until the 'at any cost' was/is literal in real time. Took many friends and advisors to talk him down on this one. China he underestimates and will not control, as with Russia, and it must be driving him nuts by now due to the bare fact those two countries leaders do exactly what the heck they want, when they want, and how they want. Trump is seethingly jealous of that power I'm sure, and it takes his family and friends to 'talk him down' quite frequently I'm sure. So some have said.
Mr. John Daly, I read your article that you referred to.
The bottom line is and if you can’t get this, then there is no further discussion about it.
We have a 37 billion deficit. it has to be dealt with. The tariff situation can improve the deficit, but it takes a while before it comes about. The department of government efficiency DOGE will help improve reduction of the deficit. If you don’t get this, what I just said. And there is no further discussion.
No, Conrad, YOU don't get it. And frankly, I'm starting to believe you're purposely choosing not to get it.
Trump's tariffs, in fact, can NOT improve the deficit. As I cited in the very column you're commenting under, the tariffs are projected, using actual tax data, to add roughly $12 billion in annual revenue to the federal coffers. DOGE, even under the rosiest projections, would save a little over $100 billion. Meanwhile, the Republican congress is approving over $500 BILLION IN NEW ANNUAL SPENDING, on top of the increasing cost of entitlements including rising interest rates.
Do you get it now? No economist is projecting Trump's tariffs and DOGE to shrink the deficit, because it's a fairy tale. All the data shows deficits increasing under Trump's policies. What you're peddling is the economic equivalent of storks being delivered by babies.
Seriously, Conrad, if Trump told you that the deficit would shrink if he hit you in the nuts, as hard as he could, five times with a baseball bat, would you believe him and shout, "Have at it"?
I really do hope you're just pretending with this stuff, Conrad, because if you actually believe it, that's very, very scary.
As a financial adviser, the sky-rocketing 37,000 billion dollars (that’s what 37 trillion looks like) deficit will be a big deal in the future, sucking money from EVERY facet of our economy to pay even the 1 trillion dollar a year interest. Trump will add to this number big time. Moving forward, buy “needs” not “wants”. Save your cash …Aloha, Mike
If only someone had literally written a column on this very topic two weeks ago, one that you literally commented under but seemingly have no memory of.
You've got to love him chastising someone for talking about the economy without being an economist, while defending economic narratives that no economists are.
It's also sort of like saying you're not allowed to express an opinion on war or military matters unless you've served in combat. You don't have to be career military to know that Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was a total CF.
It's even sillier than that. A consensus of economists, economic data, and economic projections are on my side. He's just parroting stuff he hears people like Jesse Watters say (who have no economic standing or support), and declaring their nonsense to be the final word on the matter.
Like I said, I really hope he's just joking, but I fear he's not.
Pres Trump is not an economist either- his style is ' his way at any cost' til he gets 'talked-down' by his family and friends, literally, when it isn't so beneficial for us citizens.
Perhaps a discussion of John's arguments would further a meaningful exchange. Any collection of people in congress demonstrates that advanced degrees often does not lead to smartness or wisdom. Likewise, one can become learned and wise without a formal advanced education.
What worked 100 years ago is NOT applicable to 2025. Only things that don't change would be how the human mind thinks and reacts, given a set of circumstances. Morals and manners wax and wane, but let's pray good 'common sense' prevails.
I am fortunate to have a few things (articles and letters) written by my PhD mechanical engineer great grandfather. Based on what he wrote about over 100 years ago, our making Washington, D.C. less consequential is highly unlikely to happen.
Oh, I'm under no illusion that DC will become less involved in our lives. Thus, the term, daydreaming."
Agreed! …and, well written. Aloha, Mike
I'm debating, to myself even, if Pres Trump is a paradox, an oxymoron- type, eccentric, or all the above- the 'golden trinity' of sorts. Some great effective moves, then BAM, off the rails again. Dicey.
I believe Pres Trump is 'coherent' all right, and it is more about his way 'at any cost' until the 'at any cost' was/is literal in real time. Took many friends and advisors to talk him down on this one. China he underestimates and will not control, as with Russia, and it must be driving him nuts by now due to the bare fact those two countries leaders do exactly what the heck they want, when they want, and how they want. Trump is seethingly jealous of that power I'm sure, and it takes his family and friends to 'talk him down' quite frequently I'm sure. So some have said.
Mr. John Daly, I read your article that you referred to.
The bottom line is and if you can’t get this, then there is no further discussion about it.
We have a 37 billion deficit. it has to be dealt with. The tariff situation can improve the deficit, but it takes a while before it comes about. The department of government efficiency DOGE will help improve reduction of the deficit. If you don’t get this, what I just said. And there is no further discussion.
No, Conrad, YOU don't get it. And frankly, I'm starting to believe you're purposely choosing not to get it.
Trump's tariffs, in fact, can NOT improve the deficit. As I cited in the very column you're commenting under, the tariffs are projected, using actual tax data, to add roughly $12 billion in annual revenue to the federal coffers. DOGE, even under the rosiest projections, would save a little over $100 billion. Meanwhile, the Republican congress is approving over $500 BILLION IN NEW ANNUAL SPENDING, on top of the increasing cost of entitlements including rising interest rates.
Do you get it now? No economist is projecting Trump's tariffs and DOGE to shrink the deficit, because it's a fairy tale. All the data shows deficits increasing under Trump's policies. What you're peddling is the economic equivalent of storks being delivered by babies.
Seriously, Conrad, if Trump told you that the deficit would shrink if he hit you in the nuts, as hard as he could, five times with a baseball bat, would you believe him and shout, "Have at it"?
I really do hope you're just pretending with this stuff, Conrad, because if you actually believe it, that's very, very scary.
Substack really needs to add laughing and eye-roll emojis....
Tip: you can copy and paste emojis into the Substack comment section. 😉
As a financial adviser, the sky-rocketing 37,000 billion dollars (that’s what 37 trillion looks like) deficit will be a big deal in the future, sucking money from EVERY facet of our economy to pay even the 1 trillion dollar a year interest. Trump will add to this number big time. Moving forward, buy “needs” not “wants”. Save your cash …Aloha, Mike
Mr. John Daly, I didn’t know you were an economist. Where did you get your masters from?
Mr. Conrad Pogorzelski,
If only someone had literally written a column on this very topic two weeks ago, one that you literally commented under but seemingly have no memory of.
https://www.bernardgoldberg.com/p/it-turns-out-experts-tend-to-know
Translation: Me like Trump. Daly mean to Trump. Me not like Daly. Me not interested in facts and stuff. Me just like Trump.
You've got to love him chastising someone for talking about the economy without being an economist, while defending economic narratives that no economists are.
It's also sort of like saying you're not allowed to express an opinion on war or military matters unless you've served in combat. You don't have to be career military to know that Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was a total CF.
It's even sillier than that. A consensus of economists, economic data, and economic projections are on my side. He's just parroting stuff he hears people like Jesse Watters say (who have no economic standing or support), and declaring their nonsense to be the final word on the matter.
Like I said, I really hope he's just joking, but I fear he's not.
Pres Trump is not an economist either- his style is ' his way at any cost' til he gets 'talked-down' by his family and friends, literally, when it isn't so beneficial for us citizens.
Perhaps a discussion of John's arguments would further a meaningful exchange. Any collection of people in congress demonstrates that advanced degrees often does not lead to smartness or wisdom. Likewise, one can become learned and wise without a formal advanced education.
Exactly-- clear your heart and soul, then one can think most clearly and objectively on any given topic or subject. Pointing fingers is childs play.