TylerDurden

Every team is building a portal reputation. HS recruits will know the difference between a team with an open door that will portal over you and one that is less likely to. I don't think we can say that there are any teams that won't portal over their own recruits, because that's the time we live in, but Nebraska is building its reputation as a place where HS kids can go and not be squeezed right away. There's a bit more nuance to it, but if you see a team bringing in 5-6 starters each year, you might consider going somewhere else to start your career. I think coaches need to find a good balance, but at the end of the day, they're paid to win. Some would rather use proven DI guys vs. HS kids, regardless of how good, and train them up. You can view that in different ways, but that sends a message to HS recruits.

The charade is that he's the one who started this. He decided it was a massive issue back in his first term (it wasn't), wrecked it and then comes in and does this round of trade wars, pauses the entire thing and take a victory lap. We're in a worse position than when he started - same is true for the revised NAFTA agreement and his steel tariffs - it made things worse for the US. It's a damn con game that you're falling for, again and again and then claim everyone hates Trump. If you keep blindly defending him, you're a sucker. I don't blindly hate Trump, I hate stupidity. If that accounts for every policy he decides to pursue, so be it. This tariff charade was stupid on so many levels.

I'm amazed at how many people think that Trump is actually solving some sort of issue with this charade.

Forgive me for looking at the 1M graphs. I saw the post, looked and was like...nah. Though by close, it'll be down for over the 1M as well, as it's trending. It's down 5+% for the day, currently. So I apologize and take your word that it was up in the 1M by 10% at the time. Not that Musk cares and I'm sure he has a money-making strategy in the works, but his involvement in politics is tanking TSLA stock value. It's 52-wk high is $488.54 and it's currently trading at $222.xx It's been on a downward ramp since last December, when it was trading in the $480 range.

I don't understand why people post things that are so easily disproven. TSLA is up less than 3% over the last month...but is down almost 40% YTD. TSLA - YTD TSLA - 1M

"On fire" might be a stretch, but it is trending up because (Reader's Digest version) a bi-partisan group of Senators announced they're going to introduce legislation to take back the tariff power.

You don't think globalization has happened already? You do realize that crude and natural gas production were at all-time highs under Biden, right? He also issued more onshore drilling permits than Trump did in his first term. We did not have "record" inflation. I'm not here to defend Biden and there is plenty about administration to be critical about, but that anti-oil narrative isn't it. I also don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

If this were the goal, Trump could have set the rates equal on his chart and been done with it. I'm not trying to be contrarian to every point, but I would like to point out that this conversation wouldn't need to take place if Trump didn't start this in his first term. See: https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart This info is China-specific, but it's the same playbook he's now using for other countries. He created this issue. He decided a trade deficit was the bogeyman or at least it was an emotional issue, albeit spurious, that would appeal to his base. We could be having a legitimate dialogue about how to negotiate reduced tariffs on US exports to China that were around 8% before Trump began his trade crusade (China's rate is now 6.5% for non-US countries, per the link) in order to give US companies better market access. Instead, Trump slapped a 20% tax on the US consumer via his first go round of tariffs and more than doubled down this time. The short and long term impact is negative on the whole, with the potential to be far worse than slower GDP growth. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ Steel research from the first term: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-trumps-tariffs-benefit-american-workers-and-national-security/ - TLDL - it was a net negative. This is all just so wrongheaded and self-inflicted.

Ignoring the strawman you're presenting, are we going to act like the 1980s didn't exist? Cool. I am curious what end result you're expecting from these tariffs and why you're defending them. If you say that you aren't ignoring business behavior, then you clearly aren't banking on manufacturing jobs returning because you understand that isn't coming back based on said behavior. So what is it that you think these tariffs will accomplish?

You should very much care about inflation, especially the self-inflicted variety. Bicycles are simply one simple example of countless others. There's not really any rational reason to defend these tariffs. They're nonsensical at best and they have the potential to isolate the US and create generational economic challenges. Let's assume that you're correct and Trump is levering this particular example (he's not), it still doesn't do anything other than shift some production from one foreign country to another and not back to the US as he so often claims will happen. In fact, it makes it more likely that businesses will offshore production. At some point, you can't keep ignoring actual business behaviors to defend bad policy.

Taiwan is positioned to take over production of various things that are currently produced in China. They were a big beneficiary of the first Trump tariffs. Taiwan's largest export to the US, semiconductors, was exempted from this edition of Trump's tariffs. I say all of this give real world examples of how this plays out for the US. Production may shift away from China, but it won't be coming to the US. The cost of the end products increase for US consumers and turns into permanent inflation. A real world example from an industry I'm familiar with: The MSRP on a Trek FX1 bicycle (and entry level fitness/flat-bar road bike) in 2018 was right around $400 USD before the tariffs. Today, that same MSRP is $600 - a 50 percent increase in price. If you follow geopolitics, you also know that Taiwan and China aren't exactly best buddies.

Because I'm not particularly close to retirement age and have my own business, I have a variety of retirement accounts. Some from when I was part of the corporate world, some after - so a mix of 401k/IRA/Brokerage accounts. The 401k's time horizon is long and it's not an actively contributed to account, so I'm standing pat on that. My cost averages on those accounts are low, so I'm anticipating decent return on those accounts by the time I retire. My IRA is contributed to each year, but with the contribution limits being so low, I usually just contribute all $7k at once and don't concern myself with DCA. This year, I'll be buying a dip (or worse). How much is ultimately TBD, but it'll be a discount of some sort and the time to recover is also TBD while we have a chaotic administration/policies in place. The brokerage is where I'm focused at the moment. My wife and I are fortunate enough to have some free cash to invest and have been tracking a few different indexes for the past month. I have triggers set to buy XX dollars worth when there is XX% decrease. I have trackers up all day and monitor the after-hours and pre-market trading. I'm avoiding individual stocks so far, but have a few on my radar if the price drops enough. Essentially, I'm buying regularly and lowering my cost averages each time. I'm in the red a decent amount on paper at the moment over the past month, but I'm comfortable with that because of my time horizon. I certainly have some concerns about the damage being done to our trade relationships and the ability of our governmental system to return to some semblance of a three-pronged, equal power structure, but when you play the stock market, you assume risk. How much is up to each person. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, you only win or lose in the stock market when you sell.

It was on Truth Social first.

The stock market started the longest bull run in history in March of 2009, just two months after Obama took office. By the time Trump took office, the S&P 500 was at an all-time high and we had just seen the second-best stock market performance during a presidency of all time. If you didn't experience growth from 2008-2016, the stock market might not be for you. Obama was great for investors, second only to Clinton. The numbers are what they are.

Discounted stock prices if you have cash on hand.

They won't, at least not as the PR stunts promise. The finances don't work for a variety of reasons. This is one of the ruses that politicians play. Hold a presser promising thousands of jobs, give away millions in tax dollars, if not billions...then, nothing. Recall the Foxconn fiasco. It's a story the continues to be repeated. Photo ops with shovels, 1/10th of the promises are delivered, if that. For instance, during the last Trump administration, he touted steel tariffs as a huge win because there was a slight uptick in US steel jobs, but that was outstripped by job losses in steel-related industries. It was a net loss - certainly nothing to celebrate. There certainly will be some industries that already have infrastructure in place may decide to ramp up production on a temporary basis, but that's window dressing. Car manufacturers, for instance, could increase production on a line or two for a short time, but it won't be a repatriation of production. I do understand the emotional element of this and I am not going to discount that factor in the decisions that are being made, because it appeals to a large portion of the voter pool. The US, historically, was a big producer of goods and entire regions were propped up by those industries and people long for the same environment.

There are four pages in this thread and I haven't seen anyone take issue with the OP's original premise that companies pay tariffs to sell their goods in other countries. That's not how it works. The importer pays the tariff. That cost is then passed on to the consumer in nearly every instance. So the tariffs make products/raw materials more expensive to import for US-based companies/consumers, decreasing demand, thereby reducing the promised (grossly overstated) revenue potential from tariffs and creating an inflationary environment. Also, these things aren't happening in a vacuum. The world is vast and resource-rich. The US isn't the only supply option for many things. Tariffs have their place, but what Trump is doing is nonsensical. It won't deliver anything he's say it will and, more likely than not, will have the opposite impact on our trade +/- and will slow our economy, or worse.

He was auditioning during his ESPN interviews at the NCAAs. Saw a gap left by Brooks, applied on national TV.

I think Carter could gas him.

Right next to Steve Mocco.

This has to be a Rick Roll.

Quint Kessenich: Dan, with all the great wrestlers on the mat today, how well do you think you would do at the NCAA Tournament? Dan Gable: Well, I figure against today's grapplers that I'd probably win a little more than half of my matches and squeak into the tournament as a 20-something seed. Quint Kessenich: That's surprising. A little more than .500 record? You lost just one time in your collegiate career and won a couple of titles. We'd all like to know why you think you'd struggle to make the NCAA field. Dan Gable: Well, I'm 76 f*cking years old you ignorant SOB.

Pindrickson is going to win and he probably should. He has big pin numbers and beat two national champs to win the title. No one else did that. For me, Starocci is second because it feels like his competition was a tougher than Mesenbrink, even though Mesenbrink's results were more "dominant" on the scoreboard. I'm not sure who else someone could realistically vote for in a top three. Hamiti, maybe.

He doesn't have the cardio for that.

It's not the 3-point takedown that is the problem. No matter what rules you have in place, coaches and wrestlers at this level always will find what they consider to be the most advantageous strategy to win a match. IMO, the biggest problem is the application of the stalling rule. It absolutely was not applied the same in the finals as it was in the regular season. Officiating is a challenging job for a variety of reasons and I understand they they may want to "let the wrestlers decide the match," but deciding not to call the rules the same way in the finals matches is at least as influential as they think calling the stall is.