The stock markets are already crashing

Tesla has several fronts open in the market. It is not only Elon's image affecting the brand. On the one hand there is the housing market, closely related to the car market and on the other the competition from electric cars from China.

As of March 2025, the U.S. housing market is showing signs of stagnation: prices are high, inventory is rising but remains scarce, and sales are tepid as buyers weigh affordability and economic uncertainty. The housing market and vehicle sales are linked through affordability, confidence, and economic ripples. Right now, high costs in both are tempering demand. If housing prices or mortgage rates climb too high, households might delay car purchases to prioritize shelter costs.

Now a Chinese electric car has arrived that could surpass the goodness of the cyber truck. The question is whether Elon is weighing pulling out of the electric car market or will he decide to focus on robotics and space exploration.

Tesla shares fall after unveiling of BYD's new car: the numbers.​

Tesla Inc (TSLA) has gone from being the most attractive company on Wall Street to the most hated in a matter of months. Compounding the stock's woes this week, a rival from China has outperformed the company in what is supposed to be Elon Musk's forte: electric vehicle innovation.

Tesla shares fell -5.3% on Tuesday, while BYD Co. soared to an all-time high after unveiling an electric car that can charge as fast as a gasoline vehicle is refueled.

It's the latest blow for Tesla, whose sky-high valuation is based on the company's ability to constantly innovate and stay ahead of rivals. Confidence had already soured last month after news that sales of its electric cars had slumped in key markets. And Musk's rising political prominence-which late last year was widely expected to give Tesla's business a boost-has instead become a problem for the stock.

20250318_211635.jpg

www.bloomberglinea.com

Acciones de Tesla caen tras la presentación del nuevo auto de BYD: las cifras

Las acciones de Tesla son actualmente las de peor rendimiento del índice S&P 500 en el año.
www.bloomberglinea.com www.bloomberglinea.com

Grok: What will happen if TSLA shares continue to fall?

If Tesla's stock (TSLA) continues to fall, several potential consequences could unfold, affecting the company, its CEO Elon Musk, investors, and the broader market. Based on current trends and insights, here’s what might happen:

1. Impact on Elon Musk’s Wealth and Influence:

Elon Musk’s net worth is heavily tied to Tesla stock, as it constitutes a significant portion of his fortune. A continued decline could shrink his wealth further—already down over $100 billion from its peak in December 2024, according to some estimates. While he’s unlikely to lose his status as the world’s richest person immediately, a prolonged drop might force him to sell more Tesla shares to fund other ventures (like X or SpaceX), potentially accelerating the decline. There’s also speculation that if TSLA falls too far, banks or creditors tied to his $44 billion X acquisition (partially financed with Tesla stock as collateral) could demand action, possibly even repossessing X if loan terms are breached.

2. Investor Sentiment and Market Reaction:

Tesla’s stock has already shed nearly 50% of its value since mid-December 2024, erasing over $700 billion in market capitalization. A continued fall could trigger a shareholder revolt, especially if investors lose faith in Musk’s leadership amid his focus on political roles (like the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE) and other projects.

3. Operational Challenges for Tesla:

Falling stock prices could limit Tesla’s ability to raise capital through equity markets, hampering expansion plans like new gigafactories or R&D for autonomous vehicles and AI. Declining sales—down 11% in the U.S. and 45% in Europe in early 2025—might worsen if consumer backlash to Musk’s political stances grows, potentially alienating key demographics. Competitors like BYD, offering cheaper or free driver-assistance tech, could further erode Tesla’s market share, especially in China, a critical region for the company.

4. Broader Market and Economic Ripples:

Tesla’s outsized presence in the S&P 500 means its decline could drag down the index, affecting broader market sentiment. A trade war sparked by Trump’s tariffs—potentially raising costs for Tesla’s supply chain—might exacerbate this, especially if retaliatory measures (e.g., Canada’s proposed Tesla-specific tariffs) hit sales. If Tesla’s valuation continues to deflate, it could signal a shift away from growth stocks, impacting other high-flying tech companies.
 
As mentioned above, Elon will either have to make a major decision or someone else will make it for him regarding the management of his Tesla company.


Uncertainty spawned by President Donald Trump’s tariffs prodded the Federal Reserve to predict a slower economy and higher inflation in 2025, clouding its decision on whether to cut interest rates this year.

The Fed made multiple revisions to their 2025 economic data projections.

1. Cuts 2025 GDP growth projection from 2.1% to 1.7%

2. Raises unemployment forecast from 4.3% to 4.4%

3. Raises PCE inflation forecast from 2.5% to 2.7%

4. Raises Core PCE inflation forecast from 2.5% to 2.8%

Also as mentioned, the housing market is not in the best of times. These data are interesting. If current economic conditions prevail many American families could be at risk of losing their homes or going further into debt.

Screenshot_20250319-150539_X.jpg
Screenshot_20250319-150934_X.jpg
​
 
Planned obsolescence of the OWO, so the NWO can be introduced to replace it.... 'rug pull' and seemingly timed for our endtimes event sequence of this or next year for the arrival of Mother Nature's cleansing op. It all seems very scripted. IMO, not yet a crashing market, but a controlled descent in the usual reverse staircase style.. to milk it dry for maximum benefit to those running this farce, but then it does supply greater catalyst for growth and choice, no? And isn't that the function of this 3d STS or 'purgatorial' realm?

As for Musk, Trump etc... even if they choose to hold their controlling shares, they can simply use covered shorts to benefit without risk of that control, and this is what hedges are for, no? Their real problem is not realizing the game is on... and not in the direction they think, a mindset typical of their kind. Musk didn't even realize those HN1 ? visas were for cheap labor, not just for those in the 'best and brightest' category. Like Trump, there is so much they simply don't know and apparently don't care to know until forced to do so.
 
Well here we are, this is Liberation week according to President Trump, this will start on April 2nd, the recovery of the wealth that the world has taken from the US. This is already enough for the globalists to turn on the alerts and set in motion all the Wall Street machinery to show people that nationalism is a bad idea.

Also, it is officially the week of the "reciprocal tariffs", the so-called trade war and some financial missiles have already been launched or are ready. Tariffs on more than 25 countries. Financial analysts say US tariffs will impact $1.5+ TRILLION worth of imports by the end of April.

Yesterday the panic started in Japan and this meme certainly describes it perfectly.

Japan's Nikkei enters correction as Trump's impending tariffs drive sell-off in Asia markets​


Asia-Pacific markets plunged Monday ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's fresh round of tariffs expected later in the week, with Japan's Nikkei 225 entering correction territory.

The benchmark Nikkei index plunged 4.05% to end the day at 35,617.56, losing nearly 12% from its December high.


This morning the S&P500 also returned to correction territory.

Take a look at the Economy Policy Uncertainty Index. Policy uncertainty is currently above just about any crisis in modern US history. We are seeing ~80% HIGHER uncertainty levels than 2008. As a result, market swings are widening and we expected an extremely volatile week. The Kobeissi Letter​
Click to expand...
20250331_092158.png


Typically, gold prices rise when investors seek a "safe haven" asset during times of uncertainty. For many, this is a good indicator of what the expectations of large capitals are for what is to come, since gold is often seen as a hedge against economic instability.




​
 
daddycat said:
In a real crash phase, gold crashes too and cash is king.
Click to expand...

Yup. Warren Buffett, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, keeps a substantial amount of cash, recently reported at $325 billion as of late 2024, but we are talking about an ultra-rich. Buffett values liquidity as a safety net because this ensures he can weather financial storms without borrowing or selling assets at a loss.

Ordinary people will be able to convert their gold into cash or food in times of crisis and for a while. A complete collapse would bring the value of the currency to zero and the only thing that can be exchanged is shots.

Currently the average American is having trouble maintaining a substantial cash or gold reserve and credit is already showing problems.​

Screenshot_20250401-004442_X.jpg
20250401_004554.jpg

Signs


Entertainment & discretionary spending first to go?

Nevada Gaming Control Board, reported a 13.8% year-over-year drop in gaming revenue on the Strip for February 2025. The decline has been attributed to factors like the absence of a major event like the Super Bowl.
​

Nevada and Las Vegas Strip revenue down again in February​


The lack of a Super Bowl cut deeply into Las Vegas and Nevada’s visitation, falling nearly 12% in February year over year. That led to a 9.2% statewide decline in revenue and a whopping 13.8% decline for the Strip.

The Strip reported $690.3 million in gaming revenue, down from $800.6 million in February 2024. It wasn’t as bad away from the Strip. Downtown Las Vegas also felt the drop off but fell only 4.9% to $72.4 million. North Las Vegas fell 2.7% while the Boulder Strip fell 1.3%. The balance of Clark County outside of Mesquite and Laughlin rose 1%, according to the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Nevada and Las Vegas Strip revenue down again in February

The lack of a Super Bowl cut deeply into Las Vegas and Nevada’s visitation, falling nearly 12% in February year over year. That led to a 9.2% statewide decline in revenue and a whopping 13.8% decline for the Strip.The Strip reported $690.3 million in gaming revenue, down from $800.6 million in
cdcgaming.com
 
Puma said:
Signs

Click to expand...
Trump never went personally bankrupt, six of the many companies he owns did.
 
Today is "Liberation" day and the markets know it. So far, all green, even TSLA


Maybe they know that the tariffs are a nothing burger.
 
Trump’s reciprocal tariffs have been announced:

🇨🇳34% on China
🇪🇺20% on EU
🇨🇭Switzerland 31%
🇻🇳Vietnam 46%
🇹🇼Taiwan 32%
🇯🇵Japan 24%
🇮🇳India 26%
🇰🇷Korea 25%
🇹🇭Thailand 36%
🇰🇭Cambodia 49%
🇬🇧Great Britain 10%
🇧🇩Bangladesh 37%
🇲🇾Malaysia 24%
🇿🇦South Africa 30%
🇵🇭Philippines 17%
🇮🇱Israel 17%
🇵🇰 Pakistan 29%
🇱🇰Sri Lanka 44%

46% tariff on Vietnam and 49% on Cambodia is an absolute bomb. So many companies moved all their production there.

A minimum baseline tariff of 10% on everybody else.

PM Mark Carney spoke with President Sheinbaum about trade agreements between Canada and Mexico.​


At the moment Canada and Mexico are exempt from reciprocal tariffs however, Trump criticized NAFTA and all indications are that there will be a review of UMSCA.

Trump waited until the market closed to announce the reciprocal tariffs.
Screenshot_20250402-161852_X.jpg

The trade war with China enters a new episode.
​
 
The carnage is just beginning


To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list.

Why? Does Lesotho apply extortionate tariffs on U.S. products and the U.S. is merely being "reciprocal" here? Not at all, despite what Trump is saying, it's NOT the way these tariffs are defined.

As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc.

Which means it applies the same tariffs on U.S. products as South Africa does, as well as the 3 other members of the bloc: Namibia, Eswatini and Botswana.

So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

So what gives? Again, the way these tariffs are calculated has absolutely zero relationship with actual tariffs imposed by these countries on U.S. products. Instead, they appear to be simply derived from trade deficit calculations.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile…).

Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can't afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income...

The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country's exports to the U.S and declare this - falsely - "the tariff they charge on the U.S."

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you'll only "reciprocate" by charging half that "tariff" on them.

As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M - $7M)/$235M = 97%. That's the "tariff" Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. "reciprocates" with.

It's extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all.

First of all, there's nothing Lesotho can do about it: they can't change tariffs they allegedly charge the U.S. to reduce the tariff rate the U.S. "reciprocates" with because, again, it's NOT based on any tariff that they charge.

Similarly they can't do much about reducing the trade deficit they have with the U.S. because, again, they simply don't have enough money to buy U.S. products.

Also the main rational Trump gave for the tariffs is to get production back to the U.S., to "bring manufacturing back". 47.3% of Lesotho's exports are diamonds: how do you bring the "manufacturing" of that "back to the U.S."? Anyone can see it makes just about zero sense.

The Lesotho example exposes the fundamental economic incoherence of these tariffs. Rather than addressing actual trade barriers, they punish countries based on trade deficits that arise from structural economic realities. All the more countries like Lesotho which pose zero competitive threat to American industry.

Worse yet, these tariffs will likely make these structural realities even worse: the U.S. is Lesotho's second most important export destination so it's a fair bet that applying 50% tariffs on their products will make people in Lesotho even poorer, and therefore even LESS able to afford U.S. products.

But perhaps the most unfair and detrimental aspect of all this is that these tariffs represent a complete reversal of longstanding U.S. development policy, and therefore a betrayal of countries - like Lesotho - who chose to follow U.S. advice in the past.

For decades the U.S. has used preferential trade access to encourage economic development in the world's poorest nations, recognizing that trade, not just aid, could get them out of poverty and ultimately put them in a position where they too could afford iPhones or Tesla.

They're now effectively penalizing countries for following previous U.S. policy, a lesson which I bet they won't forget anytime soon.

So all in all the irony is painful: in the name of fighting unfair trade, America has just demonstrated what truly unfair trade looks like.

This isn't something designed to address genuine trade issues, but simply a mechanism based on arbitrary math to punish countries for the affront of selling more to the United States than they buy.
Click to expand...


 
This in my view is just a starting point for the US to enter into trade equality with China - which they would never be interested in or allow to happen with the European Union - and it is their partners, neighbors and friends (Israel) who have to help pay either in the form of tariffs or as a bargaining chip for their international negotiations.

The following is an article from Barron's which comes from Money Circus (Telegram) explaining the origin of these grandiose ideas of tariff increases. Here is the article (which is under paywall) and the commentary from Money Circus.

Trump’s Tariffs Are the Toughest Since the Great Depression. The Dangers We’ve Forgotten.​

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 choked off trade just when the world economy needed it most.
By
Kenneth G. Pringle
March 06, 2025, 12:01 am EST
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is blamed for deepening the Great Depression. Don’t tell that to the Trump administration, which just unveiled the toughest tariffs in almost a century.
Investors see the new tariffs as threatening the economy, and stocks have gyrated wildly in recent days. President Donald Trump has slapped tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada, plus an extra 10% tariff on Chinese imports, with a threat of more to come. Every fresh tidbit of news sends jumpy traders in a new direction.

But, then, who can blame them? Smoot-Hawley happened decades before they were born.

Enacted eight months after the Wall Street crash of 1929 and pushed by President Herbert Hoover as necessary protection for American farmers and workers, Smoot-Hawley was actually a product of the precrash good times. When congressional discussions began in 1928, the stock market was reaching new highs almost daily, much as it has in 2023 and 2024.
Smoot-Hawley was a Republican proposal, though Congress split along regional lines, with debate centering on the eternal question: Are the protections that tariffs provide to workers and industry worth the price increases that everyone else must pay?

In April 1929, amid congressional hearings on the tariff, The Wall Street Journal found all the arguments unconvincing. But it did come up with one conclusion, as true today as it was then.

“Nothing and nobody anywhere is without a tangible interest in the tariff question,” the Journal wrote, “not an industry, or a business, or a home, or an investment anywhere can escape the effects produced by changes in tariffs.”

A tariff is a tax placed on imports and paid by domestic importers. In the U.S., tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection at the port entry.
Who ultimately pays the tariff depends. The importer could seek a concession from its foreign partner, who might accept a smaller profit margin as the cost for remaining in the U.S. market. The importer, too, may eat part of the tax. But some of the price increase is almost always borne by the consumer.

Tariff proponents call this a feature, not a bug. Eliminating low-cost imports allows U.S. businesses and farmers to compete on a level playing field, protecting good American jobs. This is what Trump argues today, and Hoover argued a century ago

So, what happens next?
In 1930, the international reaction to Smoot-Hawley was swift and severe.
“Canadian Tariff Increases Hit American Exports,” Barron’s wrote June 8, 1931, as Ottawa enacted its third “upward revision” since Smoot-Hawley. It covered 174 items, a third of all American exports to its northern neighbor, including a 30% levy on midprice cars and 40% on luxury models.
Canada was hardly alone. Barron’s reported that, in 1930 alone, 45 countries raised their tariffs on U.S. products.
Smoot-Hawley 190018302000010203040506070%

U.S. big business sounded the alarm. “Hard-headed industrialists” joined with “professors of economics and doctors of politics” in opposing Smoot-Hawley, the Christian Science Monitor wrote on June 25, 1931. Among those speaking out were the president of the Pennsylvania railroad, Boston store owner Edward Filene, heads of cotton and textile merchants associations, and car makers Henry Ford of Ford Motor and Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors.

“We can’t expect to do all the selling and have the other fellow do all the buying,” said future J.P. Morgan chairman Thomas W. Lamont in 1931, the “other fellow” being America’s trade partners.
The logic behind the retaliatory trade measures was summed up by British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. “A tariff, among other things, is one of the quickest and most effective weapons to induce other countries to lower their tariff walls,” said Baldwin, a confirmed protectionist himself.
Click to expand...
Money Circus
Whether or not Baldwin’s retaliatory tactics were the reason, the trade walls erected by Smoot-Hawley were torn down by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. This allowed the president to negotiate bilateral agreements and served as a framework for the multilateral agreements that dominated the post-World War II “free trade” world.
Today, the consensus argument is that Smoot-Hawley and its retaliatory responses worsened the Great Depression by choking off trade just when the world economy needed it most.
Not everyone agrees. Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative during Trump’s first term and an architect of his trade policies, has written that Smoot-Hawley “had little if any impact on the economic crisis of the early 1930s” amid larger forces at play.
Yet, in a sense, Baldwin was right. It took a depression and another world war, but the tariff walls were eventually lowered globally, and something close to a level playing field was created.
Not everyone plays by the rules anymore, argues Trump, and the global-trading system needs a reset to once more level out that playing field.
Hopefully this time we won’t need a depression and world war to see it happen.
 
I would be cautious to believe anything that publications like Barron's say. Many if not most of such media outlets seem to be owned by globalists who of course will continue to push for globalization and "free trade".

There seems to be no consensus on what caused or deepened the Great Depression. A big part of it seems to have been due to speculation and banks, though higher tariffs may have played a role as well.

www.britannica.com

Causes of the Great Depression | Britannica

What brought about the worst economic downturn in modern history?
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
 
The carnage has begun, the first financial missiles have been launched and now there is an all-out trade war. The European Union will announce countermeasures.

Dow started with losses, now exceed -1500 points on the day with the S&P 500 down -4.3%. Two trillion has been erased from the stock market today.

20250403_093329.jpg
Marketwatch


People wonder why there are no tariffs announced for Russia, well, for them there are restrictions and economic sanctions. Medvedev stresses that in all these years Russia prevails.

Those who were surprised were the Israelis, "not that we were allies" they probably thought 😂.


Trump Administration put a 10% tariff on the Heard Island and McDonald. These islands have no human population and are home primarily to penguins, seals, and seabirds, but the islands were still included, likely due to their status as an Australian territory.

20250403_094950.jpg

​
 
axj said:
I would be cautious to believe anything that publications like Barron's say. Many if not most of such media outlets seem to be owned by globalists who of course will continue to push for globalization and "free trade".
There seems to be no consensus on what caused or deepened the Great Depression. A big part of it seems to have been due to speculation and banks, though higher tariffs may have played a role as well.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree that you have to be skeptical even with the encyclopedia Britannica (and it is not irony), almost all the “safe” sources belong to the globalists, but that is what it is, and that is why I find interesting the counterweight that Moneycircus makes with this article, if you read it, he says in one part that not everyone agrees that tariffs were the worsening factor of the depression of the 30s. In short he seems to be saying that Trump is looking to level the playing field in order to deal with trade and economic competition, which seems to me to be a reflection of the path of what is about to happen from higher perspectives.
 
1 point to get straight. Tariffs did not cause the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by the popping of the financial bubble mania which preceded it, and it obviously popped in 1929 as shown by the stock market crash.

Conditions are similar today in the sense that we have another huge financial bubble, and it probably popped.

The stock markets have been at or below the 200 day moving average for several weeks, and today was a bad day for markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom