Do you have a pre-tariffs shopping list?

[ChpBstrd]

Even if it turns out waiting would have been better it's not the end of the world either way.

Why not replace one car?  Especially if you are considering an EV for which there are incentives that will disappear.

A higher cost of ownership offsets the risk that new car prices will be much higher in the near future.

The specific trade-up being considered is going from a 2011 Corolla to a 2024 or 2025 Corolla LE hybrid. I'd upgrade to full coverage instead of liability only. Per my insurance agent, that would increase my premium from $682 to $1166, or about $968/year. According to Edmunds TCO, 5 year depreciation on the new car would be $10,278, compared to perhaps $2,500 on the old one (current value is $5,500). In addition, property taxes would be higher and my state charges more for annual registration of hybrids than ICE-only cars. I'll call sales tax a wash because I'll have to pay an even higher tax if I replace the 2011 model in a few years.

So far we're up to over $13k in increased expenses, and that's not accounting for the opportunity cost of taking $20,000 out of the stock market for the next 5 years. Let's pessimistically assume 5% returns, or a value of $1,000 per year for Mustachian "financing". Now we're up to $18k in higher expenses.

But the new car would save money in other areas. Edmunds only calculates back to 2018 models, but I can still use that as a proxy for fuel costs and a baseline to estimate maintenance and repair bills for my 7-years-older Corolla.

• Fuel would be about $2,638 cheaper in the hybrid over 5 years.
• Maintenance + repairs are $2,200 more for the 2018 model than the 2024. Maybe $4,400 is a more reasonable estimate for my 2011 model because it's twice as old? Seems sane to me.

So about $7k of savings offset $18k in expenses, for a net 5 year expected cost of about $11k. I ONLY care about time/money and get no enjoyment out of driving a newer or fancier car, so on the surface I should say no to this trade unless I think the increase in new car prices will exceed $11k for this car at the low end of the market. I don't think that level of increase is on anyone's forecast. However, the upgrade could have tactical value in the following contingencies:

• If tariffs are instituted, the car I can buy today for around $25k could actually appreciate, as the did in 2020-2021. Or at least depreciation estimates could be over-estimates by thousands of dollars.
• Similarly, higher-than-expected inflation or dollar devaluation could reduce depreciation of the car to less than estimated.
• If gasoline prices are higher than expected, the fuel savings could be a lot more than $2,638.
• If I buy a car now that I'll keep for another dozen years, I will not be forced to buy a car within the next 2-5 years, in a market that might not have such good prices. I'm thinking of all the unfortunate people whose cars wore out right as the post-pandemic shortages occurred, and who were forced to pay a premium in either the new or used markets. Ouch.
• There is the value of my time to consider. If I keep the 2011, DIY repairs and occasional breakdowns/towing will cost dozens of hours of my time per year and disrupt other life priorities. And I do need to maintain focus on other things than a car right now. Time is worth some amount of money. If I assign $750/year to "net hassle expenses" that's another $3,750 off the cost of the new car, though the buying experience will cost at least $500 of my time.

Regarding EVs, the loss of incentives could immediately reduce their resale value next year. So if I bought now with the value of the incentive embedded in the price, and sell later at a price that lacks that embedded incentive, I'd basically be losing the incentive as depreciation. Even now, the gap between the $7,500 new EV incentive and the $4,000 used EV incentive (a one-time per vehicle credit!) explains much of the higher depreciation being reported for EVs.

I might consider a twice-sold EV that is already ineligible for more tax credits, if the price was low enough. Still, it's hard for EVs to beat the long-term financial performance or go-anywhere-on-a-whim flexibility of the hybrid Corolla.

[OzzieandHarriet]

I'm considering buying a new laptop. I have a 2015 Macbook Air that still works just fine, but it won't be supported going forward and currently has no trade-in value. Shopping for this as we type.

Does anyone have an opinion about whether it's better to buy directly from Apple or to go with a big box store?

[Bradlinc4]

I'm considering buying a new laptop. I have a 2015 Macbook Air that still works just fine, but it won't be supported going forward and currently has no trade-in value. Shopping for this as we type.

Does anyone have an opinion about whether it's better to buy directly from Apple or to go with a big box store?

I would check out https://www.macrumors.com/guide/macbook-pro-air-deals/, scroll to the bottom of the page. There is a list of the cheapest options.

Don't forget Walmart. They have New M1 MacBook Air's for $649. They are the only retailer that still sells new M1s.

[ChpBstrd]

Looks like I'm not the only one:
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/american-companies-are-stocking-up-to-get-ahead-of-trumps-china-tariffs-c1ca4744

[FINate]

We're making some bigger purchases in anticipation of higher tariffs.

DW's Toyota is 16 years old, was hoping to keep it limping along until we could replace it with an EV. But it's starting to show its age with lots of different things starting to fail. I don't mind putting some money into repairs, but really dislike breaking down in the middle of nowhere in Idaho's winters. The EV market and charging network are getting better, but still too expensive while not really working for us. Tariffs weren't our main motivation, but it did factor into our decision. Just put a deposit on a new Telluride, not ideal, but will get us through the teen phase. We'll look at EVs again in a few years after the kids are off to college.

Last week we replaced our radiant heat range with induction. This was something we've wanted to do for years but put off during the pandemic supply chain craziness. Glad we finally made the upgrade, induction is amazing. This was something we were going to do relatively soon anyway, but decided to get it done now just in case.

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

[GuitarStv]

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

Hard to say.  I could see a world where the massive increase of prices caused by tariffs is a net environmental benefit.  Prior to Trump I wouldn't have thought a president would be pushing for higher domestic prices on everything.  Given Trump's history on climate change and his stated goals, I'm pretty sure the net effect of his presidency will not be positive though.

[NorCal]

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

Hard to say.  I could see a world where the massive increase of prices caused by tariffs is a net environmental benefit.  Prior to Trump I wouldn't have thought a president would be pushing for higher domestic prices on everything.  Given Trump's history on climate change and his stated goals, I'm pretty sure the net effect of his presidency will not be positive though.

There is something to this idea, but the scale of the trade impacts matter.

I’ve read a number of IPCC reports, and made an effort to understand the criticisms of them. I think they do a good job of balancing likely risks without either overstating or understating them.

The criticism I’ve seen that seems to hold some validity is that the IPCC reports likely overstate global GDP growth.  Global GDP growth is a major driver of emissions growth. It drives things like how much steel, gasoline, cement, etc is needed in the world.

But scale matters. Dropping 0.1% off GDP growth in the US and China is very different than a trade war that drops both countries into a recession.

[FINate]

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

Hard to say.  I could see a world where the massive increase of prices caused by tariffs is a net environmental benefit.  Prior to Trump I wouldn't have thought a president would be pushing for higher domestic prices on everything.  Given Trump's history on climate change and his stated goals, I'm pretty sure the net effect of his presidency will not be positive though.

There is something to this idea, but the scale of the trade impacts matter.

I’ve read a number of IPCC reports, and made an effort to understand the criticisms of them. I think they do a good job of balancing likely risks without either overstating or understating them.

The criticism I’ve seen that seems to hold some validity is that the IPCC reports likely overstate global GDP growth.  Global GDP growth is a major driver of emissions growth. It drives things like how much steel, gasoline, cement, etc is needed in the world.

But scale matters. Dropping 0.1% off GDP growth in the US and China is very different than a trade war that drops both countries into a recession.

Agree with you and GuitarStv. Tariffs are not a panacea and likely have large unintended consequences that frustrate Trump and his supporters. Yet I do think the era of globalization is largely a story of labor and regulatory arbitrage as the US effectively exported externalities to other countries by importing cheap products. If Trump accidentally offsets this arbitrage with tariffs this could be desirable. Doubtful this will result in a flood of manufacturing coming back to the US, though things on the margin may return (or remain).  It will result in higher prices which in turn reduces consumption. IMO this is a good thing.

[ChpBstrd]

I'm considering buying a new laptop. I have a 2015 Macbook Air that still works just fine, but it won't be supported going forward and currently has no trade-in value. Shopping for this as we type.

Does anyone have an opinion about whether it's better to buy directly from Apple or to go with a big box store?

I would check out https://www.macrumors.com/guide/macbook-pro-air-deals/, scroll to the bottom of the page. There is a list of the cheapest options.

Don't forget Walmart. They have New M1 MacBook Air's for $649. They are the only retailer that still sells new M1s.

I have a 2018 Dell laptop and a 2014 Surface. I use them plugged in though, so the batteries are in good shape. The Surface is showing its age with only 4GB of non-upgradable RAM and a fraying keyboard. The Dell is doing well, as it has 16GB of RAM, and I've reduced internet latency by hard wiring it to my router (remember when laptops had ethernet ports!?). It's also a dual-boot, so I envision myself shifting over to the faster and less-resource-intensive Linux side over time.

Computers would be ground zero for potential price hikes and shortages. Yet, I'm deciding to not upgrade these tools, because I think I can get another 5 years out of the Dell at least and because I don't want to encourage myself to spend waste more time on them.

Macbooks are appealing at $650 but Dells are much more repairable/upgradeable, don't require the purchase of a separate adapter for USB3, HDMI, and headphone ports, are even cheaper, and are more straightforward to dual-boot/jailbreak.

Cell phones are another story, as they are already 4 years old and the batteries don't last a full day. Perhaps we can get another 6 months out of the old ones and 3rd gen iPhone SE's will drop another 25 bucks.

[ChpBstrd]

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

Hard to say.  I could see a world where the massive increase of prices caused by tariffs is a net environmental benefit.  Prior to Trump I wouldn't have thought a president would be pushing for higher domestic prices on everything.  Given Trump's history on climate change and his stated goals, I'm pretty sure the net effect of his presidency will not be positive though.

There is something to this idea, but the scale of the trade impacts matter.

I’ve read a number of IPCC reports, and made an effort to understand the criticisms of them. I think they do a good job of balancing likely risks without either overstating or understating them.

The criticism I’ve seen that seems to hold some validity is that the IPCC reports likely overstate global GDP growth.  Global GDP growth is a major driver of emissions growth. It drives things like how much steel, gasoline, cement, etc is needed in the world.

But scale matters. Dropping 0.1% off GDP growth in the US and China is very different than a trade war that drops both countries into a recession.

Agree with you and GuitarStv. Tariffs are not a panacea and likely have large unintended consequences that frustrate Trump and his supporters. Yet I do think the era of globalization is largely a story of labor and regulatory arbitrage as the US effectively exported externalities to other countries by importing cheap products. If Trump accidentally offsets this arbitrage with tariffs this could be desirable. Doubtful this will result in a flood of manufacturing coming back to the US, though things on the margin may return (or remain).  It will result in higher prices which in turn reduces consumption. IMO this is a good thing.

Tariffs are a consumption tax. Ironically this moves the US closer to the effects of a VAT-based tax system which has encouraged people in Europe and parts of Asia to consume much less overall than people in the U.S.

Trump is basically saying he will lower income/corporate taxes in exchange for raising tariffs/consumption taxes. This essentially incentivizes the earning of income and disincentivizes the spending of income.

Investors may think that's good for them (higher corporate margins justifying higher valuations), but there is a "downside" too. The downside for the economy is that we could enter a regime of permanently higher savings rates and reduced international trade. Higher savings rates could nudge the U.S's hyperconsumption norms slightly in the direction of China's or South Korea's hyper-frugal norms, reducing consumer spending in a country that doesn't have the option to export its way out of domestic stagnation.

Americans' Personal Savings Rate is currently a mere 4.6%, compared to 7.2% in Canada, 17.9% in France, 18.6% in Mexico, 21% in Spain, and 35% in South Korea!

What would happen in Americans' PSR rose to the historically more typical 6-7% like we saw from the mid-90s to 2018? What if it rose above 10% like in most VAT countries? Arguably, the effect would be proportionally lower personal consumption expenditures growth. For scale, the GFC featured a -4% reduction in PCE between August 2008 and April 2009.

Throw in higher inflation and interest rates and you get concerning results.

[FINate]

While I'm not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him, I do think higher tariffs may have beneficial environmental effects. A tariff is effectively a tax (never thought I'd see R's cheering higher taxes!), which will reduce trade and economic activity. It could greatly reduce consumerism, especially cheap/plastic crap from China. Yes, China will move production to other countries. And yes a good amount of high end manufacturing happens in China, which will have negative downstream impacts on the US. But in a weird way it may actually do some good.

Hard to say.  I could see a world where the massive increase of prices caused by tariffs is a net environmental benefit.  Prior to Trump I wouldn't have thought a president would be pushing for higher domestic prices on everything.  Given Trump's history on climate change and his stated goals, I'm pretty sure the net effect of his presidency will not be positive though.

There is something to this idea, but the scale of the trade impacts matter.

I’ve read a number of IPCC reports, and made an effort to understand the criticisms of them. I think they do a good job of balancing likely risks without either overstating or understating them.

The criticism I’ve seen that seems to hold some validity is that the IPCC reports likely overstate global GDP growth.  Global GDP growth is a major driver of emissions growth. It drives things like how much steel, gasoline, cement, etc is needed in the world.

But scale matters. Dropping 0.1% off GDP growth in the US and China is very different than a trade war that drops both countries into a recession.

Agree with you and GuitarStv. Tariffs are not a panacea and likely have large unintended consequences that frustrate Trump and his supporters. Yet I do think the era of globalization is largely a story of labor and regulatory arbitrage as the US effectively exported externalities to other countries by importing cheap products. If Trump accidentally offsets this arbitrage with tariffs this could be desirable. Doubtful this will result in a flood of manufacturing coming back to the US, though things on the margin may return (or remain).  It will result in higher prices which in turn reduces consumption. IMO this is a good thing.

Tariffs are a consumption tax. Ironically this moves the US closer to the effects of a VAT-based tax system which has encouraged people in Europe and parts of Asia to consume much less overall than people in the U.S.

Trump is basically saying he will lower income/corporate taxes in exchange for raising tariffs/consumption taxes. This essentially incentivizes the earning of income and disincentivizes the spending of income.

Investors may think that's good for them (higher corporate margins justifying higher valuations), but there is a "downside" too. The downside for the economy is that we could enter a regime of permanently higher savings rates and reduced international trade. Higher savings rates could nudge the U.S's hyperconsumption norms slightly in the direction of China's or South Korea's hyper-frugal norms, reducing consumer spending in a country that doesn't have the option to export its way out of domestic stagnation.

Americans' Personal Savings Rate is currently a mere 4.6%, compared to 7.2% in Canada, 17.9% in France, 18.6% in Mexico, 21% in Spain, and 35% in South Korea!

What would happen in Americans' PSR rose to the historically more typical 6-7% like we saw from the mid-90s to 2018? What if it rose above 10% like in most VAT countries? Arguably, the effect would be proportionally lower personal consumption expenditures growth. For scale, the GFC featured a -4% reduction in PCE between August 2008 and April 2009.

Throw in higher inflation and interest rates and you get concerning results.

Yes, it may be a bumpy ride, hence our shopping list :)

But something needs to be done about countries that manipulate their currency and engage in dumping. What I really dislike about Trump is how emotional and personal/narcissistic he is on these issues.

In my ideal world, tariffs would be automatically set based on the trade imbalance with a given country. If you want to trade with us, then you have to actually trade with us. Buy our stuff and we'll buy yours. Phase it in over a few years to minimize disruption. Over the long term this would incentive more rational trading partnerships.

[ChpBstrd]

But something needs to be done about countries that manipulate their currency and engage in dumping. What I really dislike about Trump is how emotional and personal/narcissistic he is on these issues.

In my ideal world, tariffs would be automatically set based on the trade imbalance with a given country. If you want to trade with us, then you have to actually trade with us. Buy our stuff and we'll buy yours. Phase it in over a few years to minimize disruption. Over the long term this would incentive more rational trading partnerships.

100% of countries with their own currencies manipulate their currencies.

When the U.S. or E.U. or China or Japan detect slowing growth, their central banks will cut real rates. Lower rates than peer currencies make a currency relatively less attractive for investors/traders. The currency then usually falls compared to currencies with higher real rates, which makes the terms of their exports more attractive. Did the central bank just manipulate its currency, or did they merely provide relief to their domestic economy and defend against recession?

Well, it did both. There's no way not to do both. A country not manipulating its currency would have to have no control over interest rates and/or no government debt.

When we "make money cheaper" by lowering rates, we put downward pressure on the currency too, literally "making currency cheaper". Of course, major economies usually raise and lower together due to global economic integration, so there isn't always a clear net effect.

The idea of setting tariffs on deficit trade rather than all trade is intriguing, but if it was implemented in real time it would look something like tariffs for the second 6 months of every year, which could be disruptive. If implemented with a lag, tariffs would be set based on, for example, the previous year's deficit, as calculated some time into the current year.

Also, such a tariff system would have to be revised in the event of a war or natural disaster, when a country in a desperate situation must accept trade deficits and take on debt in order to rebuild. It's not a policy that would fit Japan in 1946 or Ukraine today.

[SilentC]

I can’t believe people are pushing back on this concept. It’s so obvious that the risk-reward on some minor purchases is high.  Maybe cognitive dissent over who they voted for?

Anyway, I’m planning on carrying a little more inventory in things that I buy shipped direct from China in case any actions make e-packet more expensive.  We have been buying biodegradable trash bags for example on Temu and it’s not going to kill us to have two years of trash bags if nothing happens.  I drink a lot of tea and will stock up on the ones I buy shipped from China direct.  I liked the idea of filters and car parts.  Risk-reward on all of this is massively skewed to the upside.  I think we only lose if our house burns down or there is such a gut wrenching recession that trash bag prices fall substantially.

[SilentC]

Just a car. Just read that mid-priced new cars could cost approx $7k more due to tariffs. Which will likely impact the used car market with higher demand and prices. I guess I better get off my butt and go get a car...or not.

"Experts estimate that Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on imported auto parts and automobiles will add as much as $7,000 to the cost of the average-priced new car."

But the new Patriot Teslas will be freeee!

Sounds good to meeee!

[FINate]

I can’t believe people are pushing back on this concept. It’s so obvious that the risk-reward on some minor purchases is high.  Maybe cognitive dissent over who they voted for?

Anyway, I’m planning on carrying a little more inventory in things that I buy shipped direct from China in case any actions make e-packet more expensive.  We have been buying biodegradable trash bags for example on Temu and it’s not going to kill us to have two years of trash bags if nothing happens.  I drink a lot of tea and will stock up on the ones I buy shipped from China direct.  I liked the idea of filters and car parts.  Risk-reward on all of this is massively skewed to the upside.  I think we only lose if our house burns down or there is such a gut wrenching recession that trash bag prices fall substantially.

I don't sense connotative dissonance or any sort of politically motivated push back here. Instead there's a caution, rooted in humility, that no one can predict the future. IMO that's just good advice. Sure, stocking up on some extra tea or whatever is low-risk. And for us, we're just pulling forward a couple of large purchases we were already planning for. But radically altering one's plans probably isn't a great idea -- though now that I've said it I'll probably be proven wrong and we'll have another wave of high inflation :)

[NorCal]

I can’t believe people are pushing back on this concept. It’s so obvious that the risk-reward on some minor purchases is high.  Maybe cognitive dissent over who they voted for?

Anyway, I’m planning on carrying a little more inventory in things that I buy shipped direct from China in case any actions make e-packet more expensive.  We have been buying biodegradable trash bags for example on Temu and it’s not going to kill us to have two years of trash bags if nothing happens.  I drink a lot of tea and will stock up on the ones I buy shipped from China direct.  I liked the idea of filters and car parts.  Risk-reward on all of this is massively skewed to the upside.  I think we only lose if our house burns down or there is such a gut wrenching recession that trash bag prices fall substantially.

I don't sense connotative dissonance or any sort of politically motivated push back here. Instead there's a caution, rooted in humility, that no one can predict the future. IMO that's just good advice. Sure, stocking up on some extra tea or whatever is low-risk. And for us, we're just pulling forward a couple of large purchases we were already planning for. But radically altering one's plans probably isn't a great idea -- though now that I've said it I'll probably be proven wrong and we'll have another wave of high inflation :)

Agreed.  The predictability of this is near-zero.  Of the things Trump said on the campaign trail, a few might happen to be true.  But it's impossible to predict which ones.  The difference between tariffs on China and tariffs on the world is huge.  The difference between targeted tariffs on China and general tariffs on China is huge.  What the courts believe falls under executive versus legislative powers is a big question mark.

Whether cars increase in price has everything to do with tariffs on Mexico (which are likely a bargaining ploy) and nearly nothing to do with tariffs on China.

I don' see anything fundamentally wrong with pre-purchasing minor bulk essentials.  Whether it works out to net benefit or a net cost would be pretty non-material in my life.  I wouldn't make a car or appliance buying decision over it, but I might pull forward a purchase here if I was already planning to buy something in the next year. 

This thread did prompt me to be thoughtful about this though.  I went through my budgeting spreadsheet to see if their were any spending categories where this would make a difference.  I was struck by how much of my spending is on non-tangible things like insurance (health, home, auto), utilities, and kids summer camps.  The biggest chunk of tangible items is food, which is hard to pre-purchase.

I guess I could go buy some extra printer toner, compost bags and HVAC filters.  It might save me tens of dollars over a high-tariff scenario.  It's low risk, but the reward isn't particularly high either.

We did already pull forward a few bigger purchases over the last two years.  My wife is getting ready to quit her high-paying job for something lower paying and lower stress.  We wanted to buy a few new appliances and cut the natural gas line, so we don't personally have to worry about this for the near future.  These are the things I'd be looking at if we hadn't already recently made the purchases.

[SilentC]

I think humility is fine and acknowledging that no one can predict the future is also fine, but at work we have a saying that not doing something because the outcome is uncertain is “loser mentality.”  We would all be in caves still if the randomness and unpredictability of life caused us to not take any risks.  Most people here dollar cost average and passively invest in index funds which is basically free riding off of the risk assessments of professionals who actively set the value of stocks.  This is fine, but there are lots of choices where one cannot free ride (should I buy this house?  Should I marry this man?) and that doesn’t mean the answer is to sit on one’s hands. 

Edit - it’s not “loser mentality” to say “There isn’t a clear positive risk reward so pass on a project/idea/spouse candidate” but that’s different than just being risk averse because there is uncertainty in the world. 

[ChpBstrd]

It's actually quite simple. If something will cost 10% or 20% more in a year than it will cost today, what is the ROI of spending your cash on it now instead of then?

Usually we'd compare such an offer against a similarly risky investment, like treasuries yielding 4.5% for example. However the uncertainty of tariffs leaves us with uncertainty about a comparable alternative investment.

And to be clear, we're strictly talking about things you'll buy anyway. If the price of everything is going up, you'll need to preserve more of your money to cover necessities in the future.

[farmecologist]

Had some guys out today to get an estimate to re-roof my house.

It could maybe be patched together another couple of years, but why take the risk?

I'm still really struggling with the notion of keeping our 13 and 14 year old cars and hoping for the best when it's time to replace them in 2-5 years.

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

[reeshau]

The average age of cars in the US is reported as 12.6 years.  But that's actually a blended number.  For passenger cars, the average age is 14 years.

[Evgenia]

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

We've had a similar conversation in our house the past week. We have a 2008 Toyota Sienna with 118k on it. It cost $10k out the door, taxes and all. I put in a new battery for < $80 a couple of years ago. This year, it cost $1,500 in maintenance (front and rear brakes; tire sensors replaced; oil changes), and is basically in perfect shape. A mechanic gives it a thorough check and notes any issues every time I take it in for an oil change. We'll have been FIRE for ten years next year (though technically we've ended up living CoastFIRE most years), so we can absolutely afford a nicer car, and some heated seats and a back-up cam would be nice, but -- per usual -- we can't bring ourselves to spend the money. We may just end up buying old beaters forever, who knows, we'll see. If there's a recession cars may also go on sale.

[spartana]

Had some guys out today to get an estimate to re-roof my house.

It could maybe be patched together another couple of years, but why take the risk?

I'm still really struggling with the notion of keeping our 13 and 14 year old cars and hoping for the best when it's time to replace them in 2-5 years.

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

I always thought most people meant "new to them" (aka used) and not shiney new manufactured. But I  see most probably mean shiney new - especially with used car prices being so high compared to new the last few years. After much deep soul searching (aka too lazy to bother actually looking) I decided to continue on with my car-free life a bit longer. If I change my mind I might have to deal with tarfiff-induced price increases but figure I'm saving so much by being car-free now that it'll be a wash.

[reeshau]

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

We've had a similar conversation in our house the past week. We have a 2008 Toyota Sienna with 118k on it. It cost $10k out the door, taxes and all. I put in a new battery for < $80 a couple of years ago. This year, it cost $1,500 in maintenance (front and rear brakes; tire sensors replaced; oil changes), and is basically in perfect shape. A mechanic gives it a thorough check and notes any issues every time I take it in for an oil change. We'll have been FIRE for ten years next year (though technically we've ended up living CoastFIRE most years), so we can absolutely afford a nicer car, and some heated seats and a back-up cam would be nice, but -- per usual -- we can't bring ourselves to spend the money. We may just end up buying old beaters forever, who knows, we'll see. If there's a recession cars may also go on sale.

Backup cameras were mandated in 2018, so in a few years even the beaters will have them!  Of course, I'd hate to think of the replacement cost if they went bad.

[englishteacheralex]

Can I use this as an excuse for having bought a Vitamix at Costco on Saturday?

I'm stocking up on frozen vegetables and berries because of the predicted deportations.

Which...the deportations are way sadder than the possibly more expensive groceries.

[SilentC]

From Bloomberg News - “ Donald Trump said he would impose 10% tariffs on goods from China and 25% tariffs on all products from Mexico and Canada, citing the levies as necessary to clamp down on migrants and illegal drugs flowing across US borders.”  It is behind a paywall but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-25/trump-plans-10-tariffs-on-china-goods-25-on-mexico-and-canada

[ChpBstrd]

Had some guys out today to get an estimate to re-roof my house.

It could maybe be patched together another couple of years, but why take the risk?

I'm still really struggling with the notion of keeping our 13 and 14 year old cars and hoping for the best when it's time to replace them in 2-5 years.

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

2011 Corolla, 122k
2012 Fit, 110k

Either mustachian car could comfortably last another 3-8 years, both are well-maintained, and neither "need" to be replaced. They are each worth about $6k, and either be replaced by a new Corolla hybrid for about $26k, or Prius for a bit more than that. The main justification to replace one of the cars earlier is to not find oneself needing to replace two cars at the same time in a post-tariffs world.

Edmunds says the cost of owning a new Corolla hybrid for five years is  $33,667, roughly the same as the non-hybrid*. I can only guess at the cost of owning my teenage Corolla or Fit for another five years, but I do know insurance would go up $1k/year, gas would go down a couple thousand over 5 years, and depreciation would consume about another $6k on net over 5 years. If the price of these cars goes up maybe $5k in the next year or two, it might cost no more to lock in my transportation costs now than it would cost to drive the old car a bit longer and pay the higher price later. 

*Note that Edmunds seems to assume higher depreciation for the hybrid than the non-hybrid. I am skeptical.

[spartana]

^^^My filthy rich FIREd sister is still driving a 2000 Nissan with over 250k miles on it so your much newer cars may last a lot longer then planned. And it runs and looks great.

[Evgenia]

^^^My filthy rich FIREd sister is still driving a 2000 Nissan with over 250k miles on it so your much newer cars may last a lot longer then planned. And it runs and looks great.

I love this! New car goals, ha ha ha. FWIW, @englishteacheralex, I have never regretted our years-ago Costco Vitamix and use it all the time.

[spartana]

^^^My filthy rich FIREd sister is still driving a 2000 Nissan with over 250k miles on it so your much newer cars may last a lot longer then planned. And it runs and looks great.

I love this! New car goals, ha ha ha. FWIW, @englishteacheralex, I have never regretted our years-ago Costco Vitamix and use it all the time.

She did buy it new back in 1999/2000 for something like $8k all in. So $8k spread out over 24 years isn't too shabby.

I always thought Vitamix were made in the US and that's one reason they are so expensive. If so tariffs won't effect them. But they are probably made in China and assembled in the US like many "American" products.

[FINate]

We have our reasons for a shiny new car and we don't need anyone's approval :) You guys are free to keep your cars as long as you please.

Likely donating the old Toyota to a family that needs it. Whatever smallish amount it's worth is much more meaningful to them than us. There's more to life than money.

[englishteacheralex]

I wasn't thinking of tariffs when I bought the Vitamix, but I did pour one out for sol, or whoever that guy was who always got so worked up about Vitamixes on the forums here back in the day.

I just wanted one. I make a smoothie for my husband and myself every single day and we've burned through three Ninja blenders in the past ten years.

[ChpBstrd]

Trump ups the ante on tariffs, vowing massive taxes on goods from Mexico, Canada and China on Day 1
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china/index.html

On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

So we may not have as much time as we think. Definitely upgrading cell phones in December.

[GilesMM]

Had some guys out today to get an estimate to re-roof my house.

It could maybe be patched together another couple of years, but why take the risk?

I'm still really struggling with the notion of keeping our 13 and 14 year old cars and hoping for the best when it's time to replace them in 2-5 years.

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

2011 Corolla, 122k
2012 Fit, 110k

Either mustachian car could comfortably last another 3-8 years, both are well-maintained, and neither "need" to be replaced. They are each worth about $6k, and either be replaced by a new Corolla hybrid for about $26k, or Prius for a bit more than that. The main justification to replace one of the cars earlier is to not find oneself needing to replace two cars at the same time in a post-tariffs world.

Edmunds says the cost of owning a new Corolla hybrid for five years is  $33,667, roughly the same as the non-hybrid*. I can only guess at the cost of owning my teenage Corolla or Fit for another five years, but I do know insurance would go up $1k/year, gas would go down a couple thousand over 5 years, and depreciation would consume about another $6k on net over 5 years. If the price of these cars goes up maybe $5k in the next year or two, it might cost no more to lock in my transportation costs now than it would cost to drive the old car a bit longer and pay the higher price later. 

*Note that Edmunds seems to assume higher depreciation for the hybrid than the non-hybrid. I am skeptical.

You should be able to easily eke another 100k out of each car trouble-free.  Seems unlikely they would both die at once and require replacement at same time.

[NorCal]

Trump ups the ante on tariffs, vowing massive taxes on goods from Mexico, Canada and China on Day 1
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china/index.html

On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

So we may not have as much time as we think. Definitely upgrading cell phones in December.

This is part of why Trump is simultaneously an existential threat and impossible to take seriously.

On some level, you believe he’s serious. Yet on another, you realize that he would never allow this to happen for an extended period of time.

Most American made cars are assembled in the US, but the supply chain for intermediate parts runs through Mexico.  Most American car factories would probably shut down and furlough workers before they accepted a 25% increase on their bill of materials.  Imagine how long Trump and Congress’s attention span would last on this issue with thousands of furloughed workers on Foxnews everyday.

Many agricultural goods would simple no longer be available in the US.

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

So you simultaneously have to take these comments seriously, but never literally.

Trump says many things. The ratio of things that happen to pass is not particularly high.

[bacchi]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

[ChpBstrd]

Had some guys out today to get an estimate to re-roof my house.

It could maybe be patched together another couple of years, but why take the risk?

I'm still really struggling with the notion of keeping our 13 and 14 year old cars and hoping for the best when it's time to replace them in 2-5 years.

What kind of cars?

I briefly had a similar thought with one of our cars.  It is our "daily driver".  A 2012 Prius V with 180K...with a failing head gasket.  I just decided to replace the head gasket, etc...as these things can last a LONG time.  It likely will need a new battery, and possibly a brake booster in the coming years.  But you know what?  Still far, FAR less than buying a new car.

I find it quite amusing how folks rationationalize new car purchases just because their current one is "old", etc...  Resist the temptation!

2011 Corolla, 122k
2012 Fit, 110k

Either mustachian car could comfortably last another 3-8 years, both are well-maintained, and neither "need" to be replaced. They are each worth about $6k, and either be replaced by a new Corolla hybrid for about $26k, or Prius for a bit more than that. The main justification to replace one of the cars earlier is to not find oneself needing to replace two cars at the same time in a post-tariffs world.

Edmunds says the cost of owning a new Corolla hybrid for five years is  $33,667, roughly the same as the non-hybrid*. I can only guess at the cost of owning my teenage Corolla or Fit for another five years, but I do know insurance would go up $1k/year, gas would go down a couple thousand over 5 years, and depreciation would consume about another $6k on net over 5 years. If the price of these cars goes up maybe $5k in the next year or two, it might cost no more to lock in my transportation costs now than it would cost to drive the old car a bit longer and pay the higher price later. 

*Note that Edmunds seems to assume higher depreciation for the hybrid than the non-hybrid. I am skeptical.

You should be able to easily eke another 100k out of each car trouble-free.  Seems unlikely they would both die at once and require replacement at same time.

They definitely should last another 100k. They've been well maintained and are rust-free. The questions I can't answer are:

1) Will it actually cost significantly less to drive a 14 year old car until it is 18 or 19, than to enjoy the benefits of driving a new one, given the way the future looks? I.e. how does an already low-depreciation car depreciate in an inflationary environment - does it at all? The 2021-2022 used car market could be a preview of what's to come.

2) Where do I want to be in 3-5 years if tariffs and inflation are high? If the 2029 Corolla hybrid will cost $45k in 2029, I might regret not already owning a pre-tariffs 2025 model that I paid $26k for. I might regret owning an 18 year old car and being in a position of having to pay the higher price on a non-optional basis. I.e. the price of reliable automotive transportation for the next 10-20 years may never be this cheap again, and I'd have to give up the option to lock in that price by squeezing a couple thousand in depreciation and insurance savings out of my older car. The lower costs of the old car might be offset by higher costs 3-5 years from now when it must be replaced, and my average cost over the next decade could be lower with a 2025 model than a 2011 model plus a 2029 model.

[reeshau]

Trump ups the ante on tariffs, vowing massive taxes on goods from Mexico, Canada and China on Day 1
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china/index.html

On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

So we may not have as much time as we think. Definitely upgrading cell phones in December.

This is part of why Trump is simultaneously an existential threat and impossible to take seriously.

On some level, you believe he’s serious. Yet on another, you realize that he would never allow this to happen for an extended period of time.

Most American made cars are assembled in the US, but the supply chain for intermediate parts runs through Mexico.  Most American car factories would probably shut down and furlough workers before they accepted a 25% increase on their bill of materials.  Imagine how long Trump and Congress’s attention span would last on this issue with thousands of furloughed workers on Foxnews everyday.

Many agricultural goods would simple no longer be available in the US.

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

So you simultaneously have to take these comments seriously, but never literally.

Trump says many things. The ratio of things that happen to pass is not particularly high.

It's another pandemic supply chain disruption, this time without the pandemic!

Who will be the poor Press Secretary who has to explain the CPI numbers that come out after this?  Remember Sean Spicer and the inauguration crowd?

[GilesMM]

...

2) Where do I want to be in 3-5 years if tariffs and inflation are high? If the 2029 Corolla hybrid will cost $45k in 2029, I might regret not already owning a pre-tariffs 2025 model that I paid $26k for. I might regret owning an 18 year old car and being in a position of having to pay the higher price on a non-optional basis. I.e. the price of reliable automotive transportation for the next 10-20 years may never be this cheap again, and I'd have to give up the option to lock in that price by squeezing a couple thousand in depreciation and insurance savings out of my older car. The lower costs of the old car might be offset by higher costs 3-5 years from now when it must be replaced, and my average cost over the next decade could be lower with a 2025 model than a 2011 model plus a 2029 model.

If you think 2025-2029 inflation will average 15% then, yes, you should be on a wild spending spree now.  If tariffs are bothersome, Chinese automakers (who are coming to the US) will most likely just open American plants just like the Japanese did in the 80s. The Corolla Cross Hybrid SUV is assembled in Alabama.  If you plan to drive both cars 25k/year you should also consider changes that would drastically reduce that and improve your quality of life!

[NorCal]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the president's power stem from his powers to levy tariffs for emergency/national security reasons.  The law on this is pretty vague and I don't believe there's much case law on the topic.

I don't doubt that Trump will issue the executive order.  But I do expect something this broad to be challenged in court and will wind its way to the supreme court.  I suspect lower courts would put a stay on something this broad until the court process is complete. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in this specific prediction, but I suspect this will be a broader theme of the Trump presidency.  He will do many things that have never been considered part of presidential powers.  Congress and the courts will defer to him in many cases, but will restrain him in others.  He will take some combination of wins while being able to tell his supporters about how the "deep state" is winning any time his powers turn out to be less than dictatorial. 

[ChpBstrd]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the president's power stem from his powers to levy tariffs for emergency/national security reasons.  The law on this is pretty vague and I don't believe there's much case law on the topic.

I don't doubt that Trump will issue the executive order.  But I do expect something this broad to be challenged in court and will wind its way to the supreme court.  I suspect lower courts would put a stay on something this broad until the court process is complete. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in this specific prediction, but I suspect this will be a broader theme of the Trump presidency.  He will do many things that have never been considered part of presidential powers.  Congress and the courts will defer to him in many cases, but will restrain him in others.  He will take some combination of wins while being able to tell his supporters about how the "deep state" is winning any time his powers turn out to be less than dictatorial.

I think a lot of us are still operating in the mentality that there are "separation of powers" when in fact there is one ruling party in control of the executive branch, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. They are even in charge of the media (X, YouTube, Fox) if we consider that the fourth branch.

There is nothing they cannot do, and popularity no longer matters.

[GuitarStv]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the president's power stem from his powers to levy tariffs for emergency/national security reasons.  The law on this is pretty vague and I don't believe there's much case law on the topic.

I don't doubt that Trump will issue the executive order.  But I do expect something this broad to be challenged in court and will wind its way to the supreme court.  I suspect lower courts would put a stay on something this broad until the court process is complete. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in this specific prediction, but I suspect this will be a broader theme of the Trump presidency.  He will do many things that have never been considered part of presidential powers.  Congress and the courts will defer to him in many cases, but will restrain him in others.  He will take some combination of wins while being able to tell his supporters about how the "deep state" is winning any time his powers turn out to be less than dictatorial.

In 2018 Trump declared Canada a risk to America's national security to impose 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum.  There was no challenge in US courts.  Why do you think things will turn out differently this time?

[jrhampt]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the president's power stem from his powers to levy tariffs for emergency/national security reasons.  The law on this is pretty vague and I don't believe there's much case law on the topic.

I don't doubt that Trump will issue the executive order.  But I do expect something this broad to be challenged in court and will wind its way to the supreme court.  I suspect lower courts would put a stay on something this broad until the court process is complete. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in this specific prediction, but I suspect this will be a broader theme of the Trump presidency.  He will do many things that have never been considered part of presidential powers.  Congress and the courts will defer to him in many cases, but will restrain him in others.  He will take some combination of wins while being able to tell his supporters about how the "deep state" is winning any time his powers turn out to be less than dictatorial.

In 2018 Trump declared Canada a risk to America's national security to impose 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum.  There was no challenge in US courts.  Why do you think things will turn out differently this time?

Yes, I remember this, too.  It was a ridiculous rationale for the tariffs, but it was allowed to stand.

[FINate]

The market is taking him seriously https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/26/gm-stellantis-shares-fall-on-trump-tariff-threat-for-mexico-canada.html

He's returning the favor for Elon by scuttling BYD's plans to expand into Mexico.

[JLee]

I might round out my camera lens collection, but otherwise I think I'm in decent shape overall.

[NorCal]

Not to mention that this is outside of the president’s powers, and would likely be halted on an emergency injunction while it winds its way through the courts.

How and why? Congress can yield its tariff powers to the President and it has. Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act in his first term. Why wouldn't he do the same again?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the president's power stem from his powers to levy tariffs for emergency/national security reasons.  The law on this is pretty vague and I don't believe there's much case law on the topic.

I don't doubt that Trump will issue the executive order.  But I do expect something this broad to be challenged in court and will wind its way to the supreme court.  I suspect lower courts would put a stay on something this broad until the court process is complete. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in this specific prediction, but I suspect this will be a broader theme of the Trump presidency.  He will do many things that have never been considered part of presidential powers.  Congress and the courts will defer to him in many cases, but will restrain him in others.  He will take some combination of wins while being able to tell his supporters about how the "deep state" is winning any time his powers turn out to be less than dictatorial.

In 2018 Trump declared Canada a risk to America's national security to impose 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum.  There was no challenge in US courts.  Why do you think things will turn out differently this time?

Yes, I remember this, too.  It was a ridiculous rationale for the tariffs, but it was allowed to stand.

Like I said, this is not a high confidence prediction.  I'm as likely to be wrong as I am to be right.

But I think the fight would be bigger if it is actually a 25% tariff across everything.  First, the national security justification is weaker the broader the tariff.  I don't know exactly where courts would define the line, but it's somewhere between a highly targeted tariff and unlimited presidential power. 

Second, the political opponents will be much bigger.  An all out trade-war that involves domestic manufacturers doing mass-layoffs would be a big political football.  Most companies avoid sticking their neck out politically unless necessary.  This would cross the line to necessary for some of them.

Retaliatory tariffs would also be greater, largely impacting agriculture.  Even Republican legislators would start standing up to Trump if the result was mass-layoffs in their districts.  There would be a lot more well-funded opposition this time, combined with a larger likelihood

Which is why I don't think we'll actually see 25% tariffs across the board.  Trump will likely try it.  Or use it as a negotiating position.  The end result will be watered down in some way shape or form. 

[GuitarStv]

An all out trade-war that involves domestic manufacturers doing mass-layoffs would be a big political football.  Most companies avoid sticking their neck out politically unless necessary.  This would cross the line to necessary for some of them.

Yeah, but that is literally the promise Trump made while campaigning and a part of what got him elected.  I wouldn't be slightly surprised if he follows through on this mandate that the American people gave him.

[NorCal]

An all out trade-war that involves domestic manufacturers doing mass-layoffs would be a big political football.  Most companies avoid sticking their neck out politically unless necessary.  This would cross the line to necessary for some of them.

Yeah, but that is literally the promise Trump made while campaigning and a part of what got him elected.  I wouldn't be slightly surprised if he follows through on this mandate that the American people gave him.

I think we're in violent agreement on this one.

I expect Trump will do most of what he promised.  Whether it is legal, illegal, or a gray area are not on his list of considerations.

And we will learn exactly what the limits on executive power are.  While I expect congress and the judiciary to mostly fall in line with presidential powers, I expect both to draw a line somewhere.  The trick right now is to try and figure out where that line is.

[sonofsven]

It's just as likely that Trump will remove/reduce tariffs from countries that pay him off personally. When in doubt, follow the money, especially for this transactional President that seems to mainly be concerned with himself.
Everything is a negotiation for Trump.

[jim555]

An all out trade-war that involves domestic manufacturers doing mass-layoffs would be a big political football.  Most companies avoid sticking their neck out politically unless necessary.  This would cross the line to necessary for some of them.

Yeah, but that is literally the promise Trump made while campaigning and a part of what got him elected.  I wouldn't be slightly surprised if he follows through on this mandate that the American people gave him.

There is no "mandate", he didn't even crack 50% of the popular vote.  They barely hold the House.

[GuitarStv]

An all out trade-war that involves domestic manufacturers doing mass-layoffs would be a big political football.  Most companies avoid sticking their neck out politically unless necessary.  This would cross the line to necessary for some of them.

Yeah, but that is literally the promise Trump made while campaigning and a part of what got him elected.  I wouldn't be slightly surprised if he follows through on this mandate that the American people gave him.

There is no "mandate", he didn't even crack 50% of the popular vote.  They barely hold the House.

They have the senate, the house, and the presidency.  This 'democratic' system doesn't give a fuck about the popular vote.  They got a mandate from the only voters in the US who matter - swing state voters.