More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[putnam6]

Michael Carbonara

@MCarbonaraFL

Record-breaking domestic oil production: 13.6 million barrels daily, with more records ahead, Sec. Burgum confirming.

Trump said drill baby drill. He meant it.

Energy abundance beats European shutdowns every time.

Lower costs for families, jobs for Americans, and independence from hostile nations.

[Vermilion]

Michael Carbonara

@MCarbonaraFL

Record-breaking domestic oil production: 13.6 million barrels daily, with more records ahead, Sec. Burgum confirming.

Trump said drill baby drill. He meant it.

Energy abundance beats European shutdowns every time.

Lower costs for families, jobs for Americans, and independence from hostile nations.

Gas is 2.30 here.
Unreal.

[putnam6]

Gas is 2.30 here.
Unreal.

Locally, still saving lots at these prices if we could get to $2.30 by the holidays. might be able to upgrade my computer.... 


Sam's Club $2.64

Race Trak $2.74

[putnam6]

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insig...ff-policy/
 

In this paper we exploit 150 years of tariff policy in the US and abroad to estimate the short-run effects of tariff shocks on macro aggregates. A careful review of the major changes in US tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. Exploiting this quasi-random nature of tariff variations, we find that a tariff hike raises unemployment (lowers economic activity) and lowers inflation. Using only tariff changes driven by long-run considerations—a traditional narrative identification—gives similar results. We also obtain similar results if we restrict the sample to the modern post World War II period or if we use independent variation from other countries (France and the UK). These findings point towards tariff shocks acting through an aggregate demand channel.

[IDELB2006]

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insig...ff-policy/
 

Could you explain explain to me like I don't have PhD in Economics.?

Is he saying tariffs are good or bad?

[DBCowboy]

Gas is 2.30 here.
Unreal.

Oregon, 4.69

 

[putnam6]

Could you explain explain to me like I don't have PhD in Economics.?

Is he saying tariffs are good or bad?

Nor do I. I was assigned to a 2nd Year economics class by mistake, my first quarter in community college. I only stayed a week.

"Cycle" refers to the normal economic ebb and flow... ie, the Economy



It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that Sloan Peterson didn't learn


History shows there is no connection between tariffs and the state of the economy or vice versa



 

A careful review of the major changes in US tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. 

 

The statement you quoted is broadly accurate and reflects a key insight from economic historians like Douglas Irwin and others who have studied U.S. tariff history.
From 1870 to about the 1930s, U.S. tariff policy was overwhelmingly driven by partisan ideology and interest-group politics, not by counter-cyclical macroeconomic management:

• Republicans (the high-tariff party) consistently favored protectionism to shield domestic industry (especially manufacturing in the North and Midwest).
  
• Democrats (the low-tariff party) favored lower tariffs to benefit Southern agricultural exporters and urban consumers.
  

Because of this partisan divide, tariff changes often moved against what a simple counter-cyclical logic would predict:

• Recessions sometimes led to higher tariffs (e.g., Republicans raising rates after the Panic of 1893 → McKinley Tariff 1890, Dingley Tariff 1897; or after 1929 → Smoot-Hawley 1930).
  
• Booms sometimes led to lower tariffs when Democrats were in power (e.g., Underwood Tariff of 1913 during a strong economy; or the modest reductions under Wilson).
  

Key episodes that illustrate the lack of systematic cyclical pattern:
Period / Act
Year
Party in Power
Economic Conditions
Tariff Direction
Morrill Tariff
1861
Republican
Pre-Civil War boom
Sharply ↑
McKinley Tariff
1890
Republican
Approaching 1893 panic
↑
Wilson-Gorman Tariff
1894
Democrat
Deep depression
Modest ↓
Dingley Tariff
1897
Republican
Recovery underway
Sharply ↑
Payne-Aldrich Tariff
1909
Republican
Strong growth
Slight ↑
Underwood Tariff
1913
Democrat
Strong growth
Sharply ↓
Fordney-McCumber Tariff
1922
Republican
Post-WWI recession
↑
Smoot-Hawley Tariff
1930
Republican
Great Depression beginning
Sharply ↑
Reciprocal Trade Agreements
1934+
Democrat
Depression → recovery
↓ (gradual)

As you can see, the same economic conditions (recession, boom) produced opposite tariff outcomes depending on which party controlled Congress and the White House. There is no consistent pattern of “raise tariffs in bad times, lower them in good times” (or vice versa).
Only after 1934, with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the shift of tariff authority to the executive branch, did U.S. policy become more consistently oriented toward gradual liberalization—largely independent of the business cycle and driven instead by foreign-policy and GATT/WTO commitments.
So yes: from 1870 through the early 1930s, U.S. tariff changes were driven primarily by partisan and sectional politics, not by any systematic counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical logic The historical record really does show “opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions,” exactly as the statement says.

[putnam6]

scanx.trade
https://scanx.trade › stock-market-news › global › saudi-arabia-commits-to-massive-600-billion-to-1-trillion-u-s-investment › 25033363
Saudi Arabia Commits to Massive $600 Billion to $1 Trillion U.S. Investment
Today

Saudi Arabia has announced a significant investment commitment in the United States, with an initial investment of $600 billion that could potentially reach up to $1 trillion. The investment was announced by the Saudi Crown Prince and confirmed by a former U.S. President.

[putnam6]

On the topic of tariffs are trashing the economy.

Fall and holiday retail has always been a bellwether for the economy in general, YES or NO...

Even for our industry, we were busier than usual.

Our retailers were swamped a bit; calls for special orders are way up. In our sector, it's encouraging as hell. 

For perspective, 10 years ago, online sales were less than 10% of retailers' business; now it's approaching 25-30% and because this new business is mostly out of the retailers' home zipcodes, it'sa  new nationwide business and isn't cannibalizing local in-store sales in a noticeable amount

If that holds through our busiest retail months, January through April, we will have a massive start to 2026


 

Quote: 
Overview of Black Friday 2025 
Black Friday 2025 (November 28) was a tale of two shopping worlds: record-breaking online activity that underscored its evolution into a digital powerhouse, contrasted with modest or slightly declining in-store crowds. Overall, it was busier than 2024 in terms of total spending and participation, with U.S. consumers showing resilient demand amid economic pressures like inflation and tariffs. However, shoppers were more tactical—prioritizing deals via apps and AI tools—leading to fewer units bought per transaction despite higher dollar volumes. Here's a breakdown based on key metrics:
 
 
Online vs. In-Store Breakdown

• Online Boom: E-commerce dominated, tripling from $3.54 billion a decade ago. Adobe tracked over 1 trillion site visits, with AI assistants (e.g., Amazon's Rufus, Walmart's Sparky) influencing $3 billion in U.S. sales—shoppers using AI converted 38–54% more often. Electronics ($2.1 billion), toys, and apparel led categories, but tariffs (up 17% on electronics) pushed prices higher, curbing volume.  Social commerce (TikTok Shop, Instagram) generated 19% of sales for some retailers.
  
• In-Store Reality: Crowds were thinner than the pre-pandemic era, with videos of empty aisles at stores like Best Buy going viral on X, evoking nostalgia for 2005's "doorbuster" chaos.  The shift reflects extended promotions ("Black November") starting in October, reducing the need for one-day rushes. Winners included Target (early swag bags) and Walmart (late-day surge), while off-price and department stores outperformed. 
  

Broader Context and Sentiment
Despite economic headwinds (e.g., CPI up on essentials, sentiment at 88.7), spending held strong—contradicting recession fears (24% probability per Cleveland Fed). X posts highlighted the paradox: record sales amid "empty malls" and boycott calls that fizzled.  Gen Z cut discretionary spend 15%, but the top 10% earners (48% of Q2 spending) fueled the surge.  Looking ahead, Cyber Monday projections: $14.2 billion (+6.3%), with holiday totals eyeing $1 trillion+. 
In short, Black Friday 2025 was busier digitally than ever, but felt quieter in physical spaces—a sign of evolved, efficient consumerism rather than decline.

[putnam6]

How long have I been banging the low gasoline prices drum are easily offsetting the modest consumer price increases. 
 

 
Eric Daugherty

@EricLDaugh

 HOLY CRAP! The Experts are down bad this morning
after CNN is FORCED to break the news that gas is plummeting under President Trump

"For the first time in 4.5 years, gas prices are averaging $3 per gallon nationally!"

"GOOD NEWS!" "20 states where the average is LESS than $2.75." The left is in shambles!