This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment

Jump to new
The question of manufacturing is interesting isn't it?
I'd be curious to know how many industries could be restarted using Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and the convergence created with AI.

From Automation.com specifically re. manufacturing and convergent technologies.
I'd suppose that the sticking point would be the supply of raw and/or processed/finished materials required for the product being manufactured.

Like it or not, we progess combining the old with the new, discarding what doesn't work or is ill suited to the task and, if we're up to the task, adapt, progress and prosper.
 
The US will need to fight the cost of energy and build larger infrastructure; whatever they can do, China can do it for less.

The US is just holding onto its lead in tech industries.
 
Knobby22 said:
interest payments
Click to expand...
This is what I was getting at before. Not so much a problem when interest rates are at near 0. Big problem if they spike from 0 to 5% in a little over a year.

The post-russian-invasion interest rate spike was in a relative sense the fastest rate rise in history.

As I said before, rates were so low for so long post-gfc that we'd actually started to consider 0% interest (or near as makes no difference) to be normal.

It isn't.
 
we should examine what the US 10-year rates were, over the last few years.

.
Now not everything refinances for 10 years, corporations tend to go for lesser periods and government can go for 30, as can infrastructure, but its still a problem; the issue is more the size of the looming refinancing. It's a lot!
 
Last edited:
That's the problem with being young Danny, I'm not being critical, but manufacturing in Australia including cars was killed when tariffs were reduced in the 1970's, due to the Lima Agreement.

All Abbott did, was stop sending taxpayer money to the U.S, to prop up their car industry in Australia.

How would Holden or Falcon compete at the moment, when most major car companies are in survival mode? Including Ford and GM U.S



Unintended consequences and the reason Trump is having a meltdown, which is ironic when you consider the U.S were probably signatures in the Lima Agreement.


From google:
The Lima Declaration, signed by the Whitlam government in 1975, has been criticized for potentially leading to the outsourcing of manufacturing to Third World countries. The declaration, which encouraged industrialization in developing nations, is seen as having contributed to the decline of manufacturing industries in Australia and the loss of jobs. The Parliament of Australia's website notes that the TPP agreement, a subsequent trade deal, further allowed foreign multinationals to dictate terms to the Australian government, potentially harming Australian sovereignty and workers.

The Lima Declaration of 1974: A Blueprint for the Destruction of Western Manufacturing — A Special Focus on Australia

The economic policies born from the Lima Declaration would go on to hollow out Australia’s industrial heart.
www.linkedin.com
 
Indeed, I would agree totally, the best we can do is align with an overseas carmaker in exchange for steel + or - RE's.

Even the Japanese are getting back in the game with newer technology to catch up Tesla and the Chinese motors. We do need some form of car industry in case of war. Tanks and off road defence vehicles don't just appear out of shipping in a proper war. We need small robust manufacturing centres in partnership with either the US cousins, the Chinese cousins or the Japanese cousins depending who is the aggressor against us.



gg
 
All first world countries have to do that, if they want to stay first world.
The issue is China isn't backing off, they are pouring more and more money into manufacturing capacity, to such a point that it is better for them to sell at a loss than reduce output.
The only way the West can deal with that, is to reduce demand, the only way to reduce demand is by making it more expensive.
There isn't many options for the West, if China don't want to play fair.
 
We do build military tanks in Australia, ironically not for us, though.

Australia prepares to roll tanks into Germany

The Australian Defence Force is to provide Germany with 100 Queensland-built Boxer heavy weapon carrier vehicles.
www.themandarin.com.au
 
They mastered manufacturing years ago, now they'll develop tech industries.

They're making allies by supplying infrastructure to nations like Tonga and Africa. Australia needs to get in there and block them, otherwise the inevitable will happen. Once they don't need us, we'll be used as a piece of toilet paper like the Yanks already did.
 
Then you read articles like this one. Lol

Anti-Musk sentiment runs high in Adelaide as 95% of submissions oppose land sale to Tesla

Marion city council in South Australia censors strong language in some of the nearly 1,000 submissions that called for proposal to be struck down
www.theguardian.com
 
It would be interesting to see how many Australians they would actually employ. I won't name the company online, but I worked for one here in Australia, most of the labour workers were foreigners, and most of the management were yanks.
 
TimeISmoney said:
It would be interesting to see how many Australians they would actually employ. I won't name the company online, but I worked for one here in Australia, most of the labour workers were foreigners, and most of the management were yanks.
Click to expand...
Well at the moment we are importing all our grid batteries, so I guess even if they employ a gardener, it is more than we are employing at the moment.

I guess the question really is, do we really want to build stuff here, or not? We can always find reasons not to work, we are getting great at that. Lol

The other thing is, even if they only employ foreigners that's ok, we've imported a couple of million of those in the last couple of years
 
Last edited:
It may be a choice between aligning with the Chinese cousins or the Japanese cousins for the best interests of Australia. Perhaps disengaging from our USA cousins is our best course of action. The USA has taken quite a fascist turn recently and I fear the rise of a regime similar to the German Nazi Party in the 1930's which could destabilise the world. The billionaire class there look set to bring back a form of slavery for ordinary folk in that country, prioritising the needs of the wealthy over the common man, delegating the latter to menial tasks mowing lawns and eating "fries".

One could argue that the Chinese are fascist as well but they seem to have done a good job on taking their population out of dire poverty and misery in to a modern well fed power quite successfully. Their technology is equal if not superior to the USA. Perhaps they could do the same for Australia and get rid of the drugs, alcoholism, immigrant gangs and gambling which has destroyed families in Australia and led us in to a crime ridden mini statelet.

Japan still has a bad name for their brutality during WW2 among my generation but their industry and crime rates are better than ours. Gen X-Z and millennials have been taught in our schools that everyone except Australians are more caring and sharing so I can't see the next generation of leaders objecting too much to us forming an alliance with either China or Japan.

I must admit though that I am also partial to sweet and sour pork and sushi although I'd miss my large double cheeseburger meal with a strawberry milkshake instead of the coke.

gg
 
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Mr Musk said.

"I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion,"
Click to expand...
Mr Musk said.
 
Knobby22 said:
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Mr Musk said.


Mr Musk said.
Click to expand...
That isn't good, I'm all for Trump turning the trajectory around, as I think most responsible people are.
Increasing the debt ceiling by $4trillion, certainly sends poor optics.
Hopefully Trump's intent is as he projects, time will tell.
I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has been the only one to voice concerns and take action on the debt problem, hopefully my faith isn't misplaced.
IMO the one good thing that has already to come out of Trump's second term, is the fact it has woken up the West to the issues and even if Trump stuffs up the ball will keep rolling IMO.
One interesting fact I did find while reading up on your post @Knobby22 , was Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, it's a small world.

Following on from your post:

Trump, meanwhile, is seeking Senate support for his so-called “big, beautiful bill”, which passed the House of Representatives last week. It raises the US debt ceiling by $US4 trillion ($6.2 trillion), extends the tax cuts from Trump’s first term that were due to expire at the end of the year, and eliminates tax from tips and overtime until the end of 2028 – a key election promise.

The additional spending wipes out savings made by DOGE, which says it has found savings of $US175 billion – although its “wall of receipts” amounts to less than half of that figure.
Musk told television network CBS in an interview: “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.
“I think a bill can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both,” he said in an excerpt. The full interview will air on the weekend.

In a separate interview with The Washington Post, Musk said the bureaucracy in Washington was worse than he realised and bemoaned the scrutiny DOGE came under as it made at-times sweeping cuts to federal agencies in the name of efficiency.

Kentucky senator Rand Paul said the bill would “explode the debt”, which sits at about $US37 trillion. “Until everyone in Washington gets serious about paying down our national debt, I’m a no,” he said.

Trump ignored a question about Musk’s critique on Wednesday (Thursday AEST), but noted the bill would need nearly every Republican vote to pass the Senate. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of [the bill] but I’m thrilled about other aspects,” he said.
 
Last edited:
All the big billionaires own most of the media now if you look it up.
Bezos wouldn't dare criticise Trump directly.
 
An interesting snippet that may affect Lynas and shows how blanket tariffs will have to be modified

How Trump's Tariff Policies Could Threaten the Project​

Proposed 25% tariffs on imported rare earth chlorides would increase Lynas' input costs by $18/kg, negating the $15/kg cost advantage over Chinese producers. The Malaysia-to-Texas supply chain requires shipping intermediate chemicals 12,000 nautical miles, with tariffs adding approximately $4.2 million per shipment.

This highlights the contradictory nature of simultaneously pursuing critical mineral security while implementing broad tariff policies that disadvantage those same strategic industries.

Balancing National Security Interests with Trade Policy​

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is considering a Critical Minerals Tariff Exclusion (CMTE) process requiring:

  1. 51% U.S. ownership of processing facilities
  2. Annual audit of non-Chinese feedstock sourcing
  3. Job creation minimums of 500 positions per $100 million investment
This potential exemption acknowledges the strategic contradiction between protectionist trade policies and the national security imperative to establish domestic rare earth processing capabilities.
 
Breaking.
Tariffs are meant to go though Congress, Trump is exceeding his authority, we all knew that.
Interesting to see what happens next. The democratic route or the autocrat route? It wouldn't be hard to go the democratic route as The Republicans control both houses.


US trade court blocks Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs

A US trade court has blocked the president from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law.
www.abc.net.au
 
Checks and balances.
 
Knobby22 said:
Breaking.
Tariffs are meant to go though Congress, Trump is exceeding his authority, we all knew that.
Click to expand...

Did the “we” from above make the same comment when Obama, GW Bush et al impose Tariffs.
The following article from congress states that the congress has passed allowing presidents to do just that.
Mick


This report examines Congress's constitutional power over import tariffs, Congress's ability to delegate some of its authority over tariffs to the President within certain limits, the scope of specific authorities Congress has delegated to the President to impose or adjust tariffs, and the ways in which courts have resolved challenges to the President's use of those authorities. The report also provides an overview of some of the legal debates surrounding recent tariff actions by the President.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, impose tariffs, and collect revenue. As discussed in this report, Congress has long enacted laws authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates on goods in certain circumstances. Courts have generally upheld these laws against constitutional challenges, holding that they do not impermissibly delegate Congress's legislative power over tariffs to the executive branch.

This report also examines how courts have resolved legal challenges to the President's use of statutory tariff authorities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has traditionally given deference to the President in these cases, allowing the President to utilize these statutes unless he "clearly misconstrues" their scope and holding that they commit certain matters to the President's unreviewable discretion. Some litigants and commentators question if lower federal courts must revisit aspects of this approach in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which give less deference to the executive branch to interpret its own statutory authorities.

Several statutes that may authorize the President or an executive agency to impose tariffs under various circumstances are currently in effect. This report includes a legal overview of six such statutes: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
174
Views
19K
qldfrog
April 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
10K
ducati916
Canada the Brave
2 3
Replies
55
Views
6K
mullokintyre
September 2025 DDD
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
ducati916
Market Crash 2025
9 10 11
Replies
200
Views
26K
mullokintyre
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...