The Trump Economy

The first 6 months with tariffs have been a decline every month. How will things improve.

It is also taxation without representation. That is what the English kings did.

Tarifflation Narrative Fail: Goods Prices Fall, Inflation Muted, Even as U.S. Collects Record Tariff Revenue
29 Aug 2025

Inflation held steady in July, with the Federal Reserve’s preferred price gauge showing a slight deceleration in cost pressures and defying predictions from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell that tariffs would push up consumer prices, government data released Friday showed.

The personal consumption expenditures price index rose 2.6 percent from a year earlier, matching economists’ forecasts and holding at the same annual pace as June. On a monthly basis, prices increased 0.2 percent, also in line with expectations and down from the previous month’s 0.3 percent increase.

If the July rate of inflation were to continue for the next twelve months, inflation would fall to 2.4 percent.

Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy costs and are closely watched by Fed officials, rose 2.9 percent annually and 0.3 percent for the month — both figures meeting Wall Street predictions.

The relatively benign inflation reading offered reassurance to policymakers that price pressures remain manageable, even as services continued to be the primary driver of increases. Services prices climbed 3.6 percent from a year earlier, while goods prices increased 0.5 percent over the same period.

The monthly breakdown showed goods prices fell 0.1 percent in July, with energy costs dropping 1.1 percent and durable goods declining 0.1 percent. Over the past year, energy prices have fallen 2.7 percent while durable goods prices rose a modest 1.1 percent, and nondurable goods prices increased just 0.2 percent annually.

The lackluster price increases in goods categories most susceptible to tariff effects contrasts sharply with earlier warnings from Federal Reserve officials. Despite the United States collecting hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs since the Trump administration’s trade policies took effect, consumer prices for both durable and nondurable goods — the categories most likely to reflect tariff costs — have shown minimal increases...

Looks like the sky forgot to fall - again.

22,000 new jobs. Anemic. I bet it gets revised down even further in the coming months. Trump is a genius, at destroying the economy.

Is it the Trump economy? Or the Fed's economy? Maybe the tech economy since technology has contributed more to our high standard of living than any living politician. How about the business cycle's economy? Or Biden's economy? ( We're still struggling to get inflation down from the Democrats' excessive stimulus spending, although admittedly Trump's tariffs may have more to do with that.) Or for that matter maybe we should call it the "Wuhan Economy", as certain sectors haven't recovered from from the pandemic yet. Maybe the governors' economy. Collectively Gavin Newsome, Greg Abbott and other governors' and legislatures' policies perhaps had a bigger effect on their economies during their terms than Trump has during the last 7 months. How about Congress' economy. Spending bills originate in the House, although admittedly the current crop of Republican representatives is a meek bunch.

In other words, usually other factors and people collectively have a lot more influence over the economy than the president. But yes, it's possible Trump may have made a monumental fuckup with his tariffs like Biden did with the American Rescue Plan. If that's the case, then it will be appropriate to call it the Trump Economy. However, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Originally Posted by Tiny

I won't go line by line. I'll just call your post bullshit and leave it there. You know better than what you posted, but of course that doesn't stop you from posting bullshit. When Biden was president, you did not make any of these excuses for the economy. This economy is Trump and the republicans in congress. You know it. Just admit it and move on rather than trying to bullshit your way out of saying it.

Job growth sucks, unemployment up and a fucking idiot talking palaces and geniuses in a year.

I assume we will all agree that this is the Trump economy. No more blaming Biden...

Firstly: We managed to miraculously survive 4 years of the Brain-Dead Biden economy, or more correctly, whomever the hell was running it. Trump is only seven months in. So the mere idea that instant gratification is gonna happen is misguided and disingenuous, at best.

Secondly: We are but a large player in the Global Economy, with ~160 members of the WTO.

Thirdly: Trumps knows all this and is driving forward accordingly. And no, it will take more than 7 months to extricate our butts from the abyss of the last many years.

What Comes After the Trade War

The global trading system as we have known it is dead. Moving forward, like-minded countries will need to create a new set of trade rules that reflect modern realities.

Article by Michael Froman August 15, 2025 7:30 am (EST)

It’s all too easy to get lost in the daily disorder of the global trade war. Which tariff doubled? What deal has been ostensibly struck? Why are certain semiconductor chips no longer subject to export controls? These day-to-day twists and turns move markets and make news. More important are the underlying trends that will define the international economy, and the United States’ role in it, over the long term.

In an effort to take a step back from the day-to-day noise and assess the future of the global trading system, I just published a new essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, “After the Trade War.” On the off chance you don’t read the full article, here are my highlights and related observations.

The first step towards a new international economic order is admitting the global trading system as we have known it is dead. A return to the status quo is impossible with both the United States and China following their own set of rules. But the death of the global rules-based trading system doesn’t mean we should accept a beggar-thy-neighbor world as the new normal. The challenge going forward is to develop rules where and when we can among like-minded countries, even if the fully multilateral rules-based system grinds to a halt. This is as important to the United States as it is to other economies—and it will take our leadership.

If the unilateral, mercantilist approach of the United States and China proves to be contagious, and other countries begin to act in a similar fashion, we could find ourselves back in a situation that looks a lot like the pre-WWII period, when trade was used as a weapon among states. And we know where that ultimately can lead...

The embedded link is what is important. It provides both deep and historical perspectives.

...Yet clinging to the old system and pining for its restoration would be deluded and futile. Nostalgia is not a strategy; nor is hope. Looking beyond the existing structures does not mean simply accepting a Hobbesian state of nature. The challenge is to create a system of rules outside the rules-based system of old.

That will require starting over. The best option for moving forward is to craft a system made up of coalitions of the like-minded, which together would constitute a network of open plurilateral relationships—smaller and more flexible than the multilateral trading system. Some coalitions would be mechanisms for trade integration and liberalization. Others might serve to secure supply chains or even to restrict trade in the service of national security. Some countries would be members of multiple coalitions with varied purposes, and coalitions would likely have overlapping memberships and variable geometry. From a purely economic point of view, this system would be suboptimal and less efficient than the global trading system was. But it might well be the most politically sustainable outcome that could—crucially—prevent unilateralism from spinning out of control. It would, in short, allow for a global economy shaped by rules even without a global rules-based system...

So's who you jive'n with that Kosmic Debris of fixing it all in 7 months flat?

Is it the Trump economy? Or the Fed's economy? Maybe the tech economy since technology has contributed more to our high standard of living than any living politician. How about the business cycle's economy? Or Biden's economy? ( We're still struggling to get inflation down from the Democrats' excessive stimulus spending, although admittedly Trump's tariffs may have more to do with that.) Or for that matter maybe we should call it the "Wuhan Economy", as certain sectors haven't recovered from from the pandemic yet. Maybe the governors' economy. Collectively Gavin Newsome, Greg Abbott and other governors' and legislatures' policies perhaps had a bigger effect on their economies during their terms than Trump has during the last 7 months. How about Congress' economy. Spending bills originate in the House, although admittedly the current crop of Republican representatives is a meek bunch.

In other words, usually other factors and people collectively have a lot more influence over the economy than the president. But yes, it's possible Trump may have made a monumental fuckup with his tariffs like Biden did with the American Rescue Plan. If that's the case, then it will be appropriate to call it the Trump Economy. However, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Originally Posted by Tiny

Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, she hasn't even finished gorging on her morning donuts! Might be a while before she decides it's time to start warming up her vocal cords.

I won't go line by line. I'll just call your post bullshit and leave it there. You know better than what you posted, but of course that doesn't stop you from posting bullshit. When Biden was president, you did not make any of these excuses for the economy. This economy is Trump and the republicans in congress. You know it. Just admit it and move on rather than trying to bullshit your way out of saying it. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That's the spirit, counselor! If you can't think of a coherent way to rebut someone's statements, just call them all bullshit and move on!

Riddle me this:

Suppose an attorney is representing a client who has a rather shaky case. After testimony from several witnesses for the opposing side, he says to the jury, "I don't see any need to comment point-by-point on all that stuff said by the witnesses called by opposing counsel. Just understand that it's all a bunch of bullshit! (And then leave it there.) Would such a technique sway a jury? (Maybe some attorneys can conduct the voir dire process in such masterful fashion than they can seat the six dumbest residents of the county! In that case, anything might "work!")

Bonus question to ponder:

At what point in Reagan's first term could it reasonably have been said that the economy was solely his responsibility and that Jimmy Carter should have been absolved of any and all blame for what was then happening, or was likely to happen within the near future? After six months? A year? Even eighteen months, perhaps?

22,000 new jobs. Anemic. I bet it gets revised down even further in the coming months. Trump is a genius, at destroying the economy.



I won't go line by line. I'll just call your post bullshit and leave it there. You know better than what you posted, but of course that doesn't stop you from posting bullshit. When Biden was president, you did not make any of these excuses for the economy. This economy is Trump and the republicans in congress. You know it. Just admit it and move on rather than trying to bullshit your way out of saying it. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That is absolutely untrue Blackman - the red text. I provided those excuses for Biden until I was blue in the face. I sounded like a broken record. I'll post some below.

I've also criticized Trump's tariffs and Biden's American Rescue Plan more than any other poster on this board. I'm an equal opportunity critic.

Are Trump's immigration policy and tariffs having a negative effect on employment? Certainly. Immigration is the bigger factor right now. Based on one estimate, 1.2 million immigrants have left the labor force since Trump took office. Is this a good thing? It's not in my opinion. But Stephen Miller likes it.

The tariffs have not turned out as badly as I thought they would, at least yet. Like I said, the fat lady hasn't sung.

You're partisan and you're a lawyer Blackman. You're sometimes not disposed to accept reality. That's not criticism. I'd rather have you representing me in a courtroom than someone who's totally objective, like Texas Contrarian for example.

Here are posts I made during Biden's administration. References to tariffs below are to those imposed during the first Trump administration, which were largely kept in place by Biden.

How much effect does the president have on the health of the economy? Probably not as much as you think. Collectively factors like changes in technology, globalization, Fed policy, Congress, what's happening in other parts of the world, changes in demography and population, wars, oil price shocks and, once in a blue moon, pandemics are much more important.

That said, I'd rate Trump higher than Biden. Positives during Trump's term were the corporate tax cuts and deregulation. I can't really think of any positives for Biden.

Trump's tariffs sucked, but Biden kept them in place. Both men were spendthrifts who didn't pay attention to deficits. I'd rate Biden worse on that score though. At least Trump had COVID as an excuse in 2020.

Would we have suffered through high inflation if Trump had been re-elected in 2020? If Democrats had won the House and Senate, we very well might have. Towards the end of 2020, the Republican Senators were the only adults in the room. Trump and Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House were inclined to continue with lavish stimulus spending, over the objections of McConnell and other Republicans. Trump and a Democratic Congress might have passed something like the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which ignited inflation in the USA. Originally Posted by Tiny

The president normally has little to do with the state of the economy. Factors like technology, globalization, productivity growth, level of investment and government spending, the business cycle, oil prices, Fed policy, wars, what's happening in the rest of the world, and good old American entrepreneurship have usually been more important. Originally Posted by Tiny

Trying to correlate stock prices, GDP or employment growth with the party of the president is a fools game. There are so many other things going on, like improvements in technology, globalization, Fed policy, the business cycle, wars, pandemics, OPEC pushing up oil prices, and Congressional influence that usually who's president doesn't make a big difference. Originally Posted by Tiny

69in2it69, GDP growth and our general level of prosperity are affected by changes in technology, globalization, demographic changes like population growth, changes in productivity, the business cycle, Fed policy, events like the pandemic, what's happening in other countries, etc. And yes, the politicians and government make a difference. Not just who's president, but Congress, the bureaucracy, and leadership at the state and local level. Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, I'll say it a third time. WHO'S PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN GDP GROWTH. Maybe if I elaborate it will sink in. You've got the business cycle, growth in the labor force, changes in productivity, changes in technology, globalization, investment, Congress, conditions in China and other countries, wars, Congress, epidemics (e.g. COVID) and lots of other factors that can affect GDP growth Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, I'll say it a third time. WHO'S PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN GDP GROWTH. Maybe if I elaborate it will sink in. You've got the business cycle, growth in the labor force, changes in productivity, changes in technology, globalization, investment, Congress, conditions in China and other countries, wars, Congress, epidemics (e.g. COVID) and lots of other factors that can affect GDP growth Originally Posted by Tiny

Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
Is it the Trump economy? Or the Fed's economy? Maybe the tech economy since technology has contributed more to our high standard of living than any living politician. How about the business cycle's economy? Or Biden's economy? ( We're still struggling to get inflation down from the Democrats' excessive stimulus spending, although admittedly Trump's tariffs may have more to do with that.) Or for that matter maybe we should call it the "Wuhan Economy", as certain sectors haven't recovered from from the pandemic yet. Maybe the governors' economy. Collectively Gavin Newsome, Greg Abbott and other governors' and legislatures' policies perhaps had a bigger effect on their economies during their terms than Trump has during the last 7 months. How about Congress' economy. Spending bills originate in the House, although admittedly the current crop of Republican representatives is a meek bunch.


I see you saying plenty of other things about the economy. THIS is what I was stating you did not give as excuses to Biden. I may be misremembering or on a bancation (as our moderators do not like me attacking the republicans on this board). I don't recall you blaming any issues you had with Biden's economy on Trump 45 or Covid recovery. Or the Fed, or the simple business cycle. Instead you credited anything good in the economy to Reagan and blamed everything bad in the economy on democrat policies. In fact, you gave Biden no credit (that I recall) for any positives of the economy. I also missed you blaming the policies of republican governors on any negative economic data, but as usual you herald the positives of republican stewardship at the state level (forgetting that all the poorest states are Republican governors and many of the poorest cities have republican mayors). What is the number 13 of the 14 poorest states.

Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, she hasn't even finished gorging on her morning donuts! Might be a while before she decides it's time to start warming up her vocal cords.
. . .
At what point in Reagan's first term could it reasonably have been said that the economy was solely his responsibility and that Jimmy Carter should have been absolved of any and all blame for what was then happening, or was likely to happen within the near future? After six months? A year? Even eighteen months, perhaps? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Trump claimed that it was his economy as soon as the stock market rose. I then blamed Biden whenever something negative happened with the economy. That tells you all you need to know. As Trump said, "the good stuff is trump, the bad stuff is Biden." I agree that we have not seen the full extent of the Trump economy. And that was not my question. I said, how goes the economy. We have nearly 9 months of Trump and republicans policies to make a statement about WHERE we care currently and HOW the economy is going. See, there is that nasty thing called a straw man, where one claims the question (or statement is one thing) and then proceeds to answer that question rather than the one that is asked. So I will help you out TC

So, how goes the Trump economy? Are prices down as he promised? Is the economy flourishing and the average person doing better today than they were when Trump took office? Is Trump really an economic genius?

I just ignore your hypothetical, but will say that those idiot jurors are exactly the republicans in this forum. Though the jurors IQs likely exceed 9 of 10 of the right-wing-nuts that post here.

Bonus question to ponder:

At what point in Reagan's first term could it reasonably have been said that the economy was solely his responsibility and that Jimmy Carter should have been absolved of any and all blame for what was then happening, or was likely to happen within the near future? After six months? A year? Even eighteen months, perhaps? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

That's easy, I'll answer for Blackman, in my new position as his personal assistant: on January 20, 1981, when Carter left office. George W. Bush on the other hand was responsible for an anemic economy until January 20, 2017, when Obama left office.

And as to your courtroom analogy, what you described is a great strategy when your client doesn't have a leg to stand on!

Let’s see. In Trump’s first six months of his presidency he has.

• Started a massive worker deportation program.
• Created a new sales tax on imported goods that can change on a whim.
• Closed multiple federal agencies and fired hundreds of thousands of federal employees.
• Extorted Foreign governments into promising kickbacks to the US in the form of “investment”.
• Extorted American businesses into making the federal government a shareholder.
• Passed the Big Beautiful Bill which really didn’t save us a dime but just spread the federal money around to other priorities.
• Closed the de minimis exemption.
• etc. etc. etc.

All of this is affecting trade flows, business planning, agriculture exports and agriculture efficiency, business profitability and I am sure a host of other factors that I haven’t thought of or that no one has seen yet.

Despite what the economic reality was when Trump took over it is his economy now both practically and politically. No amount of “Biden Blaming” is going to change that.

This is Trump’s economy with out a doubt.

I see you saying plenty of other things about the economy. THIS is what I was stating you did not give as excuses to Biden. I may be misremembering or on a bancation (as our moderators do not like me attacking the republicans on this board). I don't recall you blaming any issues you had with Biden's economy on Trump 45 or Covid recovery. Or the Fed, or the simple business cycle. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I did criticize the Fed, several times, for keeping interest rates low. It should have raised rates earlier and higher, to counteract the excessive fiscal stimulus. Biden was presented with an opportunity for a layup, do nothing and continue with recovery from a deep and short recession. He would have been a hero, but instead he and a Democratic Congress passed the inflation igniting American Rescue Plan.

Instead you credited anything good in the economy to Reagan and blamed everything bad in the economy on democrat policies. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don't recall crediting anything good in the economy during Biden's term to Reagan. If you're speaking about other time periods, the only president I've given unqualified credit to since Reagan for economic policy was Clinton in his second term. Yes, I have praised Trump for deregulation and cutting the corporate income tax. He wasn't a deficit cutter or free trader though, so I don't believe he was in the same league with Clinton.

In fact, you gave Biden no credit (that I recall) for any positives of the economy. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That's because he doesn't deserve any.

I also missed you blaming the policies of republican governors on any negative economic data, but as usual you herald the positives of republican stewardship at the state level (forgetting that all the poorest states are Republican governors and many of the poorest cities have republican mayors). What is the number 13 of the 14 poorest states. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Seven of the fifteen poorest states by per capita income adjusted for purchasing power (PCPI adj) have Democratic governors and the other eight have Republican governors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ome_%282022%29

Yes, I do believe, on the whole, red cities, counties and states offer more efficient government and better economic policies. And people are voting with their feet. According to a June 21, 2024 article on Realtor.com, Republican counties gained 3.7 million more people than they lost since 2020, while blue counties lost an equal number of residents.

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/...-house-prices/

Let’s see. In Trump’s first six months of his presidency he has.

• Started a massive worker deportation program.
• Created a new sales tax on imported goods that can change on a whim.
• Closed multiple federal agencies and fired hundreds of thousands of federal employees.
• Extorted Foreign governments into promising kickbacks to the US in the form of “investment”.
• Extorted American businesses into making the federal government a shareholder.
• Passed the Big Beautiful Bill which really didn’t save us a dime but just spread the federal money around to other priorities.
• Closed the de minimis exemption.
• etc. etc. etc.

All of this is affecting trade flows, business planning, agriculture exports and agriculture efficiency, business profitability and I am sure a host of other factors that I haven’t thought of or that no one has seen yet.

Despite what the economic reality was when Trump took over it is his economy now both practically and politically. No amount of “Biden Blaming” is going to change that.

This is Trump’s economy with out a doubt. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

There you go Blackman. TxDot knows how to argue the issues, without just calling the other side’s points bull shit. TxDot, I’ll add trying to politicize the Fed. That hasn’t been good for longer term interest rates, inflation expectations and the value of the dollar.

So, how goes the Trump economy? Are prices down as he promised? Is the economy flourishing and the average person doing better today than they were when Trump took office? Is Trump really an economic genius? Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Obviously, the answers to the last three questions, as things look today, are no, no, and no. A radical course-correction is badly needed. The chaotic tariff maximalism was not a good start. Neither was the so-called "big beautiful bill." TxDot pointed up a few pertinent criticisms above, with which no one other than all-in "MAGA" sycophants would disagree. That's why, even though it's early in the game and the jury hasn't even started deliberating, it's hard to feel hopeful as Trump has such a long-establshed penchant for continually shooting himself in the foot. (And the stakes couldn't be higher. Failure means that we'll have someone like Gavin Newsom in the White House four years from now, and probably an AOC-led House majority.)

Returning to a question I posed earlier:

Bonus question to ponder:

At what point in Reagan's first term could it reasonably have been said that the economy was solely his responsibility and that Jimmy Carter should have been absolved of any and all blame for what was then happening, or was likely to happen within the near future? After six months? A year? Even eighteen months, perhaps? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

The severe recession that finally ended in November of 1982, two years after Reagan was elected, was the worst since the Great Depression and drove the unemployment rate to almost 11% at the peak. Why was it so severe? Because the Volcker Fed had to tighten the money supply severely and push interest rates to sky-high levels to break the back of inflation, which shot into the 14% range in 1979-1980.

By late 1982-early 1983, Reagan's approval ratings in the polls sank to levels as low at Biden's at his lowest. Policy implementation that was necessary to slay the inflation dragon didn't just risk a recession; they necessitated one. There was no other way out. And this cost Republicans heavily in the 1982 House midterm elections. (Therefore, do you think anyone would try to claim with a straight face that this period's difficulties were more Reagan's fault than Carter's?)

Likewise, a climb-down from the Biden-era spending recklessness is certain to be painful and difficult, like an alcoholic who decides to finally eschew the "hair-of-the-dog" cure and make a difficult choice.

So tough policy choices are once again required, although the most critical problem now isn't inflation (which is way down from the peak), but our gargantuan level of deficit spending, although that of course caused the 2022-23 inflation spike. Accordingly, Bessent said back in March that the economy might have to go through a "detox" period, during which it would pivot from a government-spending-driven "sugar high" to a private sector-led investment-driven economy. I think it's much too early to judge whether this is likely, as it depends on the course of the current data center/AI capex boom and what ensues in the way of productivity-enhancing developments.

The Trump team needs to begin managing events competently and responsibly, and with clear messaging, or the American middle class may experience some tough times indeed.

Whatever the final outcome of President Trump's last four years, the Biden legacy of huge spending, huge inflation and the uncontrolled influx of millions of foreign nationals will be a steep hill to pull the economy over. Overcoming that has and will continue ue to require significant, at times dissruptive actions by both the executive and legislative branches acting together. By 2028, everyone's cheese will have been moved.

The "together" part will, as always, be difficult to co-ordinate. However the major obstacle to any positive outcome will be members of the activist progressive judiciary working against the best interests of the AmericanPpeople, American Society and our national security.