Is that wishful thinking? I'm thinking/ hoping that with Trump's threatening new Tariff System, we can expect drop in prices of certain goods from home?
Examples are Lobster, Wagyu Beef, Angus Beef, Lamb on the Rack, Ugg Boots, whisky? These have been out of reach for me but maybe I can look forward to a good feasting shopping? >_<
Your thoughts please.
sell locally and hyper inflated price and people still buying strangely…
Nah, exporter's first preference will be to just keep selling in the original export market and mark up by the amount of the tariffs they believe the end consumers will pay. Shifting markets and shipping contracts is far more expensive than even the full cost of the tariff, in the short term. Long term they are more likely to drop production - because they were already selling to other markets and locally to the extent they felt it was profitable.
The only time you see that sort of other market/local glut is when there are export delays (like the Suez blockage) or bans (like China banning wine and whatnot) - not tariffs.
and mark up by the amount of the tariffs
Why would they do that?
I'm no economist, but isn't a tariff already a "markup"? A tariff imposed on Australian beef means the US importers pay more for the beef. Australia gets paid the same amount, and the US government gets 10% of the cost.
I mean mark up at the final point of consumer sale. Which you're correct is usually a different company than the exporter, yes. The alternative (which is what is being spruiked about by a certain orange scum) is that the final consumer price stays the same with no mark-up, and the exporter eats the difference.
@Parentheses: Aussie exporters set the price. US importers choose to buy or not. It's the US importer or consumer who eats the difference.
If US importer says "we'll go somewhere else for cheaper beef", Australia could say "fine, see ya", or do a deal - like drop the price 2%, see if they bite. Could be a fun round of negotiation. This is when the quality of what you're selling gets to strut its stuff. If US wants quality Aussie beef, US can pay.
It all comes back to America's national debt. It's seriously high. $36 trillion. A lot of people are like WTF are we going to do about that. The "orange scum" and all the DOGE stuff is trying to address the issue in a vacuum of alternate suggestions. "Let's flood the country with illegal immigrants and put them up in hotel rooms and give them an allowance and free health care" is the plan on the left.
@cerealJay: First, the idea that suppliers 'set' the price in isolation from demand shows a complete lack of any economics understanding whatsoever. Australian exporters to the US will be forced to deal with lower prices, rather than have their products rot in warehouses and have a price of $0. It won't be the full tariff amount, but it will be some.
The problem with telling people about the national debt is that most people aren't equipped to understand that debt in any way other than through the lens of household debt. It's not the same thing at all. $36 trillion in debt SOUNDS horrible, but in the context of a nation with a $27 trillion GDP and with how national debt works it's just not that big of a deal at all. All you really need to be looking at is the cost of servicing that debt against the tax income of the country, which is totally fine.
It cost $478 billion a year to service the US debt in 2025 (inflation from tariffs will screw this number up to the tune of about double, but that didn't have to happen). What did the US government spending add to the US economy though? What would it cost to get rid of that debt? Estimates are fairly broad here, but 10% of GDP is a conservative figure when you start adding up the costs to the economy from getting rid of the things the government does.
When you borrow money as an individual, you almost never get more back than you spend. Education loans are about the only time, sometimes negatively geared real estate too. Governments on the other hand get this all the time. Borrow $1 billion, invest it in your citizens, tax them appropriately (this bit the US obviously sucks at), and your GDP can go up by 10x that amount. You'd be crazy NOT to.
There is no world, none, where DOGE is anything by a self serving idea by a self serving edgelord playing puppetmaster to an orange scum.
@Parentheses: So much straw-manning! All to service "you don't understand" & "MuSk BaD Man".
At no point am I suggesting 36 trillion was like "household debt". It is excessive, however. The interest on the debt is excessive. Apparently the debt exceeds the entire US economy’s output, a threshold not seen since World War II.
"totally fine."
Oh sure! Never mind some projections forecast $50 trillion by 2033 or even $100 trillion by the mid-2030s. Totally fine!
They will always have debt, but the idea is to not let it get out of control. We won't agree on much if we can't agree 36 trillion has sparked pessimistic economic forecasts, worlds away from "totally fine".
"There is no world, none…"
Speaking in hyperboles and absolutes really is arguing in bad faith. Likewise the mindless rhetorical flourishing and insults directed at people whose "tariffs you don't like" or "spending audits you don't approve of".
I'll provide my own "in no world" argument. In no world does pursuing cost-cutting efficiency of public money that's found to be haemorrhaging like a leaky sieve, warrant burning electric cars or unhinged hate against those initiating the cost-cutting.
There's 2.4 million US federal workers! That is not including military or local and state government employees. By comparison, Australia has around 89,000 federal employees. Gee… do you think 2.4 million federal roles is a bit much? "Totally fine" says the denialist.
@cerealJay: You weren't suggesting it was like household debt. Your use of the rhetoric that relies on it made it clear you aren't equipped to understand it any other way. Throwing out bigger numbers with no comprehension of simple facts make this clear - if spending n yields n+1, no debt value is too high. This is the fundamental disconnect with your understanding. You could tell me that the expected debt value in 2050 was 1 quintillion dollars, and you would still not be providing any of the necessary information for determining whether that was a bad thing or not.
If you think DOGE is pursuing cost cutting, you're too far gone to bother with, but in case somebody else is reading this, you should know that comparing US federal employment with US federal division of responsibilities with Australian federal employment with Australian federal division of responsibilities is dumb as hell. Even if it wasn't though, 1.5m of those 2.4m US employees are civilian military or security. I wonder why DOGE would be spending all its efforts on cutting things like education funding from a tiny fraction of a % to a tinier fraction of a % and not dealing with the literally-greater-than-50%-of-the-pie? Curious.
Thankfully, it looks like Trump existing is waking Australians up to the risk, and we will dine on roast potato come May. Enjoy another few years of woe is meing while I party.
@Parentheses: Haven't seen a hole-digging response like that in awhile. Dirt and excrement flying everywhere.
Curious
You're not curious, you're frothing at the mouth after overdosing on whatever propaganda diet you're spoon-fed.
If you think DOGE is pursuing cost cutting, you're too far gone to bother with
Wish you'd ended there instead of doing the exact opposite of not bothering.
Wasteful federal spending is exactly what DOGE has uncovered. Plenty of examples from paying leases on empty federal buildings, unchecked contractor overcharging in the millions, tens of millions for migrant housing in luxury NYC hotels, and a huge list of highly questionable grants and funding for things like "drag shows in Ecuador".
DOGE focused much of its efforts on spending related to promoting DEI programs in the US and elsewhere. I'm guessing from the unhinged tone of your posts here, you're fully indoctrinated into DEI. Thankfully, the world is waking up to the nonsense and rorting at scale of this governing inefficiency.
fully indoctrinated into DEI
Please point on the teddy bear where the mean minority group touched you.
Seriously though - you weren't overlooked for that position because they had some DEI advantage and you didn't. You were overlooked because they were better than you. You can remain bitter about it if you like, makes it easier to laugh at you.
@Parentheses: I have several colleagues who were told by our manager to not even to bother submitting their application because he has a KPI to increase female diversity.
You're delusional if you don't think that happens.
@tenpercent: Why don't you already have female diversity?
Could it be that you were applying DEI this whole time, but targeting males?
Why don't you already have female diversity?
Because most women don't want to work in the kind of industry I'm in.
Why doesn't the nursing profession have more male diversity? Why doesn't teaching profession have more male diversity? Why doesn't garbage truck driving have more female diversity?
Could it be that you were applying DEI this whole time, but targeting males?
No.
Because most women don't want to work in the kind of industry I'm in.
I wonder why that is? Could it be misogynistic practices filling the industry? Could it be a lack of existing representation colouring peoples automatic assumptions about what gender a given occupation is 'supposed to be'?
I guess we'll never know. Oh wait, yes we will, and do, and it's why diverse hiring practices exist.
Cry more.
I wonder why that is? Could it be misogynistic practices filling the industry?
No. It's more likely to do with the hot sweaty and backbreaking physically demanding nature of most of the work.
it's why diverse hiring practices exist
Wait. You earlier suggested that that didn't exist. Although it's also more accurately called sexist and/or racist hiring practices.
Please point on the teddy bear where the mean minority group touched you.
Making rape / sexual assault jokes. Classy.
You earlier suggested that that didn't exist
No, I suggested that the people whining about it weren't overlooked because of it. If you can't get a role as a male in a male-dominated industry, just how terrible must you be?
Thinking that women are somehow allergic to hard work though - there's that misogyny coming through loud and clear.
Thinking that women are somehow allergic to hard work though - there's that misogyny coming through loud and clear.
No one suggested that except you. Realising that most women would rather be in people facing nurturing jobs instead of doing back breaking work out in the heat or rain isn't misogyny, it's reality. It's not a negative or a positive thing. It just is.
@tenpercent: And men don't want to be in people facing nurturing jobs instead of doing back breaking work out in the heat or rain? Seems rather funny when you consider that the type of engineering with the highest proportion of women is environmental engineering - i.e. the most likely to be out in the heat and rain compared to all the others.
Current reality includes misogyny. Claiming that it 'just is' rather than a problem we know how to solve is misogyny (and ignorance). People with backwards mindsets like yours are part of what drives women away from your industry. Diverse hiring practices act as a balance to that.
And men don't want to be in people facing nurturing jobs instead of doing back breaking work out in the heat or rain?
Yes correct. Men tend to choose jobs for the money and challenge.
environment engineering
Not surprising. According to AI:
Women tend to be more interested in engineering disciplines that focus on societal and humane developments, such as environmental engineering, because these fields often align with their interests in making a positive impact on communities and the environment. The work of environmental engineers can be seen as nurturing because it aims to protect and improve the environment.
Claiming that it 'just is' rather than a problem we know how to solve
Why is it a problem? How is it a problem that women prefer nursing and teaching to construction labouring and garbage truck driving, as an example? You can't just declare something is a problem without expounding on why or how it is a problem.
Diverse hiring practices
You mean sexist and/or racist hiring practices.
Yes correct. Men tend to choose jobs for the money and challenge.
This is literally you proudly announcing your sexism.
The reason it's a problem is women don't inherently prefer one or another. Barriers to entry set up by sexist people like you direct them (and men) one way or another.
Thankfully though your kind aren't in power here, and are left to impotently mew about while claiming the morons leading the US have it right somehow…
This is literally you proudly announcing your sexism.
Explain how it is sexist to suggest that 'men tend to choose jobs for the money and challenge'.
Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. Is that the full extent of sex differences in your reality?
The reason it's a problem is women don't inherently prefer one or another.
Have you asked any of the majority of women who prefer to work in nurturing professions that?
Diverse hiring practices
That is literally you proudly announcing your sexism.
@tenpercent: Your beliefs aren't based in evidence - they're based in your vibe of observing what currently is and assuming that's the only way it can be. It's a profoundly stupid set of beliefs given that much smarter people than you who conduct this research have proven you wrong over and over.
Going into the 50s, the vast, VAST majority of computer programmers were women, and even into the 60s it was 50% or more. It was 'women's work', men didn't use keyboards, that's what secretaries are for. Why was that the perception? Because in the 40s when programming was developed the men were all off fighting a war. But it didn't immediately shift back after the war - the perception of current 'reality' of who was a programmer and what gender 'inherently preferred it' was coloured by who was doing that work.
Then all of a sudden business, government, defence, etc. - male dominated areas - decided computing was the New Thing, and those male dominated spaces took over programming. Now even WITH these 'sexist hiring practices' you fundamentally fail to understand we struggle to hit 20% women.
We don't live in a world where pure biological tendencies govern who does what work. Women avoid construction work largely because the culture in construction work is a toxic sexist culture where they risk sexual harassment and worse on a daily basis. Women aren't in leadership positions because the EXACT SAME behaviour that is seen as 'leadership material' in men is seen as 'bitch/karen' behaviour in women.
People like you make the world worse.
Then all of a sudden business, government, defence, etc. - male dominated areas - decided computing was the New Thing, and those male dominated spaces took over programming.
So you're saying that once males wanted to get involved in computing, they quickly overtook the female dominated profession. And that's obviously because of misogyny I suppose? It couldn't be because of capability or absolutely anything else.
I suppose you'd also argue that the women programmers were paid less because of misogyny too? So if that were the case why wouldn't they keep hiring the cheaper programmers if they were equally capable and equal performers? Misogyny > profits? Nah. I'm not buying it.
I suspect what you're comparing is a fledgling industry with ~1000 people involved during a time of total war when the majority of capable men were misogynistically enlisted in the armed forces to go die (that darn sexism!), with an industry several decades later that had grown to hundreds of thousands or millions of people during a time when the capable men were not away from home dying for no reason. I also suspect the total number of women involved had not declined, rather the total number of men involved had simply increased.
Are all your failings because of some irrelevant characteristic? Anything bad that you experience is always because of someone else, amiright? It's never because of you, your choices, your abilities, your preferences, your efforts or lackthereof. No? That's too simple an explanation.
the culture in construction work is a toxic sexist culture
You're somewhat confused.
the culture in construction work is a toxic
sexistculture
FTFY.
Women aren't in leadership positions because the EXACT SAME behaviour that is seen as 'leadership material' in men is seen as 'bitch/karen' behaviour in women.
Imagine not being able to get a leadership position when there are sexist hiring practices acting strongly in your favour.
I notice Amazon U.S. has great bargains, quality weighted chess sets that would cost $100 anywhere here are like $30 there, all sorts of stuff are cheaper. It would be great of Chinese exporters started letting Australia in on all this cheap stuff. The extra freight can't cost all that much money can it?
I would have thought Australia is closer physically to China than the USA.
Perhaps, but the U.S. still seems to be full of amazing bargains. Maybe because there's greater income inequality in the U.S., the market adapted by making regular items very cheap? When I was in England I found it remarkable everything was cheap too at the cheap shops, imported from all over Europe. The U.K. was still in the EU at the time though, might be different now. But you could get three frozen pizzas for a pound, made in some factory in Italy, or a case of cheap beer for a tenner.
Yes but it's economies of scale, and supply/demand of shipping space.
It would be cheaper to ship to US, and it would be cheaper to move product within the US.
@happydude: Thanks. That could help explain it. But I doubt it explains the entire $70 price differential on a $30 vs $100 product.
Even if prices of lobster, wagyu, uggs drop in price, how much are you realistically buying?
When China didn't want our lobsters, I was buying 3kg worth every 2 weeks for a few months.
how does the price compare between before then, then and now?
during China's boycott, almost weekly my fam was ordering small sized lobster cooked with er fu noodles for $60-70 at chinese restaurants.
it's now double that. i wouldn't mind it again :)
One of my fondest memories is feasting on a 3kg lobster. It was so massive they (the restaurant we went to) made 2 dishes out of it.
I bought more regularly when the price was lower but I rarely do now because it is way too expensive.
Hopefully Trump takes more unexpected actions and collapses the US dollar.
That would be the deal of the lifetime. I am rubbing my hands together at the thought of all those cheap US goods/assets.
Anything else is likely to cause Australians more pain than benefit.
Collapsing the reserve currency of the world isn't going to be the deal you want.
I was expecting that to happen, but AUD is dropping against USD :(
Does not work like that.
US goods in the short term will become more expensive, short term higher supply costs and long term US factories will increase prices as there will be less competition from importers. The wages are always going to be higher in the USA for manufacturing so you are never going to get 'cheaper' products out of the USA as the cost of labour is always going to be higher than that of someone in China, purely based on the fact that people in China just don't earn as much per person. Lookup what happened with white goods in the US, they taxed LG and Samsung, increasing the price of imported goods, inturn, the local manufacturers increased their prices as why should they sell items cheaper when the competition has a higher price?
You will most likely get barred from 'buying up' US assets.
All that has happened is the AUD has collapse by 4% in 1 day.
The USA economy will just get stronger in the long run if the tariffs stay long term and they can actually 'revive' their manufacturing base.
Our economy actually depends heavily on China as we have a trade SURPLUS with China. We have a trade deficit with the USA, and now they are tariffing us.
The USA economy will just get stronger in the long run if the tariffs stay long term and they can actually 'revive' their manufacturing base.
That will take years. In the mean time the economy will contract as tarrifs create inflation and slow down the economy.
The AUD, being a commodity currency, will be sold off as global trade slows. This will cause panic and flight to safety … to the foreign bond markets (the Euro is also appreciating)
Australia will find itself in the same position as the USA, with no manufacturing and increasing inflation (as the AUD falls - we import everything). The difference is the conditions in Australia won't recover, we will become a banana republic
Biden handed over low unemployment to Trump. If manufacturing grows, something else will have to shrink. Especially since they deported their indentured servants. Sorry, I mean Mexicans.
Optimus Prime and various other robots will be used not people. It will just concentrate wealth in America further.
What is most hilarious is that Donald and his team think that companies can just up their operations and relocate to the US.
It could take years to do this. And why would they, if a new administration (even a conservative one) will like remove or massively reduce the tarrifs.
The companies could just fold, or reduce operations and wait it out. Meanwhile the Red voters are going to call him out for prices going up.
There are rumours of the Brits forming their own trading block with EU, and other commonwealth nations. China is in talks with South Korea and JAPAN (crazy).
This is the most monumental miscalculation from the duck. I think no one thought he would actually do it… bahahah
Yes. Honestly if I was a company and I promised investment in the US I would just pull out now.
I would not bother moving my manufacturing base to the US when one day they can just turn around and bully you into doing something. Feels very familiar.
@CalmLemons: I believe that's exactly whats happened. A few huge businesses were about to move all their factories to the USA and have no halted.
SO MUCH WINNING PEOPLE GOING TO BE TIRED OF WINNING!
@Ruddaga: anyway to highlight something, all this new investment trump is toughting, most of it was already preexisting promised projects that have not started like all the apple projects etc.
I wouldn't be paying too much attention to the Exchange rate. Not much over 10 years ago it was running at $1.10.
You can be sure the current position is due to punters with lots more dollars to play with than our tiny country.
Go back to the great Paul Keating (just ask him) to Wayne Swan (Worlds greated treasurer) to today's Wallet Wizard.
None of them have a clue, same as the Crayon Club at the Reserve Bank
Just had to share this with the new factories opening up in america and the factory jobs now being done by american citizens.
This is hilarious.
There is a great doco called American Factory 2019. Big insight
Until they become as authoritarian as Russia…. and then just seize any assets they don't like.
Your stonks all now belong to Barron Trumps trust fund.
Trash the market Trump the shares. Generational mega wealth.
US dollar can't collapse- it's the reserve currency. Only way it collapses if is USA loses a global war. Is this what you want?
Well, if banks world wide get tired of the hijinks and switching to the Euro as their primary reserve currency I imagine it would result in interesting Economic times. I understand it is presently the reserve is currently about 60% USD and 15% Euro (and then a bunch of smaller ones)
US largely owns Australia. The banks the media the political leaders the military and think tanks. If their economy tanks, the consequences on Australia’s won’t be pretty.
Yes, that's his plan. He's got almost $37 trillion USD of debt and they are dying under the $1 trillion USD in interest repayments annually. As such, he needs to crash his economy badly in order to trick the fed to let him refinance it all at COVID rates rather than the new rates. Whilst he is doing this, he gets to test diplomatic relationships to the limits and hopefully create borderline unfair trade deals that would otherwise be impossible to obtain. It's a master move on his behalf and he needs to act like a dumb idiot who has no idea how economics works for it to succeed.
Shares are currently on sale.
Supers are currently on fall.
Buy the dip!
Which dip this or the next?
All of them! To the moon!
Only if the market not going in bear mode
It would seem that if I was a Dealer, I would be doing what makes me the most money.
When thats's done I can Buy the dip!
Can't lose.
Magically th emarket should start reviving in about two weeks
GOLD is holding up very well and in fact went UP on Friday 4 April (again).
Expect a big jump in price on Monday 7 April
Overall GOLD.ASX (Global X Physical Gold ETF) is:
up 42% over 12 months
up 18% YTD
up 7.75% over the last month
up 3.25% over the last week despite dropping for 3 days mid-week
Gold always has been the commodity of choice when there is a lot of instability in the world
This so much, as long as you can bear the line go down pain.
I'm all about IVV and DHHF. That being said, my defence stocks are the only ones blowing up now.
My DCA is getting cheaper every week.
AUD is in freefall. We have been hit with an unofficial tariff.
There must be a few Aussies going overseas this Easter. Your travel bill just got more expensive.
Yes, heading to the UK in a couple of weeks. Not good :(
My Condolences…
We know some American visiting soon. What can i as for them to bring for me? 😅
vegemite it's cheaper there
Lol we are going to Korea in may… Probably when dollar will be lowest because of election.
The idea of the tariffs is to discourage people from buying imported products.
Countries that were previously selling to the US will be looking for new markets, and will likely have excess stock to sell that they can no longer sell into the US.
As a result, Australian consumers can reasonably expect to see excess stock end up in Australia at a discount.
Not exactly correct
The price of those goods in the US will go up.
It may result in a slight drop in demand, depending on whether there are cheaper alternative products available in the US.
But whether it will result in excess stock here in Australia remains to be seen.
We dont sell much in the way of physical goods to the US so dont expect to see any bargains…..
"Australia's most valuable exports to the US are services, and while the flow of that trade can be hemmed or reduced through visa and travel restrictions, they can't be tariffed in the same way as goods arriving at a US port….
Australia could feel a greater impact from the tariffs if demand in China, Japan or South Korea wanes."
Here's what Australia sells overseas, who buys it, and how much we sell to the US
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-04/us-tariffs-what-does-…
I said nothing about Australian products. As you say, Australia doesn't make much at all, and Australian consumers are hardly in the market for raw wheat and iron ore.
Reduced demand in the US is likely to result in excess inventories in China and elsewhere, some of which will inevitably end up being diverted to Australia at a discount.
This is particularly likely to be the case with low value goods which have been subject to import tarrifs for the first time and that may stop direct shipping to the US entirely due to hassle factor and under resourcing at US customs.
Also, it is yet to be seen if US consumers will be willing to either wear higher prices or accept substitutions, but either way demand will definitely decrease due to mass lay-offs, less government money circulating in the economy, consumer uncertainty and proportionately less discretionary income due to the increased cost of necessities.
All up, it's hard for me to see how the US can avoid a catastrophic recession this year, regardless.
But if they have 10% tariff on Aussie beef for example and then the AUD falls doesn’t that offset any perceived “increase” in cost to the USA? What am I missing?
Interesting that you have had no expert comments yet.
There is a lot of uncertainty atm. Uncertainty has 2 parts - risk and opportunity. So I am sure that there are going to be lots of options opening up. But they may not be apparent for a while - and may not drop in our laps.
We are currently getting a range of well priced Chinese EVs because of our low tariff economy and Euro and US protectionism, theres no reason why other commodities wont be available.
Australian retailers aren't exactly known for passing on decreases in wholesale cost.
There definitely won't be any kind of falls that suddenly make wagyu affordable if you couldn't afford angus. Particularly when flooding in Queensland is pushing prices up.
If I was a wholesaler I'd be keeping an additional margin I could.
Understanding big retail here very hard to get it back once you hand it over….Australian big retailers hate their margings reducing , doesn't tick the KPI box very well
$10 eggs still omg haha
If wholesalers or producers discount their prices that will mostly positively impact Colesworth and other corporate retailer profits.
Buy shares. Don't expect cheap groceries.
It’s good for America…..
n billionaires
You left off the end of your sentence
Tariffs float all boats /s
Haha, this is so true. USA is headed for a civil war if they can't fix their poverty issue. The wealth divide between their rich and poor are getting out of control. They didn't learn the lesson from when China's mass of poor peasants did this and became communist after killing and overthrowing from the rich minority.
You are assuming its not instead short term pain for long term further pain.
Broad base tariffs have never given benefits in the modern era. They only work if you are an economy localised with cheap labour in the form of slaves.
You are assuming it’ll be bad too
Time will tell
If punching yourself in the dick hurt the first 100 times, why would it hurt the 101st time?
Assuming a thing that always goes wrong will go wrong again is a pretty safe assumption to make, especially when the arguments on why it will work are non-existent.
No one said much when the stock market crashed by over 25% in 2022 under Biden.
The news cycle was pretty dominated by Roe v. Wade being overturned and Russia invading Ukraine ruining a lot of the global supply chain. Even then, plenty of people called it out, it's just no one listened much.
People are generally smart enough to blame the source. Biden isn't fully responsible for the 2022 dip, he could have done better but he can't control Russia or global supply chains. Trump is absolutely responsible for the 2025 dip.
@Danstar: So it’s ok to get punched in the dick, so long as you’re punching yourself in the dick. If someone else does it though it’s your fault for not stopping them.
Gotcha.
@freefall101: Rather know I’m about to get punched in the dick than keep on accepting getting punched in the dick and pretend it doesn’t hurt.
@Danstar: I may be assuming your nationality, but what did Biden ever do to Australia? At least by the end of his administration he was pretty much on autopilot and the stock market was going rocket emojis.
Also, Biden is gone. Mentally since about 2022, but he exited the whitehouse a few months ago. I'm not sure the bar should be set at "guy who didn't know which room he was in at any given moment".
exporters preference will be to find another market to sell to and if they are unsuccessful there then they may have no choice but to sell locally.