U.S. Economy Contracts at 0.3% Rate in First Quarter

https://www.wsj.com/economy/us-gdp-q1-2025-1f82f689

by bko • 1 year ago

456 541 1 year ago

zdragnar2• 1 year ago

First I hear that the CPI, inflation, gas, food and medical costs are all down, and new employment exceed expectations by 100k.

Now I hear the GDP contacted? So many mixed signals.

apples_oranges• 1 year ago

Well, I assume if economic activity is reduced, oil gets cheaper due to less demand, and this can have positive effect on some indicators.

seanmcdirmid4• 1 year ago

Oil prices are usually correlated with economic health. The better the economy, the higher oil prices. Trump saying he would lower oil prices sounded more like a threat to me during the campaign: yes, the price of oil went negative during his first term, but mix that wasn’t a good thing at all.

adverbly• 1 year ago

If prices go down, doesn't that mean GDP also goes down assuming that that the quantity of items purchased doesn't change?

victorbjorklund• 1 year ago

Prices affect peoples and companies buying decision. If an Iphone is 1000 dollars instead of 4000 dollars more Iphones will be sold.

selectodude3• 1 year ago

Not really. if consumption stayed the same while prices changed, real GDP would not change. That would just be deflation.

anovikov• 1 year ago

It's quite natural that if economy contracts, prices go down. It happens (almost) all of the time - the only big exception was 1973-1979 because of Arab oil embargo - only time when GDP was falling AND prices rising faster than usual. Every other recession was accompanied with falling prices, or at the very least, falling inflation. That's why fiat money exists - to prevent it from becoming a self-perpetuating vicious cycle.

this_user4• 1 year ago

All these data are backward looking. The employment numbers were for March before "Liberation Day". The real impact of all of this will only become apparent in the full Q2 data.

surgical_fire• 1 year ago

Actually Q3. In Q2 companies will be offloading all the things they imported ahead of tarriffs kick in.

slashdev3• 1 year ago

The labor market is the most lagging of all economic indicators. It doesn't turn over until we're really in the recession.

Leading indicators, like housing and manufacturing, are not looking promising.

tzs2• 1 year ago

As far as gas and food goes if you hear something like that you really need to check to see where they got their data. There have been some high ranking government officials giving out numbers that are questionable which might be reported uncritically by some sources.

For example at least 4 times the President said a couple weeks ago that gas in 3 states hit $1.98/gal, and he also said a couple weeks ago that egg prices are down 93% since he took office.

No one has been able to find out where that cheap gas and those cheap eggs are, and so some people are beginning to suspect that the President may have been mistaken.

zdragnar2• 1 year ago

Egg prices by me are half of their recent peak, at least. Just bought a dozen for under $5 when they were almost $10. I suppose you could say they were 93% more expensive back then.

Gas, on the other hand, is a bit cheaper, but maybe only by about 10% at most.

os2warpman• 1 year ago

The primer button on this contraction machine has only just been pressed, baby.

This is just us pulling an initial vacuum, drawing the real contraction in.

this_user4• 1 year ago

This was the expected result. The economy does not like uncertainty, and it is almost impossible to plan ahead until there is some clarity how and when the current trade war situation will resolve. The longer that takes, the worse the damage to the real economy will get.

duxup2• 1 year ago

I'm a little surprised by how much lag there has been, but I suspect a lot of organizations where holding out for some form of "maybe he will change his mind", but as it is Trump and his own people aren't even on the same page about IF they're even negotiating with China or not...

The mantra of some folks response to his more reckless statements has always been "it's just talk", but it seems to not be talk.

raverbashing2• 1 year ago

I bet a lot of people in Wall Street are in denial or just playing chicken

this_user4• 1 year ago

A lot of companies were building up inventory in Q1, which allows them to buffer the immediate impact. Some are also absorbing the tariffs for now, which will compress their margins for Q2. I think most of them are hoping that we might get a resolution in the foreseeable future, and then they at least have some clarity. But if that does not happen, we are going to see the full inflationary impact from tariffs eventually.

spamizbad• 1 year ago

It sort of makes sense: If tariffs are here to stay, you're going to have to fundamentally change how your business operates in a way that's not easy (or cheap) to "undo". So you're better off punting until the last possible minute when you know you have to commit to the new reality.

slashdev3• 1 year ago

People and businesses freeze when facing uncertainty. They cut back on spending and keep more cash in reserve in case they're going to need it. I fully agree that this is predictable, and if it drags on, I think it's likely to push the economy into recession (just one more quarter like this and we're there, technically.)

tomrod3• 1 year ago

Not just freeze. Panic buying is starting - many for toilet paper (remembering COVID), but more for beans and rice.

austin-cheney2• 1 year ago

It will almost certainly contract more significantly into the second quarter as well. Many businesses remain reliant upon goods from China and are taken a massive financial hit on purchases now, but they are also waiting for the trade war to cool off before making future purchases. That will create a demand rush once the tariffs cool down and if they don't cool down these businesses will continue to have the same financial troubles but will also have inventory problems too.

In short, it must get worse before it can get better irrespective of what happens next or when.

llm_nerd3• 1 year ago

It isn't just China, and it isn't just goods.

Tourist travel to the US has contracted, for instance. US service exports are suddenly extremely suspect and a lot of countries are finding alternatives. US goods exports are facing massive headwinds, and counter-tariffs in some other countries (China, where imports from the US have basically stopped, and Canada where $400B+ of US goods were sold last year, many of which now see a counter-tariff and boycotts/replacement).

The situation is going to get much, much worse, and there is a serious sense of denial among both the market and many participants who seem to think Trump can retreat from his economic folly and everything will be good again. It won't. There is a massive structural shift that is going to linger for decades.

FinnLobsien3• 1 year ago

The problem is that factories take years to build, many forms of agriculture take years to yield results too.

So when the tariffs can change every day and you don't know if they'll be around in 5 years, do you commit millions to building something that doesn't pay off until 5 years from now?

unbalancedevh• 1 year ago

I work for a major tier-1 supplier for the trucking industry, and the outlook is not good. This year was supposed to be a good year as customers pre-buy to avoid upcoming changes in emission regulations, but the drop in trade with China means that goods aren't coming into the ports, so trucks aren't needed. OEMs are dropping their forecasts and pushing out new development, which means our projects are getting cancelled. A couple months ago we were talking about how we're going to hit our variable compensation profitability plans; but just yesterday we were told that we're going to have to take a mandatory 2 weeks of unpaid leave this year. The damage has already been done, and the next couple years don't look promising.

vkou5• 1 year ago

The market is also optimistic that this madness will be reined in before it gets really bad.

juujian• 1 year ago

Well its quite unexpected to see this big of a change within only a three months period. I would have expected not to see any quantitative indications of the mess brewing up only by summer.

wiremine• 1 year ago

I would have expected not to see any quantitative indications of the mess brewing up only by summer.

Just curious why you would think this? Markets react fairly quickly to major events...

dgfitz7• 1 year ago

Objectively, the Q1 numbers probably actually reflect the Q3/Q4 2024 state of things, just like the Q2/Q3 numbers will more represent the actual Q1 2025 numbers.

It feels like this was the natural progression of stuffing trillions of dollars into the economy, along with ZIRP, and the free ride has ended. Tariffs will magnify the problem.

The whole bullwhip effect never occurred, prices never returned to pre-covid levels, as everyone claimed they would. So now we have years of stacking inflation that happened because of bloating the money supply, then ZIRP goes away, throw the tariff fears/uncertainty on top, and here we are. I have very little to no faith this administration will help the situation. Playing a game of chicken with the other global superpower is a losing proposition.

This problem has been years in the making, big ships don't turn on a dime.

akudha4• 1 year ago

There is a lot of discussion on Reddit on empty ports etc. It sounds quite scary.

I suppose one silver lining is people ordering less crap? Might be good for the environment, just like during COVID. But a lot of businesses and people are going to be hurting :( As usual, people with cash will end up buying properties, businesses and other assets for pennies on the dollar.

SideburnsOfDoom4• 1 year ago

Yep, the empty ports reflect ships that set sail weeks ago. Expect slow / empty ports and effects of that to become more widespread in the USA in May.

Even if the situation was reversed tomorrow, ships cannot arrive until weeks later. I've seen "60 to 90 days" given, but I think this is time for the whole supply chain, not just port-to-port ship time.

And the situation won't reverse tomorrow. It's now at a place where neither US or Chinese leadership can change tactic without "losing face" badly.

This bad 2nd quarter is locked in. Likely much longer than that.

rchaud2• 1 year ago

I suppose one silver lining is people ordering less crap?

By government decree. What other decisions should government make on our behalf?

ManlyBread2• 1 year ago

There is a lot of discussion on Reddit on empty ports etc. It sounds quite scary.

Reddit is extremely biased toward being anti-Trump and anti-tariffs to a comical degree, so I would take anything written there with a grain of salt.

marcosdumay3• 1 year ago

I don't get the empty ports narrative.

Yes, there have been photos of empty ports. But there number of ships headed into the US hasn't fallen yet¹, and tax changes take a up to a few months to reflect on the arriving trans-continental traffic.

So, are those some ports specialized in short distance commerce? Maybe domestic commerce?

1 - They notoriously have recently started to leave half-full. What means they'll need less time at the ports by June. That shouldn't make a difference now.

the_duke• 1 year ago

A LOT of the typical financial analysts/pundits where definitely not expecting this - or at least not saying so out loud.

The chorus was slower growth in Q1, boosted by frontloading of purchases, with the real consequences only emerging in Q2 or Q3.

fundad2• 1 year ago

In hindsight, it looks like a pump-an-dump scam.

SideburnsOfDoom4• 1 year ago

This "chorus" prediction could be quite correct, just a bit too optimistic across the board.

belter• 1 year ago

"Trump blames Biden ‘overhang’ after GDP shrinks in first quarter" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/trump-gdp-tariffs-biden-over...

deng• 1 year ago

This was the expected result.

You may have expected this (and if so, I hope you bought some good PUT options), but most economists certainly did not expect this already for the first quarter. On the contrary, there was more the expectation that because of the looming tariffs, people planning to buy larger goods this year would rather expedite the purchase and do it now to avoid rising prices later, leading to a boost in orders. It is quite probable that this has actually happened, and that makes this number even worse.

coldpie3• 1 year ago

most economists certainly did not expect this already for the first quarter

For me personally, I've largely stopped buying non-required stuff. Not because of price increases, but because I'd rather have the cash on hand to help me & my friends to survive the next few years. Two of my friends lost their jobs in the Trump job cuts, and many of my friends are in less secure financial positions than I am. I'd rather be able to give them some cash than buy stuff I don't need, so I'm hanging on to my savings for now. Dark times ahead, and cash will be more useful than another guitar or whatever.

justinrubek• 1 year ago

I am one of these people. I've been in terrible financial shape for years, and fairly recently, things have started to improve. I've chosen to deploy a fair amount of my savings to acquire things I need (and some wants, of course) under the assumption that they will be more out of reach in the future. It feels bad to do so, but it's not worth the risk to not.

dragonwriter4• 1 year ago

You may have expected this (and if so, I hope you bought some good PUT options), but most economists certainly did not expect this already for the first quarter

Yes, they did, and the Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate for Q1 has been negative since, IIRC, mid-February. That in Q1 we were likely in the first quarter of a significant recession that would get worse if some way out of the planned tariff apocalypse wasn't found was a widespread perception.

ActorNightly6• 1 year ago

Over the past years, its pretty clear that NOBODY really knows what they are talking about when it comes to economy. This is why all future forecasts are meaningless as well.

dfxm123• 1 year ago

This was the expected result for the economic policy that Trump campaigned on and subsequently implemented.

The economy would be doing better if the previous admin's relatively hands off policy was continued.

fundad2• 1 year ago

Agreed. There is no reasonable argument that the people in charge and those that voted for them actually want economic growth. This was not only the expected result, it was the intended result.

tomrod3• 1 year ago

Remember too that, for systemic collapse like this, things happen slowly, then all at once.

optimalsolver• 1 year ago

Extra History's Bronze Age Collapse series is a good watch right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q

ActorNightly6• 1 year ago

I don't think there will be a full on collapse, because there is still underlying value in US (especially places like California that have GDP higher than some countries).

But long term degradation of economy absolutely.

rtkwe2• 1 year ago

It's wild to me how much the markets recovered with every little pause or extension. To me it feels like they're wildly optimistic that he'll back away from the cliff but I have strong doubts.

tbirdny• 1 year ago

The jumps are short squeezes. You get the biggest up days in a bear market. When everyone is shorting and buying puts, if it starts going up a little bit, many of them cover, and to cover they have to buy, so it goes up.

ManlyBread2• 1 year ago

I wonder how much algorithmic trading affects this and whether these changes are just results of certain headlines being interpreted by some computer programs.

apwell233• 1 year ago

why doesn't stock market not care about this then?

apwell233• 1 year ago

seems like stock market and housing market do not give a fuck about 'uncertainty'

ActorNightly6• 1 year ago

yet.

jqpabc123• 1 year ago

Not to worry, the emperor will fix it --- by replacing the people who compile the numbers.

Any disagreement is a "hostile and political" act subjecting you to deportation without due process.

_heimdall3• 1 year ago

To be fair, the government has a long history of changing how key metrics are measured to suit their needs. The CPI is pretty consistently changed to keep inflation rates roughly on target.

goodtakes3• 1 year ago

I think that's far different that what's happening today. The other day Amazon was accused of being hostile and "political" for simply showing tariff costs in a price breakdown.

Dumblydorr2• 1 year ago

“To be fair”, ok provide data. Do you have evidence that they consistently changed metrics to keep inflation on target? I only know of one change in the recent years and I don’t know if that even went through.

John23832• 1 year ago

Examples? There are definitely complaints about how CPI is calculated (particularly that it does not include housing), however it's not consistently changed.

jmull4• 1 year ago

To actually be fair, you'd assess the level of politicization of the numbers the government produces.

While it's true that both 10 != 0 and 100 != 0, you are certainly off track trying to equate 10 and 100.

lawn2• 1 year ago

To be fair

No, you're not being fair.

You're being disingenuous trying to equate changing the CPI with a dictator firing people for presenting numbers not consistent with his lies.

snarf21• 1 year ago

We are definitely entering the era of Newspeak and Thoughtcrime. :sad:

Workaccount24• 1 year ago

"We found the department of economic reporting was full of wokes..."

ilrwbwrkhv• 1 year ago

Just wait for the sniffling Marc Andreeson to tell you how it's just time to build now and it's all smooth sailing and blue skies.

agumonkey2• 1 year ago

It's 50/50 on this possibility. There's an interview trending right now where the host is repeating to the 47th resident that "no what you say is not true, the evidence was faked/photoshopped" (and DJT had nothing to say beyond "why are you not saying yes to me, I'm potentially making you promoted and you're not being nice enough to me"). Chances are that people see that there are no clothes and won't bend over to sustain the lies.

ps: article link https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-melts-down-at-bei...

direct youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Xs4Dug1o

Tostino• 1 year ago

That was a mind breaking interview fwiw. It really seems like the right wing is unable to keep track of the lies, and are self deluded by their ecosystem.

What do you expect to happen when you have a compulsive liar say whatever is on his mind and then an entire ecosystem repeating what he said as if it were fact.

partiallypro• 1 year ago

I think this isn't a real concern, but there is going to be a shortage of workers that collect the data in general which could affect the numbers. OddLots covered this for Bloomberg https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-of-americas-most-...

nashashmi• 1 year ago

I remember when we used to make fun of the Iraqi information minister. Never understood why or how he could be such an obvious liar.

Now we know what circumstances led to his position and performance. Now we Americans are familiar with the new situation.

ty68536• 1 year ago

Unfortunately housing will still not get cheaper because nearly the entire supply is locked into 30 year loans at near 0%, even a fool would starve, default their car note, and sell their every last valuable before giving that up.

slashdev3• 1 year ago

In general yes, but in practice housing prices are down big in a lot of areas and still falling. Decisions happen at the margin, which means it's the marginal home owner who lost their job and has to sell, which pushes up supply at a time when demand is very weak - and that's your lower prices.

But it's very regional. Some areas will continue to see rising or stable prices.

FinnLobsien3• 1 year ago

That's the big problem. You can find cheap housing easily, but not where most people want to live. The problem could even get worse if there are fewer opportunities, but they remain concentrated in the Bay, NYC, etc.

sambull• 1 year ago

We won't ever see a 2008 style price drop again. My house was going for $399K before I bought it in 2011 for $199K @ <4%.

Unfortunately we got lucky, the big players in REO weren't ready to 'close' that many packages last time. My first devops role was at a company that was working with big players to make sure next time this exact scenario presented itself the big guys will be able to deploy their cash to gobble these things up.

tossandthrow• 1 year ago

Risk tends to build up and be released in different ways every time.

It is right that it is not likely a credit crisis that will be the trigger next time.

But it could be hyperinflation - which would de-facto crash the housing market.

Right now the PE value for the housing market is really high, and it is not likely to continue up forever.

LastTrain3• 1 year ago

Go find a graph of housing prices 1963 to current, you will see that the events leading up to and including 2008 did nothing to help or hinder housing affordability in the long run. We are due a 2008 style correction but that will not make housing affordable either. The real problem is that household income stopped outpacing home prices in the 1970s.

josefresco2• 1 year ago

We won't ever see a 2008 style price drop again

That's what they told me when I bought my $250K condo in the early 2000's. Then in 2008 it was magically worth only $125K after being appraised a year earlier for 350K.

Never forget: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

rthomas62• 1 year ago

Well I'm moving to get out of Alabama, so not everyone...

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

I keep hoping it won't require a Bane-style takeover of major housing markets for me to afford a house, but that hope fades a bit every day

danny_codes• 1 year ago

That effect only persists as long as people can pay their mortgages. Unfortunately the vast majority of people require a car to survive, and require food to survive. Defaults will begin if/when recession bites hard.

ActorNightly6• 1 year ago

Depends. If job markets start taking a significant hit, there is a crossover point at which people will be selling houses to either move or for cash.

gymbeaux• 1 year ago

[flagged]

PLenz• 1 year ago

I think about this line a lot when I read about what Trump and Musk are doing

palmotea8• 1 year ago

> “Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make” - Shrek (2001)
I think about this line a lot when I read about what Trump and Musk are doing

It's not just them though, but also their predecessors who created the conditions that led to Trump (e.g. pushing free trade even after the initial fairy tale that it would increase US manufacturing proved to be untrue). They were willing to sacrifice others' blue collar employment.

It's would be kind interesting to see every politician's list of who should be prioritized and who they're willing to sacrifice, but they'll never be explicit about such things.

beng-nl• 1 year ago

“Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.” - Zapp Brannigan

monkeyelite• 1 year ago

When you find out the stock market isn’t just infinite risk-free money.

readthenotes1• 1 year ago

The article is paywalled, so I cannot see if it mentions the controversy over the effect of all the gold that was brought into the US in 1Q.

https://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us/insights/market-comm...

Edit: here's a breakdown. It looks like imports (gold and tariff front running) were big negatives.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/us-q1-gdp-contracts-reco...

kasey_junk• 1 year ago

Gdpnow is a prediction model (that has an alternate model that accounts for the gold move).

This is the actual calculation.

The uncorrected gdpnow number was too pessimistic while the human consensus was too optimistic. The corrected gdpnow number was pretty close (though last week nosedived too much). The early April gdpnow corrected number was bang on.

methuselah_in• 1 year ago

I guess this was expected when someone thinks that he can do everyone else as he wishes.

neogodless2• 1 year ago

I don't know if this has a typo, and I don't want to think about it too much.

light_hue_1• 1 year ago

The Constitution says Congress sets tariffs. The law Trump is using to do this doesn't even contain the word tariff.

Can we please stop this insanity? We had a great economy before this guy messed with it.

This is why we keep economic policy in an independent agency instead of giving it to politicians.

whalesalad• 1 year ago

We are only 100 days in. It’s going to absolutely get worse.

ceejayoz2• 1 year ago

Congress lawfully delegated some decisions to the executive, in 1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act. They can undo that, if they want. I suspect they will, but only when it’s well beyond abundantly clear they need to.

threeseed3• 1 year ago

Congress delegated almost all decisions to the Executive.

That’s how the system works given that legislation is high-level, often vague and sometimes riddled with errors. Congress sets the goals and Executive i.e. public sector makes the decisions about how to implement it.

whatever1• 1 year ago

The Congress has not challenged the president, and very likely would vote for the tariffs anyway as the majority would support anything the president would say.

All the big corporations & big Money also have not challenged the president.

This is People’s & Money’s will.

fads_go• 1 year ago

very likely would vote for the tariffs anyway as the majority would support anything the president would say.

Very true, however,

1) it does slow the process somewhat and therefore also reduces total throughput, this keeps government more stable and also gives more time to respond. Slow and stable may or may not be the best way to run a company, but the government is not a company.

2) It would put the individual congresspeople on record, and they are somewhat more dependent on/accountable to their local population. If for example all the farmers realized that the tariffs would destroy the farmer's livelihood, we could see Iowa withdrawing suport.

The US goverment was set up the way it is for reasons.

tgeorge• 1 year ago

Roman from RCR explained it here of how the president is able to: https://youtu.be/RLiRNzZSUaU?&t=1707

I thought the whole video is good watch too.

pacoWebConsult• 1 year ago

It's been about 100 years of congress abdicating their responsibility and delegating rule-making to agencies under the control of the executive, as well as the federal government coalescing power through the commerce clause and various other means. The US Government was never designed to be this top-heavy, and certainly not designed to allow one branch this much control. Natural consequences of a congress asleep at the wheel. More focused on quick public opinion wins through ham-fisted rules without having to actually write and maintain legislation than reducing the influence and power of the federal government and ceding power back to the states as designed.

Tadpole91815• 1 year ago

The Republican constituency has begun to elect people on trial or even convicted of rape and pedophilia. It's too late, the well has been poisoned and a third of the population (with disproportionately powerful votes) have completely and totally lost their minds.

roter• 1 year ago

http://archive.today/dalBp

amazingamazing• 1 year ago

This is nothing. Wait until China figures out AI and India finishes taking the Software Engineering jobs.

pyb• 1 year ago

...and the new policies haven't really taken effect yet.

pknerd• 1 year ago

It was already a bubble. It is correcting now, knowing the facts that US gave away all jobs to China.

throwacct• 1 year ago

This. Sooner or later, this had to happen.

0xy2• 1 year ago

March jobs numbers were significantly better than expected. 70% better than estimated.

Mr_Eri_Atlov• 1 year ago

Statistically, the best business decision anyone could make in this time of great uncertainty is to await regime collapse.

FollowingTheDao4• 1 year ago

And of course, right on cue...

Trump blames Biden ‘overhang’ after GDP shrinks in first quarter, says growth will ‘take a while’

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/trump-gdp-tariffs-biden-over...

Funny, I did not hear him talk about how the economy would tank and people would have to "sacrifice" or growth would "take a while" when he was running for president.

lvl155• 1 year ago

And just as inflation was down to a level where the Fed would be comfortable enough to start cutting rates, this administration came into foil all of that. Even if you really believe in these policies, which is highly controversial, one has to wonder why they timed it so soon basically forcing the Fed into a corner. It's as if this administration has a mandate to destroy the US economy.

csomar2• 1 year ago

forcing the Fed into a corner

Assuming independent, the Fed responsibility of lower inflation is higher than employment. They might tolerate some inflation for employment but we can only tell after the effects of tariffs kick in and we see the new inflation numbers.

roflyear2• 1 year ago

They're going to weigh what they think is the greatest risk overall and tackle that if they have a high-unemployment high-inflation environment. That won't mean cutting rates in all cases.

aaroninsf• 1 year ago

We can dispense with polite formulations under current circumstances.

One would have to be a moron or literally mentally ill to "believe in these policies,"

either having no understanding, or, having invested in some delusional confabulated make believe universe where the fundamental order of our civilization is collectively reworked (including by enemies and competitors at every scale) in a context of rapidly degrading climate, to suit your ideology.

chneu2• 1 year ago

The president doesn't even believe in these policies.

Trump says anything he can think of and then whatever people respond to he goes with.

That + the last person to discuss something with him are his two leading decision making policies.

antifa2• 1 year ago

One would have to be a moron or literally mentally ill to "believe in these policies,"

Playing devils advocate, I think most people thought the incoming tariffs were going to be a lot smaller, also maybe assumed there would be an industrial policy.

jpster2• 1 year ago

I mistakenly assumed Scott Bessent knew better and would do better, given his financial markets experience.

From Wikipedia: “He was hired by Soros Fund Management, eventually becoming the head of its London office. In this role, in September 1992, he was a leading member of the group that profited by $1 billion on Black Wednesday, the British Pound sterling crisis.”

phkahler• 1 year ago

I'm starting to think current measures of "the economy" are bogus. It can't grow indefinitely - that's probably just inflation. If you measure productivity in hours rather than dollars, inflation gets a more direct measure: how many hours do I need to work to buy food?

Making a better product than last year is also a strange way to claim growth.

What would be a better measure?

rthomas62• 1 year ago

You can look at per capita GDP in inflation-adjusted dollars

sorcerer-mar4• 1 year ago

GDP was always a horseshit measure (the inventor of GDP essentially says so *in the paper in which he invented it). But it should still be extremely worrying when ~every possible indicator points toward bad.

sillyreason2• 1 year ago

Why do you think the economy can't grow indefinitely? Living standards have skyrocketed in the last 200 years. Most people no longer die of appendicitis or dysentary in the USA. We have a/c now. And unlimited access to free information.

To your measure of food and work hours, here's 70 years of progress in less work buying more food-- https://cepr.net/publications/in-the-good-old-days-one-fourt...

mclau1573• 1 year ago

The backbone of what you are saying is planned obsolescence and other predatory practices

timerol6• 1 year ago

Good news! The average worker has gone from spending about 25% of their paycheck on food in 1930[1] to about 11% today[2]. This is during a time period where the average worker has decreased their total hours[3]. This is confounded by more people entering the workforce, but the earliest data I can find suggests that we've gone from 58% of the population in the workforce in 1950 to 63% today[4].

[1] https://flatworldknowledge.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-ec... (Note that "Food" is "food as a percentage of income", and "eating out" is "eating out as a percentage of food" which makes the chart look weird. This means that the 11% number below includes the cost of the private taxi for your burrito.)

[2] https://www.axios.com/2024/02/27/price-food-us-inflation-dat...

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18H2H

[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

I don't believe we work less hours now. Something about that chart seems off. Wish I knew the methodology of its calculations

mclau1573• 1 year ago

Few people are concerned about growing indefinitely, more people are concerned about can it grow until they retire

fabian2k2• 1 year ago

This is Trump's reaction to this on Truth Social:

This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s. I didn’t take over until January 20th. Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers. Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden “Overhang.” This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!

I'm curious how long he will get away with denying reality like this. The economical situation is likely to have much more immediate effects on people that almost every other topic. It should be much harder for him to do his usual thing once the economy really crashes, but who knows how his supporters will actually react.

vixen99• 1 year ago

No comment on Trump's view but meanwhile what going to happen to the 1$trillion trade deficit? How long can that reality be denied? Is that a sustainable position? I'm an economic ignoramus so I just curious as what knowledgeable people think about this.

tomrod3• 1 year ago

People are certainly aware of the trade deficit. A trade deficit is not a bad thing.

- A growing trade deficit can reflect a robust economy. As U.S. consumers and businesses increase spending, imports rise, leading to a higher trade deficit. Simultaneously, higher U.S. interest rates attract foreign investment, strengthening the dollar and making imports more affordable.

- The U.S. trade deficit is counterbalanced by a capital account surplus, meaning foreign entities invest heavily in U.S. assets. This influx of capital supports economic growth, funds government debt, and contributes to job creation, particularly in sectors like manufacturing.

- Trade deficits allow U.S. consumers access to a wide array of affordable foreign goods. This access enhances purchasing power and living standards. Moreover, U.S. firms benefit from importing competitively priced intermediate goods, boosting productivity and innovation.

- While the U.S. often has a goods trade deficit, it maintains a surplus in services, including finance, education, and technology. This surplus offsets the goods deficit and underscores the U.S.'s competitive advantage in high-value service sectors. Wikipedia

- The U.S. dollar's status as the world's primary reserve currency enables the country to run trade deficits without immediate financial repercussions. Foreign nations hold dollars to facilitate international trade, which supports U.S. borrowing and spending capabilities.

- Concerns that trade deficits lead to job losses, especially in manufacturing, are often overstated. Research indicates that factors like automation and technological advancements have a more significant impact on employment trends than trade deficits.

- Trade deficits foster global economic interdependence, which can enhance diplomatic relations and geopolitical stability. By being a major importer, the U.S. strengthens its ties with exporting countries, promoting mutual economic interests.

While trade deficits can present challenges, they also offer benefits that contribute to the U.S. economy's dynamism and resilience. It's essential to consider the broader economic context rather than viewing trade deficits in isolation.

lawn2• 1 year ago

It won't be helped by Trump increasing the debt at least.

shellac• 1 year ago

Trade deficit is a partial view of matters, and may not mean much anyway. It's a partial view in that there are a bunch of things it doesn't cover like inward investment. And it may not mean much in the same way my household runs a trade deficit with the local shop, which I have sustained for decades with no obvious ill effect beside my waistline.

foobarian3• 1 year ago

So let me get this straight: a bunch of foreign countries send you mega-ship loads of goods, and all they get back in return is paper. How is this a bad thing?

HDThoreaun• 1 year ago

Trade deficits are sustainable indefinitely when foreign countries want to hoard your currency. The only reason countries would want to stop hoarding dollars is if the US gov does something stupid like start a trade war

laughingcurve2• 1 year ago

Respectfully, have you confused 'trade deficit' and 'budget deficit' similar to Trump? Being a net importer is not the same as having the governments outlays exceed it's inlays.

Conservatives rightly used to be concerned about budget deficits -- but trade deficits are entirely different. Just because they share the same word does not necessarily mean they are the same indicator.

I would be happy to see America as a net exporter, but I genuinely have to ask ... what is it that America - the richest country in the world - is going to make that other people want regularly aside from mass agriculture, specialized services, and advanced manufacturing??

Our domestic manufacturing base is thankfully not geared to produce a bunch of plastic crap to try to compete with China. And if you want to onshore critical supply chains -- great -- but again that has nothing to do with the idea of a trade deficit.

Genuinely looking for a thoughtful engagement here

kstrauser• 1 year ago

My trade deficit with Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc. is in the many tens of thousands of dollars. When are those freeloaders going to start paying me for a change?

tim3334• 1 year ago

Probably pretty sustainable. If the US was financing it by selling off its assets and running out then that would be unsustainable but the US is cranking out assets like nobody's business.

As an example Tesla the company didn't exist 30 years ago. Say you got some shares early you can sell those to the Chinese in return for their widgets. That kind of thing can go on and on.

tzs2• 1 year ago

Others have explained why trade deficits are not necessarily bad.

But even if it were bad to run a trade deficit and you wanted to fix that, it would be trade as a whole that you would need to balance. In your trade with individual countries it would be OK to have deficits with some as long as you had surpluses with others as long as it was balanced as a whole.

Different countries have different goods to offer and different goods they need. It is not just realistic to expect that for every country what we have to sell that they want to buy and what they have to sell that we want to buy will end up being the same value.

There will be a lot of circular trade situations. Country A wants to sell good 1 and buy good 2. Country B wants to sell good 2 and buy good 3. Country C wants to sell good 3 and buy good 1.

If these countries all want trade to be balanced with each of their partners none can trade. But if they just all just want to balance their total trade then A can run a trade surplus with C and a trade deficit with B. Similar for B and C.

0xy2• 1 year ago

March jobs and inflation numbers were significantly better than expected. Milk and eggs are down 30% from the peak.

The middle class and poor are focused on buying food and gas, not on their stock portfolio.

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

This is completely wrong. The middle class' retirement is in the stock market, and they know that.

59% of Americans say Trump is making the economy worse [0]

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25920872-rel5b-econo...

ujkhsjkdhf2343• 1 year ago

The price of eggs was due to a nationwide bird flu epidemic. It had nothing to do with Biden, Harris, or Trump for that matter. The problem was eventually going to resolve itself.

JohnnyMarcone3• 1 year ago

Imagine being middle class in your late 50s right now and eyeing retirement. Even worse, imagine you were planning to retire this year and now plan to work another couple years due to fear. The cherry being, the entire time you're worried that there will be a recession that will force you to retire before you're ready.

mountainriver• 1 year ago

Inflation lags a lot, we will feel the tariff nonsense soon

vkou5• 1 year ago

Milk (lactose-free) was $11/gallon and eggs (not free-range, organic, or any of that other shit) were ~12$/18 at my grocery yesterday.

bdangubic• 1 year ago

can’t believe anyone can write this with a straight face…

mclau1573• 1 year ago

He has an out for now, but that out will not last forever

Tadpole91815• 1 year ago

Forever. The answer is "forever". The GOP are a cult at this point, they will never return to this objective reality.

ujkhsjkdhf2343• 1 year ago

This is fascism by the way. The enemy is strong but weak, good times are always around the corner once we finish with the next hardship, there is a group of immigrants, gay people, trans people preventing us from reaching the promised land and we must get rid of them.

jihadjihad• 1 year ago

but who knows how his supporters will actually react.

It's all about the framing. Prices up, wages down during Biden? Armageddon and only Trump can save us.

Prices up, wages down during Trump? It's okay, we're making an investment--we tolerate being worse off today to be better off tomorrow. Look at all the trash Trump's taking out! It's only going to get cleaner!

One test will be how much pain we've endured by the time midterms roll around, and how many people sour on the current admin and elected reps.

Another will be in 3.5 years, where we will find out if the joists and beams raised by our democracy's framers were solid enough to last 250+ years.

sillyreason2• 1 year ago

This is just common sense. Resist the urge of confirmatory bias.

Imports surged in q1 to front-run tariffs. Imports are subtracted from GDP. Therefore GDP shrank.

C + I + G + NX = GDP https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2020-04/GDP-Education-by-BE...

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/gdp1q25-adv....

timerol6• 1 year ago

Imports do not subtract from GDP. Reasoning about the economy from an accounting identity does not lead to useful knowledge. Historically times of increasing imports are also times of increasing GDP. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/imports-do-not-subtract-from-g...

A reasonable question here is "did companies spend down petty cash to import goods in Q1" (no change to GDP), or "did companies stop investing and producing domestically in order to afford to import more goods in Q1" (reduced GDP).

jeffbee• 1 year ago

Importing into inventories absolutely does decrease GDP. If you look at the Q1 stats some of them are normal, but imports and inventories had huge weird effects and government contribution was negative for the first time in a while.

Noah Smith is a galaxy-scale idiot, by the way.

boplicity2• 1 year ago

Imports do not subtract from GDP.

Whether or not that's true in reality, it is true in the report that caused the headline.

From the article:

A logistical consideration makes Wednesday’s report difficult to interpret: Imports subtract from the Commerce Department’s calculation of GDP, since they represent spending on foreign-made goods and services.

LatteLazy2• 1 year ago

One way of counting gdp is to count everything sold and then subtract imports. This is because imports are inherently included in everything sold (if I buy a widget for 10usd from abroad and use it to make an 11usd product, that’s 1usd of gdp, not 11).

So when imports are subtracted that doesn’t mean gdp is “short” imports. It means it isn’t affected either way by imports.

roflyear2• 1 year ago

Right, but those $11 products have not been sold yet b/c companies were trying to import as much as possible to avoid tariffs.

I've seen this in coffee - roasters buying a year's worth of packaging.

yalogin• 1 year ago

Why did snap not give second quarter projections? How will the economic uncertainty impact advertising? I thought that should be immune to an extent unlike Amazon or Walmart which are directly impacted.

fosk• 1 year ago

Two questions for you:

1. Who pays for ads?

2. And if their business is being disrupted, what is the first budget that gets cut?

lukashoff• 1 year ago

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

isitsafeyet3• 1 year ago

I got my quarterly report from my RIA. I pay them 1% annually of my holdings which is about 50k. They basically said expect a lot more major portfolio strategy change if the tariffs aren’t lifted. Every paragraph said the current policy is dangerous, in a different way, without attacking trump directly. Been with them 15 years and they’ve never sounded this worried.

aprilthird20214• 1 year ago

It's amazing how we were our own worst enemy all along. Nothing could stop the amazing American growth story except... Americans

Jcampuzano22• 1 year ago

To be honest it seems all kinda by design. It seems Intentional to cause this much disruption that will primarily affect the lower and middle classes portfolios that can't withstand as long in long term economic droughts.

It also leaves more with uncertainty so they get stuck at their current jobs for longer rather than leaving, giving more control back to employers.

Everything implemented seems to be intentionally pushing even more economic inequality and divide between the top and the bottom, and to push the diminishing middle class even lower down on the totem pole.

no_wizard6• 1 year ago

Trade wars are class wars. This is big business pushing back on labor gains made from the last few years. They can't let labor keep any power or gains because it means we might ask for more instead of continuing to defer to corporate power and the ultra rich.

I expect a wave of bad economic news, followed by a wave of consolidation, all the while prices rising, and toward the end of all this, the tariffs will be fully removed, but the prices will not meaningfully (if at all) come down, and the consolidation will have only further entrenched power at the top

ramesh314• 1 year ago

I think you're crazy as an individual to be holding anything but bonds at this point. What growth, exactly, are you hoping to capture? I'm not living in this lunatic's fever dream world. It's exactly what he wants; for the first and last thoughts of your day to be about what he has done, hoping and praying that he undoes it.

coldpie3• 1 year ago

I think you're crazy as an individual to be holding anything but bonds at this point.

I'm leaving my diversified retirement mutual funds as they are, because that's why they are diversified; but otherwise yeah, I sold all my other holdings during the rebound earlier this month. Not interested in participating in this wild ride.

JohnnyMarcone3• 1 year ago

What is your investment horizon and when do you plan to buy back in?

Also did you take a huge take hit to reallocate to bonds or was it all in tax advantage accounts? Seems more crazy to sell all equities when you have to pay tax on the gains.

What will happen in the market if Trump keeps blinking and folds further, congress takes back the tariff power, Trump loses big in the midterms, GOP loses big in 28, AI ends up being a big thing, etc?

You will eventually have to buy back in and you don't know where the bottom is.

csomar2• 1 year ago

I think you're crazy as an individual to be holding anything but bonds at this point

What bonds? There is an almost zero chance that the expenses of the US government decrease while there is a good chance that their revenue takes a hit. At some point you can't pay your dues (and no, printing currency is not paying your dues, you are getting hit on your basis).

remich2• 1 year ago

Being all-in on bonds only works if we don't have significant capital flight from the U.S.

It's possible everything is just going to be bad.

isitsafeyet3• 1 year ago

This is why I pay someone who manages billions to take on my portfolio. If you’re smarter than my RIA can I hire you? Let me see your track record first.

eagerpace• 1 year ago

Fear of a minor pain is not a good reason to not make a change. That’s how growth works.

dayvigo• 1 year ago

If 1929 was a minor pain, then what's a major pain?

nabla9• 1 year ago

Atlanta Fed has GDPNow forecasting model provides a "nowcast" of the official estimate.

It's currently -2.7 percent.

AnimalMuppet2• 1 year ago

For anyone else who wonders what that number means, it's a non-official estimate of what the final Q1 number will be. It's not a Q2 estimate.

jmull4• 1 year ago

It's going to get worse.

This is actually buoyed by buying ahead of the tariffs, and the tariffs themselves haven't had a chance to take effect yet.

The economic nosedive is just beginning.

Jcampuzano22• 1 year ago

Trump will still be blaming Biden for this all the way down to the bottom and until the last day of his presidency, and his cult will eat that shit up.

tmountain4• 1 year ago

The die hard supporters, yes, but his approval is already in decline across a bunch of key demographics (women, independents, hispanics). The only President that has been less popular in the first 100 days is... Trump (first term). The majority disapprove with the current handling of the Ukraine war, ending foreign aid programs, and immigration (his strong point). His approval on the economy has fallen 13 points since December, which should be alarming for his party, as that was a key factor in his re-election (Biden inflation concerns). He can blame Biden all he wants, but the majority of Americans identify current economy as belonging to Trump. It's hard to blame Biden when he's been so vocal and brazen about the tariffs.

boplicity2• 1 year ago

This is actually buoyed by buying ahead of the tariff

Actually, the way the report works is the opposite. The increase in purchasing ahead of the tariffs counted against GDP growth, in terms of how the numbers were calculated in this report.

To be clear: Trump is a disaster, and I disagree with his approach.

japhib• 1 year ago

Interesting! Can you explain how this works? (economics noob over here)

jmull4• 1 year ago

You're right. It's Gross Domestic Product after all.

I was jumping ahead too quickly to overall economic activity (which is going to drop).

Aloisius4• 1 year ago

Imports don't count against GDP growth.

GDP is only calculated that way because the numbers for consumer, investment and government spending includes spending on imports, so it has to be subtracted out in order to get only domestic spending.

JohnnyMarcone3• 1 year ago

Are you confident enough in that prediction to short the market?

JohnTHaller• 1 year ago

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." - John Maynard Keynes

acdha• 1 year ago

This is just getting started, too, since the first half of Q1 was continuing to grow at the previous rates. Tge Atlanta Fed was projecting growth just under +2.5% until late February, and is now forecasting -2.7%:

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Gimpei• 1 year ago

I’m curious if any Trump voters are starting to feel any buyer’s remorse. The pain from the tariffs is only going to get worse. Soon we will have Trumpflation and a Trumpcession. Meanwhile, auto manufacturers are laying off employees. We are seeing pain with no gain. There is no reindustrialization nor will there ever be through this policy. For every economist except for Navarro, this is quite the own goal. I’m guessing you all were expecting Trump 1. Any doubts creeping in yet?

proof_by_vibes• 1 year ago

Never underestimate the power of shame on the human psyche. Many would rather double down on the "reality distortion field" than to admit wrongdoing or poor judgement.

wnevets• 1 year ago

are you great again?

dsign2• 1 year ago

Slightly meta, when looking from outside, reading here feels like having your friends in the much-bigger-than-the-Titanic ship comment on it while the ship that was the emblem of the world sinks. The worst part of it is that every person outside of US watching this have a little demon sitting on their shoulder repeating, "They voted for him. A second time! You can't pity them." But I will say it anyway: stay strong.

gre2• 1 year ago

I mean, he kind of stole the election.

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

sapiogram• 1 year ago

Ah, good to know the other side is now throwing out voter fraud accusations as well.

laughingcurve2• 1 year ago

As someone who voted against Donald Trump... Saying that is just hardcore cope and not relevant to the thread / original post.

gnarlouse4• 1 year ago

“They voted for him a second time” is a lapse in logic. There’s 1/2 of America that didn’t vote for him, the majority of which probably didn’t twice.

If you’re not an American, you don’t get to use bad American logic. ;)

dsign2• 1 year ago

:-) That's a very American way of thinking, believing that you have the monopoly on bad logic. My data shows that you only got the razor-thin trade surplus there in the last few years.

Sammi7• 1 year ago

Here's the logic: You guys voted him in and committed to him a second time, ergo you are the ones that want this and you are the ones who are responsible for him. He's yours - a pure reflection of you guys. This is why the rest of the world don't trust you.

chneu2• 1 year ago

As an American who did vote, please stop acting like "herp derp half the country didn't vote for him because they didn't vote" is some gotcha that proves Americans aren't idiots.

Not voting was a vote for trump. Low turnout benefits trump. Americans had the choice between trump and a black woman, Americans chose trump.

Americans are so stupid and refuse to look at ourselves in a fair light. It's so dumb and the rest of the world is laughing at us.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." What this quote means is that Americans falsely believe we're exceptional and different when in reality we aren't, but we'll waste a ton of time/resources before we admit it.

mvdtnz2• 1 year ago

Don't tell me what I can't do, you don't get to decide what non-Americans don't do. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the logic that Americans voted for this man. The insane left wing in your country bears as much responsibility for his election as anyone else by galvanising the nation with your extremely stupid identity politics for the last 8 years.

ahmeneeroe-v26• 1 year ago

Unless you're watching this from the moon, your country is in a worse position than the US.

georgeecollins• 1 year ago

What if that turns out to be not true? China's trade with the US is not that big in $ terms and if they take an economic hit it will be unifying. The USA did this to them. Europe wasn't doing that well before, this jolt could be bad short term, but not that bad long term. And again, very unifying.

After the Trump tariffs in the first term, US sales of Soy Beans to China never recovered. They switched to Brazil. What if the rest of the world just start buying fewer treasury bills (or paying less for the return) from now on? It is possible this could be worse for the USA than other developed countries.

usui• 1 year ago

A lot of arrogance to automatically assume any other country is in a worse position without any information. What if the person was posting from China on a VPN? How would the statement remain true then?

beloch• 1 year ago

It's not about pity so much as self-protection.

Trump's second term has given the world a wake-up call. Although Trump will likely be gone in four years, the MAGA movement could be long-lived and always four years or less away from taking over again. Even if Trump backs down on tariff's and expansionism during his own term, trust in the U.S. as a military ally and economic partner won't be restored quickly or easily.

What we're now seeing is world military alliances and the economy rewiring themselves, not to be subservient vassals of a hostile U.S., as Trump hopes, but to bypass the U.S.. If trade barriers around the U.S. are going to come and go in an unpredictable manner, then business will respond by building outside of that uncertainty. Manufacture of some low-end products may be onshored to the U.S., but only to meet domestic U.S. demand if and where that is high enough. It doesn't make sense to move manufacturing inside a region with unpredictable trade barriers if it's going to serve a global market.

Take a look at the election results in Canada. What was expected to be an easy majority win for the Conservatives just a few months ago came out as near-majority for the Liberals. Both parties campaigned on anti-Trump measures that include increasing East-West trade/infrastructure within Canada, diversification of the economy to rely more on Asian and European markets, and reduced spending on defence products from the U.S.. This is long-term policy that will make Canada less vulnerable to future MAGA'ruptions, even long after Trump is gone. Trump could do a 180 tomorrow, but the impact of what he's already done will last for decades at the very least.

vkou5• 1 year ago

Trust enters on foot, and departs on horseback.

celsoazevedo• 1 year ago

It will be interesting to see what happens in Q2. I assume a lot of people bought stuff before they actually needed to just to avoid post tariff prices.

praptak2• 1 year ago

Peter Navarro on CNBC reacts to the shrinking GDP number by insisting it's actually good news because if you strip out the effect of tariffs "you have 3 percent growth. So we really like where we're at now."

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/trump-trade-navarro-us-gdp-d...

sjsdaiuasgdia• 1 year ago

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

praptak2• 1 year ago

"If you strip the effects of having all limbs off, I'm actually well above the top fighting condition" -- the Black Knight

aweiland• 1 year ago

Did he get this math from Ron Vara?

tim3334• 1 year ago

It could actually make some sense - if Walmart spent their spare cash importing Chinese stuff before the tariffs rather than spending it on American stuff, I think that would have the effect of lowering GDP or domestic product. Presumably next month they'd stock up on American stuff which would cause a bounceback in the figures.

fuzzfactor6• 1 year ago

Some people with a PhD can be the complete opposite of "advanced".

nancyminusone2• 1 year ago

"the oil was spilled outside of the environment"

jpgvm• 1 year ago

What happened to the economy? Well the front fell off.

anon7000• 1 year ago

Ah yes, if you ignore the effect of someone punching me in the face, I’m actually doing quite well

meigwilym• 1 year ago

Was he the guy who claimed if the USA stripped out gun crime from it's crime stats, it was lower than all the other countries?

philipallstar• 1 year ago

This 0.3% is the worst thing to happen to the US economy since Q1 2022, when it contracted by a much less reported-on 1.0%.

pcurve• 1 year ago

Q2 is going to be bad.

user99999999993• 1 year ago

"listen up liberal"

user99999999993• 1 year ago

literally handed an economy which was recovering quicker than the rest of the world...

amai• 1 year ago

This is good news. It could be much worse given the chaos regime in the US at the moment.

EasyMark• 1 year ago

I honestly thought it would be more like 0.8% to 1.0% . The Senate is voting on rejecting Trump's tyrannical taxes today. Let's hope they get some actual bravery to stand up to Trump and shame the House of Republicans.

U.S. Economy Contracts at 0.3% Rate in First Quarter

Related Stories