Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment

[over9k]

The tiktok girl just needs to realise/accept that a significant part of her skillset has become obsolete.

Kind of like journalists when tv and newspapers died, her skills are now redundant and she needs to retrain in a different field.

I feel for her but sitting around and complaining on the internet isn't going to help.

 

[farmerge]

My medication is an Irish brown liquid

I used to enjoy that fluid once upon a time, but now the liquid of choice is an Eskimo Ice!!!!

 

[TimeISmoney]

The tiktok girl just needs to realise/accept that a significant part of her skillset has become obsolete.

Kind of like journalists when tv and newspapers died, her skills are now redundant and she needs to retrain in a different field.

I feel for her but sitting around and complaining on the internet isn't going to help.

Isn't the whole point of the tariffs to make America great again, create jobs to keep people employed, because China stole all their jobs?

You know, bring back jobs that most people can do and have a skill set for.

 

[over9k]

Isn't the whole point of the tariffs to make America great again, create jobs to keep people employed, because China stole all their jobs?

You know, bring back jobs that most people can do and have a skill set for.

No the tariffs are meant to create jobs/industries. The tariffs also didn't invent the AI that "took her job".

So in her case AI killed her skills demand but the tariffs should create a replacement like chip manufacturing or something. Considering her previous job was in tech/coding I'd imagine that moving over to computer science/engineering would actually have a fair bit of skills overlap/wouldn't be that much of a pivot. It'd be like if carpentry became obsolete but builders were still in high demand - there'd be plenty of transferable knowledge and skills a carpenter could use in the process of retraining to be and then working as a builder.

She's just got the poor me's and needs to realise the reality of the situation, stop wallowing, and retrain. Cost of living problems started long before trump and it wasn't the tariffs that rendered her skills obsolete either.

Trump is not to blame for her situation.

 

[TimeISmoney]

No the tariffs are meant to create jobs/industries. The tariffs also didn't invent the AI that "took her job".

So in her case AI killed her skills demand but the tariffs should create a replacement like chip manufacturing or something. Considering her previous job was in tech/coding I'd imagine that moving over to computer science/engineering would actually have a fair bit of skills overlap/wouldn't be that much of a pivot. It'd be like if carpentry became obsolete but builders were still in high demand - there'd be plenty of transferable knowledge and skills a carpenter could use in the process of retraining to be and then working as a builder.

She's just got the poor me's and needs to realise the reality of the situation, stop wallowing, and retrain. Cost of living problems started long before trump and it wasn't the tariffs that rendered her skills obsolete either.

Trump is not to blame for her situation.

If you listen to what she said, they're from the tech industry and jobs have been cut due to either AI or the expected economic downturn before the holidays. The cost of living is high and expected to go higher from the retaliatory tariffs, which makes it harder for her to afford retraining, and the people who are still employed don't want to leave their low-paying jobs.

 

[divs4ever]

Isn't the whole point of the tariffs to make America great again, create jobs to keep people employed, because China stole all their jobs?

You know, bring back jobs that most people can do and have a skill set for.

well the education ( indoctrination ) system basically let them down , so many were unemployable except for rubbish government jobs , many would have to be re-skilled even if going back to trades they knew 5 years back

fun fact , China did NOT steal the jobs ,Sam Walton ( of Walmart fame ) blackmailed US manufacturers to SEND the jobs there , China just welcomed the orders and tech as it came to them ( because they had cheap semi-skilled labor )

now IF the US can re-tool and automate a lot of labor they can compete with China .. apart from wage costs .. but the problem now is IF the US can equal China in exports who will buy ( and in what currency )

FIRST the US needs to become ( mostly ) self-reliant again , then think about exporting any excess goods

( and Australia won't learn that lesson either )

 

[over9k]

If you listen to what she said, they're from the tech industry and jobs have been cut due to either AI or the expected economic downturn before the holidays. The cost of living is high and expected to go higher from the retaliatory tariffs, which makes it harder for her to afford retraining, and the people who are still employed don't want to leave their low-paying jobs.

I listened to what she said, I watched the video twice. Her job/sector going into a downturn has nothing to do with the tariffs. Nothing. Cost of living was mooning long before the tariffs.

The tariffs are actually bringing a lot of tech (different tech but still tech) back onto U.S shores. She should actually be happy about them considering how ai's just ko'd her career.

 

[basilio]

If you listen to what she said, they're from the tech industry and jobs have been cut due to either AI or the expected economic downturn before the holidays. The cost of living is high and expected to go higher from the retaliatory tariffs, which makes it harder for her to afford retraining, and the people who are still employed don't want to leave their low-paying jobs.

Yeah.. Excellent summary. Did you do that or was it AI
I suspect many of the usual suspects either havn't watched the clip in full or closely or even taken any notice.

It was very troubling IMV becasue it highlighted just how dangerous AI is to employment across scores of areas in the work force.

This isn't directed to Trumps tariff policies. It addresses the impact of AI simultaneously across the economy.

...................................................................

I take back part of my comments. It is clear some other posters did accurately note the issues in the clip. I am not so confident that she and her millions of friends will be successful in finding meaningful employment as AI slices through the workforce.

Reminds me of the series Humans. This delved deep into a world where "synths" were the mainstay of the workforce and humans were largely out of work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series)

 

[finicky]

 

[basilio]

Ha Ha!!

I was just checking out Humans on Wiki and discovered that the Chinese had made their own version of the program after the original series finished.

It would be interesting to see how they treated the subject, Apparently they ran 30 episodes.

Humans (2021 TV series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TimeISmoney]

The rich are who backed Trump to get into the presidencey why would he poop on them?

fun fact , China did NOT steal the jobs ,Sam Walton ( of Walmart fame ) blackmailed US manufacturers to SEND the jobs there , China just welcomed the orders and tech as it came to them ( because they had cheap semi-skilled labor )

I'm being sarcastic, that's what Trump sold to America at the election, but no one told Americans to keep on buying cheap Chinese products or set up e-commerce stores to profit from them. Many non-corporates profited from cheap Chinese products.

 

[farmerge]

The rich are who backed Trump to get into the presidencey why would he poop on them?


I'm being sarcastic, that's what Trump sold to America at the election, but no one told Americans to keep on buying cheap Chinese products or set up e-commerce stores to profit from them. Many non-corporates profited from cheap Chinese products.

There a very old saying: The rich just keep on getting richer while everyone else either struggles or just gets poorer.
In this case Trumpets mates must be raking it in.

 

[over9k]

I take back part of my comments. It is clear some other posters did accurately note the issues in the clip. I am not so confident that she and her millions of friends will be successful in finding meaningful employment as AI slices through the workforce.

They won't:



I know it's a bloody tough pill to swallow but she needs to realise what's happened and take the appropriate course of action.

She's still at the denial leading into anger phase of grief. The sooner she realises reality and retrains the better it will be for her. Anything else is just a gambler chasing a loss throwing good money (time) after bad.

Cut your losses, walk away, and try something else.

Trump had nothing to do with this.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah.. Excellent summary. Did you do that or was it AI
I suspect many of the usual suspects either havn't watched the clip in full or closely or even taken any notice.

It was very troubling IMV becasue it highlighted just how dangerous AI is to employment across scores of areas in the work force.

This isn't directed to Trumps tariff policies. It addresses the impact of AI simultaneously across the economy.

The way I see it, and this is a human thing, is we have a tendency to think of change itself being a recent phenomenon. In our minds, whatever existed when we were children seemed as though it had always been there, and that's how we think of it, seeing change as something recent.

In truth if you look at the history of what would today be referred to as "tech" then very few things lasted long enough for anyone to make a full career out of them even at the the sales level, and certainly not with the tech side itself.

Go back 25 years and at that point most photos were still taken on 35mm film, almost all visual displays were CRT, floppy disks, CD's and VHS were all ubiquitous, TV broadcasting was still analogue, if you were one of the minority who had internet access at home then it was almost certainly via dial-up, and so on. Today none of those are still mainstream, and some are outright dead as such.

Politics on either side didn't create this situation. It's just how it is, it's the price to be paid for living in a world of ongoing technological advancement.

 

[waterbottle]

No the tariffs are meant to create jobs/industries. The tariffs also didn't invent the AI that "took her job".

So in her case AI killed her skills demand but the tariffs should create a replacement like chip manufacturing or something. Considering her previous job was in tech/coding I'd imagine that moving over to computer science/engineering would actually have a fair bit of skills overlap/wouldn't be that much of a pivot. It'd be like if carpentry became obsolete but builders were still in high demand - there'd be plenty of transferable knowledge and skills a carpenter could use in the process of retraining to be and then working as a builder.

She's just got the poor me's and needs to realise the reality of the situation, stop wallowing, and retrain. Cost of living problems started long before trump and it wasn't the tariffs that rendered her skills obsolete either.

Trump is not to blame for her situation.

"Meant to". Where are the new jobs? Of course Trump would be to blame if the new jobs aren't materialised.

In his defense, he never stipulated the jobs would be located in America....

Mexico's Sheinbaum Counters Trump Deportations With Tens of Thousands of Jobs for Returned Citizens

The country's leading business group announced that over 200 companies have made 63,880 job vacancies available

www.latintimes.com

 

[TimeISmoney]

The way I see it, and this is a human thing, is we have a tendency to think of change itself being a recent phenomenon. In our minds, whatever existed when we were children seemed as though it had always been there, and that's how we think of it, seeing change as something recent.

In truth if you look at the history of what would today be referred to as "tech" then very few things lasted long enough for anyone to make a full career out of them even at the the sales level, and certainly not with the tech side itself.

Go back 25 years and at that point most photos were still taken on 35mm film, almost all visual displays were CRT, floppy disks, CD's and VHS were all ubiquitous, TV broadcasting was still analogue, if you were one of the minority who had internet access at home then it was almost certainly via dial-up, and so on. Today none of those are still mainstream, and some are outright dead as such.

Politics on either side didn't create this situation. It's just how it is, it's the price to be paid for living in a world of ongoing technological advancement.

Many people in Australia forge careers in different fields of work other than the area they got a degree in, and job hop.

There's widespread reporting that the tariffs have started to take their toll on different industries across the US.

 

[JohnDe]

When assessing economic factors for investment purposes, remember that Australia and the USA have different cultural politics, which if not taken into account can cause poor decisions with your money.

Why Americans fight culture wars and Australians don’t. Our country was an accident of history, and we bask in the quietude of our politics. But the US was conceived as an idea, and its tumultuous politics reflects that genesis.​

Why Americans fight culture wars and Australians don’t​

Donald Trump’s second presidency illustrates the big gap between the political cultures of Australia and the US, something Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton are well aware of. Artwork: Frank Ling

Donald Trump’s first 100 days of his second term in the Oval Office end on April 30. Three days later, Australia goes to the polls. A reliably dull Australian federal election, of small targets and technocratic squabbling, delivered against the backdrop of the most consequential US presidency of the modern era, is a good time to compare us and them.
While the US maintains competing arsenals in an ongoing culture war, Australian politicians are ducking culture in favour of hip-pocket economics. Americans have a capacity for ideological combat, Australians shy away from it. Why this difference?

Different points of origin and design​

There are design features that deepen American culture wars and tend to alleviate ours. Trump is guaranteed four years as President. He has the political freedom to experiment. He can go big and take risks on cultural issues. And he has. Peter Dutton, on the other hand, if he strays on to this territory, risks being rolled by his own side. So, he hasn’t.

The late, great Clive James told us to remember that Australia wasn’t settled by prisoners but by prison officers. We crave authority because, at our point of origin, we were so distant from it.

Ten thousand miles didn’t loosen the settlers’ demands for British imperial protection; they were the reason for those demands. Distance from authority gave us a lasting taste for it.

Born against that same protector, Americans in 1776 connected their freedom to its defeat. This initial burst of revolutionary fervour has no analogue in the Australian experience. Indeed, in the US, political authority has faced recurrent challenge. In Australia, we like to be told what to do. Our larrikinism is quaint, mostly exaggerated and collapsed when public health officials locked us down in 2020-21.

I often encounter inner-city Melburnians sentimental for this government overreach, who think it underreach. Some still wear masks as acts of Covid nostalgia. Our safety is the principle demand we make of government. In 2022, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, safe was the Australian word of the year. For Americans, the allure of independence from government runs very deep. Here, it is shallow.

The ABC’s Q+A routinely fills its audience with men and women clamorous for government welfare. Anthony Albanese promises to deliver it more effectively than Dutton, and vice-versa. Premiers who ran the hardest Covid lockdowns all won re-election. We like government in our lives.

Protection, of the people by the state, has been the common campaign theme of Labor and the Coalition. Freedom, liberty, independence – the vocabulary of the American revolution – is mostly missing from our discourse. Like the US, we deify equality. Here, though, it means equal access to government protection.


’Trump is guaranteed four years as President. He has the political freedom to experiment. He can go big and take risks on cultural issues. And he has.’ Picture: AFP

If we have learned to crave authority, the US is still held together by a constitution distrustful of it. There, political scientist Samuel Huntington said: “The dominant political creed constitutes a standing challenge to the power of government and the legitimacy of political institutions. Political authority is vulnerable in America as it is nowhere else.”

Australia has had it easy; America has had it tough​

Contemporary American populism has specific causes and no Australian analogue. While our property market is essentially one long upward curve, in the wake of the global financial crisis nearly 10 million Americans lost their homes. We complain that 20-somethings must save a bit longer to get a mortgage. There, the fallout from the subprime mortgage collapse, catalysed by ongoing deindustrialisation, spawned a suicide epidemic.

Our luck (to live atop so much coal and iron ore) denied Pauline Hanson a larger following.It has meant Clive Palmer is not much more than a caricature of Trump. But the crises of 21st-century America created the most important populist movement in US history. MAGA explicitly fights on cultural issues.

Our federal election is being fought within a liberal paradigm: classical on one side, social on the other. When a few brave souls have raised issues of culture (think Dutton on the Aboriginal flag) or populism (think Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s call to Make Australia Great Again) they have quickly been shut down.

This is a fight over Medicare cards and cheap power. Cost of living rather than the purpose of living. What makes a good life vs how to make life easier.

We are in thrall to a social progressivism – think rainbow flags and welcomes to country – but hoping economic liberalism will protect our superannuation. We have had no resort to a populist alternative to this Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics. Compulsory voting means the middle ground will be returned to power on May 3. And, boy, don’t we feel smug that our voting system keeps the populists at bay.


Albanese and Dutton. ‘Australians this campaign season can, of course, bask in the quietude of our politics. We are an accident of history that has done really rather well.’ Picture: NewsWIre

Not so the US​

Our chief ally seems to have entered a new regime where the two old parties have been displaced by a populism that now controls the political discourse, if not the global economy. Tariff mayhem illustrates just how far the old parties have been superseded.

The Democrats appear helplessly diminished, the Republican Party a wholly owned subsidiary of the MAGA movement.

Trump has a deep story; Dutton doesn’t​

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild spent time with Trump supporters and heard their “deep story”: “All their lives they had been working hard, waiting in line for their turn at an American dream that felt forever out of reach. Yet all of a sudden, with the aid of liberal government and media, ‘line cutters’ – women, racial minorities, immigrants – were being waved ahead, gaining access to jobs or social status before it was their turn.

“To add insult to injury, the line cutters and their liberal allies then turned around to heap scorn on the rural conservatives they had left behind, ridiculing their folkways, beliefs and values. This left them feeling like ‘strangers in their own land’.”

In her most recent book, Hochschild asks us to think about Trump not as a dictator but as the Robin Hood of “stolen pride”. This pride has an economic component but it is not rooted in economics. It speaks to a cultural dislocation that has no obvious remedy in trade and finance.

What is Australia’s deep story? We speak of “Stolen Generations” and of being heirs to the men and women who travelled here millennia ago. Our election campaign reflects none of this. The 2024 US election, in contrast, was deeply ideological – a conflict of deep stories – made deeper still by an inflation crisis.

Americans have political choices​

While Albanese and Dutton wave their Medicare cards at us, Americans are presented with genuine alternatives. We bemoan American polarisation but forget that this offers voters choices. What polarisation has given Trump, it can take away.

American voters can and do punish presidents who go on ideological crusades. The progressive exuberance of Bill Clinton’s first two years (1993-95) was checked by a Republican wave in 1994.

In 2004, George W. Bush offered a bracing vision of a world without tyranny. His occupation of Iraq soon went pear-shaped. The Democrats checked him in the 2006 mid-terms, winning new majorities.

Barack Obama was elected with about as much left-wing fervour as any president since Franklin Roosevelt. But his 2008 win was negated two years later when the GOP gave him a shellacking (his word) in the mid-terms.

Trump’s wild ride since January 20 – tariffs, the betrayal of allies and embrace of foes, anti-DEI mandates; that is, his waging of a culture war – can’t escape this precedent. There is a powerful self-correcting mechanism in American politics.

In Australia, we debate an enervating middle and are then obliged to validate the system that produces it by compulsory voting. Cultural overreach rarely encounters sustained resistance in Australia. The Indigenous voice was an exception that proved this rule.

Ceremonial progressivism, with its acknowledgments of country and rainbow flags, was reinforced, not weakened, by its 60-40 defeat in October 2023. For many on the Australian left, losing was validation of their belief that the nation is deeply racist.

In Australia, left-wing orthodoxy maintains its cultural power irrespective of political results. There is no conservative institutional opponent strong enough to face it down. We suffer less from a culture war and more from a cultural defeat, of right by left. Dutton is fighting on Albanese’s battlefield, not vice-versa. Australia is not alone in this.

From 2010 to 2024, Britain was under a nominally Conservative government. It chose to facilitate a form of hyperliberalism, from decolonised curriculums to mass immigration, that would have astounded Tories of previous eras. As with the voice, when ordinary people were given the right to veto this cultural turn, in the 2016 Brexit referendum, they took it.

But the culture has kept turning leftward. The supposedly great engines of British cultural production, its universities, make ours look right-wing.

In the US, the culture war is just that: a conflict between two broad camps, each contending for institutional power. In Australia and Britain, there are illusory moments of conservative renewal – voice and Brexit – but precious few institutions to catalyse them. In America, there are.

Its two parties are divided on the big cultural questions. Ask a Republican and a Democrat whether diversity, equity and inclusion are good or bad things and you will hear opposing positions.

Australian Liberals and British Conservatives have a much harder time fighting on this turf. In the years of supposed conservative ascendancy in Australia, from 2013 to 2022, land acknowledgments got longer, diversity and inclusion more deeply entrenched.

Dutton has adapted himself to progressive hegemony much more than he has challenged it.

His initial strategy for dealing with the voice referendum (before it went down to defeat) was to offer a tweaked version. His campaign this month is eschewing all talk of culture war. The hard-nosed cop, with experience of left-wing cultural failure on crime and family breakdown, is bickering over the cost of living.

Trump, on the other hand, has seized control of a new front in the culture war and has the institutions to wage it. Dutton would blanche at a debate about the number of genders; Trump, within hours of taking office, reduced them back to two.

Where’s Dutton’s Project 2025?​

In America, woke ideology has bastions – the universities, Hollywood – but so do its opponents. There are organisations capable of mobilising against hyperliberalism. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, produced Project 2025, a 900-page blueprint for how Trump might govern. There is an intellectual ballast to Trumpism (especially in its second-term reincarnation) that Dutton’s Liberalism lacks.

There is a religious free market and, in comparative terms, abundant communities of faith that have always doubted where atheistic Democrats were moving the country. Evangelical Protestantism and a revived Catholicism (which has tempted US Vice-President JD Vance into its ranks) offer Americans an alternative to the spiritual wastelands of social progressivism.

Trump also has in his corner (at least for now) congress and the US Supreme Court.

In the US there are 23 “trifecta” Republican states – where the GOP controls the governorship, the state legislature upper house and the lower house – to only 15 Democratic. Almost 56 per cent of state legislators are Republican.

Australia lacks this counterbalance. Kevin Rudd came to power in 2007 with wall-to-wall state Labor governments.

For most of his prime ministership, Albanese has surveyed an Australian continent entirely Labor red.

This was not an excuse for Dutton to declare a culture war but to offer a more effective form of technocratic governance.

‘Duttonism’ sounds absurd; Trumpism is attempting a global revolution.

The internalised mantra of Team Dutton is “look what happened to Canadian conservatives when they appeared too pro-Trump”. This election has become a debate between two sides embarrassed by culture wars. The Coalition parties want to avoid being called right-wing nut jobs. Labor is desperate to avoid the voice debacle resurfacing.

The universities are a frontline in the culture war​

My own sector, higher education, further exposes how the US and Australia diverge on cultural priorities. Trump has made the American college campus a frontline of his culture war. The current assault on Harvard is even more remarkable when we consider how far Democratic ideology, under Obama and Biden, deepened that university’s leftist monoculture.

In 2023, I found myself dining with one of its many administrators. Her conviction about the truth of gender fluidity, and hatred of its sceptics, had a religious quality. This was not an issue on which people of goodwill might disagree. Rather, it was a way to expose heretics. The Great Awokening, of which she was a disciple, has been met by the Age of Trump.

In Australia, both sides will harm universities with international caps – presented as immigration and rent controls. Their respective university policies contain none of the culture war emphasis of Trump’s attack on Ivy League identity politics. Dutton has said he prefers an education system to an indoctrination system. But his caps would not move the needle on that.

In contrast, Trump and Vance know that, by marching back through the universities, they can decisively shift America’s ideological balance. There was no economic rationale for this assault; America’s top schools are the world’s richest. They are this administration’s nemesis for cultural reasons. They represent the hegemony of a managerial class that excluded much of Trump’s blue-collar base while obliging it to feel guilty for its deplorable white privilege.

Conclusion​

Another Harvard staff member, whom I wish I had met, observed that when existing institutions failed to keep up with evolving ideas, turmoil filled the gap. Huntington identified eras when ideas were so powerful they obliged American institutions to catch up to them. The 1770s, 1830s, 1890s and 1960s were each filled with “creedal passions” as ideas remade institutions.

Huntington died in 2008 but left us a way to understand the Trump revolution as a natural and predictable development in American politics: “If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the 21st century.”

Australians this campaign season can, of course, bask in the quietude of our politics. We are an accident of history that has done really rather well. But the US was conceived as an idea. It has a tumultuous politics that continues to reflect that genesis.

Huntington didn’t close his 1981 book with a counsel of despair: “Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie. It is a disappointment. But it can only be a disappointment because it is also a hope.”

Timothy J. Lynch is professor of American politics at the University of Melbourne.

 

[waterbottle]

When assessing economic factors for investment purposes, remember that Australia and the USA have different cultural politics, which if not taken into account can cause poor decisions with your money.

Why Americans fight culture wars and Australians don’t. Our country was an accident of history, and we bask in the quietude of our politics. But the US was conceived as an idea, and its tumultuous politics reflects that genesis.​

So when Americans cry out for the government to intervene on their behalf to keep their overpaid jobs that somehow isn't social liberalism? Please.

He then goes on to say that the same politics that have electesd these "revolutionaries" to office, reliably restrict their powers 2 years after the fact. So this rubbish not only doesn't last, it is reliably neutered by the electorate!

The absolute last thing we need are private organisations ("Project 2025" and the like) dictating public policy.

America is not some inheritely superior political beast because of their origin.
They are where they are because the entire world was thrown into turmoil post WW2 and the globe decided to cede monetary powers to the US.

 

[mullokintyre]

So when Americans cry out for the government to intervene on their behalf to keep their overpaid jobs that somehow isn't social liberalism? Please.

He then goes on to say that the same politics that have electesd these "revolutionaries" to office, reliably restrict their powers 2 years after the fact. So this rubbish not only doesn't last, it is reliably neutered by the electorate!

The absolute last thing we need are private organisations ("Project 2025" and the like) dictating public policy.

America is not some inheritely superior political beast because of their origin.
They are where they are because the entire world was thrown into turmoil post WW2 and the globe decided to cede monetary powers to the US.

The usa was the only major industrial economy that did not have the **** bombed out of them during WW2.
UK , Germany, Japan, and some other parts of Europe were bombed.
Not surprising then that USA became top Dog.
Mick

 

[divs4ever]

They won't:

View attachment 197821

I know it's a bloody tough pill to swallow but she needs to realise what's happened and take the appropriate course of action.

She's still at the denial leading into anger phase of grief. The sooner she realises reality and retrains the better it will be for her. Anything else is just a gambler chasing a loss throwing good money (time) after bad.

Cut your losses, walk away, and try something else.

Trump had nothing to do with this.

well if i remember correctly

the commentator said she/he ( ? ) had acquired a large education debt by studying marketing and obviously isn't bright enough to expand the education into a psychology career

surely the transition into psychologist/psychotherapist should be a relatively smooth transition