Core Insights - Small business owners, once a strong support base for President Trump's policies, are now facing significant challenges during his second term, with economist Paul Krugman labeling 2025 as a "miserable year" for them and predicting that 2026 will be even worse [1][2]. Impact of Policies - The combination of Trump's tariffs and strict immigration enforcement has created substantial operational difficulties for small business owners, particularly those reliant on imported goods and foreign labor [3][4]. - High tariffs have severely affected companies that depend on imports, while mass arrests of immigrants have disrupted businesses like construction that rely on foreign workers [4]. Disparities Between Small and Large Businesses - Large corporations have been better equipped to navigate these challenges by finding alternative suppliers and leveraging political influence, unlike small businesses that lack such advantages [4][5]. - The shift towards crony capitalism under Trump's administration has further marginalized small businesses, which do not have the political connections to secure exemptions from tariffs [5]. Rising Costs and Health Care Issues - Increasing health care costs are compounding the pressures on small businesses, with nearly half of adults receiving government health insurance either owning or working for small businesses, making the expiration of federal subsidies particularly impactful [6]. Consequences of Tariff Policies - Numerous small businesses have faced unsustainability and bankruptcy due to the effects of Trump's tariffs on India and China, leading to heightened input costs and canceled contracts [7]. - Over 90% of U.S. exporters are small or family-owned businesses, and the uncertainty surrounding tariff policies is causing significant distress among these entities [8].

Here they go again! Trump 2.0 is chugging down the same dubious path as Trump 1.0, fixing to shower crony capitalist speculators with massive windfall gains via a public offering of the shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs or Government Sponsored Enterprises). Uncle Sam, of course, is the proud owner of these two […] Monthly Subscription, Quarterly Subscription or Annual Subscription. You must be a Stockman's Corner member in order to view this post, subscribe to ...

Tariffs Announcement - The US will impose a 100% tariff on branded or patented pharmaceutical products starting October 1st, with exemptions for companies building drug manufacturing plants in the US or those with ongoing construction projects [1][2] - A 25% tariff on imported heavy trucks will also take effect on October 1st [2] - A 50% tariff will be applied to kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and associated products, while a 30% tariff will be imposed on upholstered furniture, both starting on October 1st [3] National Security Justification - The president cited national security as a reason for the new tariffs on kitchen supplies and furniture, indicating a broader interpretation of national security that includes economic productive capacity [3][17] - Section 232 investigations into imports of robotics, industrial machinery, and medical devices may lead to additional tariffs, suggesting a strategic approach to tariff implementation [3][16] Impact on Agriculture - The trade war has negatively affected American farmers, particularly in soybean exports to China, prompting the president to develop a mechanism to transfer tariff revenues to support farmers [4] Trade Agreements and Exemptions - Questions arise regarding how these new tariffs will interact with existing trade agreements with countries like Japan, Korea, and Europe, particularly for products already covered under those deals [5][6] - The potential for exemptions from tariffs has raised concerns about crony capitalism and favoritism towards large businesses, as highlighted by industry leaders [8][9] Future Political Landscape - Speculation exists that even if a Democratic administration were to take power, the current tariffs may not be fully rolled back due to the political implications of harming American workers [20][21] - The ongoing use of tariffs as a tool for political leverage may complicate future trade negotiations and exemptions [22]

Core Viewpoint - Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel LLC, has publicly criticized President Trump's tariff policy, labeling it as "anti-American" and favoring "the big and the connected" [1][2]. Group 1: Criticism of Tariff Policy - Griffin expressed that the line of businesses seeking tariff exemptions is "nauseating," highlighting concerns over crony capitalism and fairness in economic policies [2]. - He warned that government intervention in selecting economic winners and losers ultimately leads to negative outcomes for all [3]. - Griffin cautioned companies against relying on favors from the current administration, suggesting that this could backfire with a change in leadership [3]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - Senator Elizabeth Warren and economists have attributed rising goods prices in the U.S. to Trump's trade and tariff policies, with 72% of CPI components exceeding the Federal Reserve's inflation target [6]. - Despite the criticism, Trump's tariffs have generated nearly $350 billion in revenue, raising significant discussions about their impact on the U.S. economy and trade policy [6]. Group 3: Historical Context of Griffin's Criticism - This is not the first instance of Griffin criticizing Trump's economic policies; he has previously expressed concerns about Trump's influence on the Federal Reserve and the potential risks involved [4]. - Earlier in the year, Griffin also warned that the administration's tax cuts and focus on low-wage manufacturing could lead to stagflation [5].

Government Intervention & Industrial Policy - The discussion revolves around the US government's potential stake in Intel and the broader implications of industrial policy, questioning whether it constitutes "state capitalism" [1][2][3] - Concerns are raised that government intervention in corporate decisions, such as pricing and equity stakes, could lead to "crony capitalism," favoring specific companies and industries [3] - The previous administration's chip grants are criticized for including requirements related to childcare, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), and Davis-Bacon union wages, without the government even taking a stake in the company [4] - There is a debate on whether the current approach is an improvement over the previous one, even if it's still not ideal [4][5] - The core issue is bringing manufacturing back to America, especially in sectors related to defense and national security [12][13] Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) & Free Market - The report expresses skepticism about public-private partnerships, citing historical examples of unsuccessful implementations, particularly in Latin America and China [1][15] - The discussion questions the effectiveness of government intervention in areas where the free market should ideally decide winners and losers [7][8] - The economics of chip manufacturing in the US didn't make sense previously, which is why companies weren't initially in the business [9][10] - Tariffs could potentially shift the balance and make domestic chip manufacturing more attractive [10][12] - There is a need to balance free trade with strategic tariffs to encourage more domestic production, potentially around 5-10% across certain industries [16] Energy & Infrastructure - Public-private partnerships are deemed necessary for large-scale infrastructure projects like the energy grid [19] - The government's execution of infrastructure projects, such as building electric vehicle charging stations, is questioned [19] - Subsidies for consumers who want to adopt solar energy are considered acceptable, as they don't constitute crony capitalism [18]