Dow plummets 750 points

[Frank Cannon]

There is a reason the F-series has been the best selling truck in the US for over 40 years in a row.  And it has now become the number one selling vehicle in the world.

Yeah, and if it wasn't the only thing they could build they might not be circling the drain now.

[RoosGirl]

Yeah, and if it wasn't the only thing they could build they might not be circling the drain now.

Don't know how being able to build a decent quality truck doesn't translate into not building shit cars.  They must be subbing their engineering out to China now.

[Frank Cannon]

Don't know how being able to build a decent quality truck doesn't translate into not building shit cars.  They must be subbing their engineering out to China now.

I don't even know it is a quality issue with F150 sales. Chevy 1500 gets better marks for quality in head to heads. They are just a little more expensive. Truck buyers are cheapskates.

[RoosGirl]

I don't even know it is a quality issue with F150 sales. Chevy 1500 gets better marks for quality in head to heads. They are just a little more expensive. Truck buyers are cheapskates.

It's hard to keep up, but have heard over the last 10 years that Chevy quality just isn't what it used to be.  That initial quality may be good, but they aren't as long lasting.  I don't know if that's really the case or not, just going by what the mechanic I used to go to told me.  But, if that is the case I wouldn't pay more for a Chevy truck either, especially if it's really a work truck.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It's hard to keep up, but have heard over the last 10 years that Chevy quality just isn't what it used to be.  That initial quality may be good, but they aren't as long lasting.  I don't know if that's really the case or not, just going by what the mechanic I used to go to told me.  But, if that is the case I wouldn't pay more for a Chevy truck either, especially if it's really a work truck.

So he said that quality has gone up?  Darn sure couldn't have gone down.

[goodwithagun]

Corrections are good.

[RoosGirl]

So he said that quality has gone up?  Darn sure couldn't have gone down.

Like I said, this was back about 10 years ago.  I was asking his opinion on a 2008 Ford Expedition vs the the Chevy Suburban.  I have a 99 Chevy Blazer and he said whatever year it was they they updated the design on those that the quality of Chevy in general really went down.  The 99 Chevy Blazer has been a champ for me too.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It’s been right in front of you, for the past week. Why do you think you he’s campaigning in places like Topeka and Council Bluffs.  He’s talking about things like ethanol, because they’re taking a beating with soy beans and pork.  There’s no reason he would need to stump for people in these solid red areas, if the tariffs were not causing problems politically.

you are obviously on the wrong thread.

The one we are all on reference an article which says
"Stocks sank on Wednesday as a steep decline in tech shares and worries of rapidly rising rates sent Wall Street on pace for its worst day in months."

It contains zilch on what you are claiming as 'right in front of you'.

[edpc]

you are obviously on the wrong thread.

The one we are all on reference an article which says
"Stocks sank on Wednesday as a steep decline in tech shares and worries of rapidly rising rates sent Wall Street on pace for its worst day in months."

It contains zilch on what you are claiming as 'right in front of you'.

You asked about tariffs and the response to them was retaliation by China on soy and pork. The areas where he was recently campaigning are directly affected by them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You said that, not me.  I said it's all a contributing factor to layoffs.  Thinking that, what appears to us as a smal percentage, tarrif has no effect on a business that's in the business of buying steel is as silly as thinking their poor business decisions has no effect on the business.

if it had the effect you implying it does, ALL the companies in that business of making cars would suffer, not just one.

yet you claim the entire business suffers when all we see is reduced profits from a single company in that business.

your claim has no teeth.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here Are 202 Companies Hurt by Trump's Tariffs
https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/14/tariff-victims

Are you claiming all of these companies have reduction in long term profits specifically due to tariffs?  There is such an incredibly short time period to make that declaration.

By the same token, virtually any capital expenditure would cause a reduction in profits.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You asked about tariffs and the response to them was retaliation by China on soy and pork. The areas where he was recently campaigning are directly affected by them.

Do I have to quote the article back to you?.

I made a statement that there was not anything in it concerning a plunge due to tariffs and you said it was.

Article says tech stocks and rising rates caused it.  and this was CNBC, who would most certainly cite something like tariffs if it were responsible, as we all know.

you want to take this discussion on tariffs to a different thread, that is fine.

just don't try the hijacking attempt next time.

[RoosGirl]

if it had the effect you implying it does, ALL the companies in that business of making cars would suffer, not just one.

yet you claim the entire business suffers when all we see is reduced profits from a single company in that business.

your claim has no teeth.

Right, so well run companies aren't able to better withstand a little stormy weather than poorly run companies.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Right, so well run companies aren't able to better withstand a little stormy weather than poorly run companies.   

unsure what that means.

better be a bit more explicit.

we were talking about your claim that the tariffs hurt the auto manufacturing business when a single auto maker has announced, even though it had announced other issues previously for poor short term profits, that tariffs are costing it $1bn.

[RoosGirl]

unsure what that means.

better be a bit more explicit.

we were talking about your claim that the tariffs hurt the auto manufacturing business when a single auto maker has announced, even though it had announced other issues previously for poor short term profits, that tariffs are costing it $1bn.

I'm sure if you go back and chew on the whole conversation a bit it'll be clearer.

[Frank Cannon]

It's hard to keep up, but have heard over the last 10 years that Chevy quality just isn't what it used to be.  That initial quality may be good, but they aren't as long lasting.  I don't know if that's really the case or not, just going by what the mechanic I used to go to told me.  But, if that is the case I wouldn't pay more for a Chevy truck either, especially if it's really a work truck.

Every tradesman and contractor I know runs GM trucks except for one and he is a die hard Ford guy. He almost gave up on them though when Ford had that huge Power Stroke Diesel problem in the 6 liters. They were a effing disaster. Those were failing around 20K miles without warning and were never right after the fix. One thing is for sure. No one buys Rams and the few that tried one in a moment of cheapness regretted it immediately.

[edpc]

I made a statement that there was not anything in it concerning a plunge due to tariffs and you said it was.

No, I'm pretty sure my opening comment pinned this bloated market on the monetary policy of the previous admin.  Nobody mentioned tariffs in the thread, until you did.

Based on other comments in the last 3 pages, it seems you're having some trouble following along with other conversations.  Keep chasing your tail, if you like, but I'm done with the tedium.

[Frank Cannon]

No, I'm pretty sure my opening comment pinned this bloated market on the monetary policy of the previous admin.  Nobody mentioned tariffs in the thread, until you did.

Based on other comments in the last 3 pages, it seems you're having some trouble following along with other conversations.  Keep chasing your tail, if you like, but I'm done with the tedium.

I found an old New York Post from 1986 in the back of my garage. I can scan some random business articles and send them to you so that you can argue some more about how the Trump tariffs are so bad.

[edpc]

I found an old New York Post from 1986 in the back of my garage. I can scan some random business articles and send them to you so that you can argue some more about how the Trump tariffs are so bad.

I'm glad it survived the tragic soap holder accident.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm sure if you go back and chew on the whole conversation a bit it'll be clearer.

no, you are not.

and have nothing on that claim of yours but hyperbole.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, I'm pretty sure my opening comment pinned this bloated market on the monetary policy of the previous admin.  Nobody mentioned tariffs in the thread, until you did.

Based on other comments in the last 3 pages, it seems you're having some trouble following along with other conversations.  Keep chasing your tail, if you like, but I'm done with the tedium.

Yeah, the tariffs are all around us in the news.

Here's Bloomberg today

Bloomberg: Trump Tariffs Not Costing U.S. Jobs as Free Traders Claimed

Employment in metal-using industries has risen since the tariffs went into effect last spring. Employment in fabricated metals products rose 1.44 percent from April through September, according to the jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Oct. 5. [Emphasis added]

That compares favorably with the increase for overall manufacturing (0.70 percent) and the overall private sector (0.76 percent). In the machinery sector, another big consumer of metal, jobs increased by 1.29 percent over the period. [Emphasis added]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/11/bloomberg-trump-tariffs-not-costing-u-s-jobs-as-free-traders-claimed/

[edpc]

Yeah, the tariffs are all around us in the news.

Here's Bloomberg today

Bloomberg: Trump Tariffs Not Costing U.S. Jobs as Free Traders Claimed

Employment in metal-using industries has risen since the tariffs went into effect last spring. Employment in fabricated metals products rose 1.44 percent from April through September, according to the jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Oct. 5. [Emphasis added]

That compares favorably with the increase for overall manufacturing (0.70 percent) and the overall private sector (0.76 percent). In the machinery sector, another big consumer of metal, jobs increased by 1.29 percent over the period. [Emphasis added]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/11/bloomberg-trump-tariffs-not-costing-u-s-jobs-as-free-traders-claimed/

Again.....I’m talking about the fallout from the tariffs, which is having an effect on midwestern farmers who went his way.  Even Sen. Ernst agreed.  If it wasn’t a problem, there wouldn’t have been a bailout proposal.  If left in place long enough, the tariffs will result in the net loss of jobs in that industry.  They always do.  See the Bush 43 steel and Obama tire tariffs as recent examples.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joni-ernst-trumps-tariffs-are-hurting-american-farmers

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/news/economy/trump-farmers-china-tariffs/index.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-imposed-tariffs-on-steel-2018-03-08

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html

[goodwithagun]

I found an old New York Post from 1986 in the back of my garage. I can scan some random business articles and send them to you so that you can argue some more about how the Trump tariffs are so bad.

Quit rubbing your date nights in our faces.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Again.....I’m talking about the fallout from the tariffs, which is having an effect on midwestern farmers who went his way.  Even Sen. Ernst agreed.  If it wasn’t a problem, there wouldn’t have been a bailout proposal.  If left in place long enough, the tariffs will result in the net loss of jobs in that industry.  They always do.  See the Bush 43 steel and Obama tire tariffs as recent examples.

Ok, let's dissect these one by one.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joni-ernst-trumps-tariffs-are-hurting-american-farmers

Your first article is from April of this year.  This is before ANY tariff increases other than on solar panels and washing machines.  How do you figure that is news as it was PRIOR to any type of new tariffs went into effect?  Or are you claiming that the farmers were hurt by making imported solar panels and washing machines more expensive?

Can we look instead at actual data instead of posturing by someone from the big farming state of Iowa?  We know they just defend their own, don't we?

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/news/economy/trump-farmers-china-tariffs/index.html

This article is not worth the effort to bring it up.  It also is from April and has no data whatsoever from it.

Ironically, it does REFUTE what you said about the long term effects being negative as it says "And, in the end, they're going to be much stronger than they are right now."  That is no negative, is it?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-imposed-tariffs-on-steel-2018-03-08

Another April article, and one more that has zero data to support anything you claim.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html

And finally, the worst for last.  A January article.

Let's just see how it folds out with real data on the tariffs in question, such as the article which I relayed, rather than the hyperbole of speculation.

[Frank Cannon]

Ford sucks.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm sure if you go back and chew on the whole conversation a bit it'll be clearer.

You really need to chew slowly so the mind can absorb here.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335951.msg1820496.html#msg1820496

[RoosGirl]

You really need to chew slowly so the mind can absorb here.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,335951.msg1820496.html#msg1820496

Fine, have it your way.  I retract what I said before and change it to : A poorly run company is just as good as a well run company.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Again.....I’m talking about the fallout from the tariffs, which is having an effect on midwestern farmers who went his way.  Even Sen. Ernst agreed.  If it wasn’t a problem, there wouldn’t have been a bailout proposal.  If left in place long enough, the tariffs will result in the net loss of jobs in that industry.  They always do.  See the Bush 43 steel and Obama tire tariffs as recent examples.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joni-ernst-trumps-tariffs-are-hurting-american-farmers

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/news/economy/trump-farmers-china-tariffs/index.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-imposed-tariffs-on-steel-2018-03-08

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html

Here's some more real data, not just conjecture like you linked. @edpc

Manufacturing Continues to Boom in America, Defying Gloomy Tariff Predictions
The American manufacturing sector continued to add jobs in August, defying predictions that the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs would cost jobs in metals-using industries.

There were 488,000 job openings in manufacturing in August, up from 416 a year ago, the Department of Labor said Tuesday. Two years ago, before President Trump took office, there were just 337,000 manufacturing job vacancies in August.

In durable goods, which is the category that includes most metals-using industry, there were 286,000 openings. That’s up from 229,000 a year ago. Two years ago, there were just 200,000. Durable goods openings have been higher every month than they were when the metals tariffs were first announced in late March.

Layoffs have been falling, rather than rising as predicted. Back in April, there were 69,000 layoffs in durable goods manufacturing. In August, that number was 64,000. That’s just about tied with the 63,000 from a year ago. The rate of layoffs has declined since the tariff announcement, from 0.9 percent in April to 0.8 percent in August. Two years ago, durable good manufacturers let 71,000 workers go in August, a layoff rate of 0.9 percent.

The number of hires declined in August to 207,000 after a monster 231,000 in July. This was down from 214,000 a year ago. But since unemployment down to 3.7 percent and openings are up, this is an indicator of a tight labor market rather than a sign that tariffs are hurting. August was the fifth consecutive month in which there were more openings than unemployed people in the U.S. Two years ago, when the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, there were just 164,000 hires in August.

The metals tariffs were predicted to cost jobs because there are more than ten times as many workers in metals-using industries than in steel and aluminum manufacturing. Economists claimed that the tariffs would cost as many as 146,000 jobs in metals-using industries.

The tariffs have not only defied the doom and gloom predictions when it comes to jobs, they are also defying them when it comes to prices. Prices of goods that require steel and aluminum, from cans of soup to cars, have not risen for consumers.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/10/16/manufacturing-continues-to-boom-in-america-defying-gloomy-tariff-predictions/

[edpc]

Here's some more real data, not just conjecture like you linked. @edpc

It’s real data, that actually happened. How is that conjecture?  Besides, read your own material. It says layoffs have declined. It did not say they stopped.  For example, just because someone is hiring in South Carolina, that doesn’t do much for the guy that lives in Oklahoma.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It’s real data, that actually happened. How is that conjecture?  Besides, read your own material. It says layoffs have declined. It did not say they stopped.  For example, just because someone is hiring in South Carolina, that doesn’t do much for the guy that lives in Oklahoma.

It is not real data you sent before.

It was assessments of what will happen BEFORE the tariffs.

That is conjecture.

[edpc]

It is not real data you sent before.

It was assessments of what will happen BEFORE the tariffs.

That is conjecture.

No, I said that would be the result, if the tariffs were left in place long enough.  Review comment 71.  As it is, the tariffs of been in place since April.  The Bush 43 tariffs were in place for approximately two years. It resulted in a net loss of jobs.


The Bush administration withdrew the tariffs in December 2003, about 21 months after they were imposed, but not without a cost. The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition found that 200,000 workers in U.S. manufacturing lost their jobs as a result of the tariffs. For comparison, the entire U.S. steel industry employed 197,000 at the time.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-imposed-tariffs-on-steel-2018-03-08

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, I said that would be the result, if the tariffs were left in place long enough.  Review comment 71.  As it is, the tariffs of been in place since April.  The Bush 43 tariffs were in place for approximately two years. It resulted in a net loss of jobs.


The Bush administration withdrew the tariffs in December 2003, about 21 months after they were imposed, but not without a cost. The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition found that 200,000 workers in U.S. manufacturing lost their jobs as a result of the tariffs. For comparison, the entire U.S. steel industry employed 197,000 at the time.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-imposed-tariffs-on-steel-2018-03-08

The conjecture is what will happen to the new tariffs deployed by Trump.


The real data so far is little negative effect.

[edpc]

The conjecture is what will happen to the new tariffs deployed by Trump.


The real data so far is little negative effect.

Thanks for finally admitting it’s had some negative effect.  If you stand out in the rain for a short time, you get damp.  Stand out there long enough and you get soaking wet.   That’s not conjecture.  It’s fact.

[RoosGirl]

FFS

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thanks for finally admitting it’s had some negative effect.  If you stand out in the rain for a short time, you get damp.  Stand out there long enough and you get soaking wet.   That’s not conjecture.  It’s fact.

You are a master at convolution.

Every action has positives and negatives. So far, the tariffs have had more favorable effects than unfavorable effects, as seen by real data.

And talking about the weather does not change that fact.

[Frank Cannon]

FFS

In case you were wondering.......Ford still blows.

[RoosGirl]

In case you were wondering.......Ford still blows.

Yeah, but I like that.

[thackney]

In case you were wondering.......Ford still blows.

well, some of them do...