Investor Who Predicted 2008 Crash Sounds Alarm On 1 Particular Donald Trump Policy
Hedge-fund billionaire Ray Dalio — who correctly predicted the financial crash that roiled the world in 2008 — has warned in his new book that America's current $36 trillion debt is the country's biggest problem.
And Dalio slammed Donald Trump's administration for slashing federal spending and gutting the government because 'many people who will be hurt by them will fight back and valuable support systems will be weakened or eliminated,' according to quotes of 'How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle' that The Guardian published Tuesday.
Dalio, the founder of global hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, also suggested Trump's 'Make America Great Again' policies are 'remarkably like the policies that those of the hard-right countries in the 1930s used.'
'It would be fair to argue that his attempts to maximize the power of the presidency by bypassing the other branches of government are analogous to the ways that Andrew Jackson (of the right) and Franklin D Roosevelt (of the left) did, though he is even more aggressive than they were,' he added. 'We will see how far he will take it.'
Dalio last month warned how 'something worse than a recession' could soon happen, attributing it to a raft of issues including Trump's tariffs on products imported from other countries.
'We have a breaking down of the monetary order,' Dalio cautioned on NBC's 'Meet The Press.'
'Such times are very much like the 1930s,' he added. 'I've studied history, and this repeats over and over again.'
Harvard's Laurence Tribe Delivers Unflinching Message To Foreign Students In Trump Crosshairs
Fox News' Brit Hume Scoffs At Trump's Latest Rant: 'Don't Know What' He's Talking About
Wall Street Journal Shatters Core Trump Fantasy In Editorial Urging GOP 'Revolt'
Rage Against The Machine's Tom Morello Unleashes Anti-Trump Fury With Flip Of His Guitar
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
7 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree.
Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump allies urge crackdown on Cabinet secretaries meddling in GOP primaries
MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. — President Donald Trump's allies are fuming at Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy for getting involved in Michigan's Senate primary, a race that now threatens to divide Republicans. Duffy is headlining a planned June 4 fundraiser for Rep. Bill Huizenga, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO — a move that puts Duffy at odds with the National Republican Senatorial Committee and 2024 Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. Duffy has also been advising Huizenga, according to a person familiar with the race. Duffy, according to the two people close to Trump, never cleared his political engagement with the White House political shop, and has now drawn the ire of Trump's top political hands. The transportation secretary's move to fundraise for Huizenga has now prompted threats of a crackdown on Cabinet secretaries' political activities ahead of the midterms, POLITICO has learned. 'He did not ask for it to be approved,' a person close to Trump and granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive political matter told POLITICO of Duffy's decision. 'It would not have been approved. They are old friends and it's technically for the House so not going to embarrass him by standing it down, but the fact is administration officials are not free agents politically, even in their spare time. You never get ahead of the President.' Huizenga has told others that a second Cabinet official could fundraise for him but they're settling on a date. One of the people familiar with Trump's thinking said they would not allow that to happen. The White House declined to comment. A spokesperson for Duffy did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Rogers declined to comment.
Indianapolis Star
14 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Red Bull, shower gel and condoms are locked up. Shopping is indignity.
Aside from high prices, one of my biggest annoyances while shopping is finding an item locked in a display case. If you're out shopping this weekend, chances are you'll encounter sticker shock along with padlocked products. To access items in a case, you must press a button and wait for assistance or track down a worker to have them open the case for you. In most instances, if it takes too long for a worker to help me, I'll leave and go to a different store. It's not just cosmetics or copper wire in cases, if you're looking to throw a steak on the grill, it might be wrapped in its own little steel case to deter theft. My wife goes to grocery stores outside of where we live just for better produce selection and a more peaceful shopping experience. However, not everyone has that option. Retail giants such as CVS, Walgreens, Target and Walmart are intensifying security measures to combat the rising tide of theft. While these protective steps aim to deter criminals, they simultaneously create frustrations among honest shoppers. And, worse yet, we never seem to get at the root of the problem that's driving theft. When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, he pledged to enhance the economy and reduce the costs of food and other goods. However, after more than 100 days in office, the Trump administration policies have been detrimental to those in the lower and middle classes. Remember the fixation on egg prices during the campaign? Today, egg prices are higher, not lower. The cost of everything is expected to keep climbing with economists revising forecasts for the inflation rate and many now predicting it could reach the 4% mark. This anticipated increase has been attributed to several factors, notably the expected impact of Trump's tariffs, which will likely raise American consumers' prices for imported goods. Briggs: Fishers, Carmel don't think renters deserve single-family homes Higher prices are directly linked to an increase in retail crime, which is becoming an increasingly serious problem for American businesses. In 2022, losses from retail theft amounted to $112 billion, and this alarming trend is projected to exceed $150 billion by 2026. The situation is expected to worsen for retailers as states face significant cuts in federal funding for essential programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Desperate times arise as people's budgets tighten, creating a perfect storm for increased retail crime. During a recent visit to a Walgreens on Milwaukee's north side, I was struck by the sight of many products locked behind security panels. Some securely encased items included deodorant, Red Bull, shower gels, dish soap, laundry detergent, baby formula, and even condoms, which were locked in rigid plastic containers. I needed shower gel, so I pressed the buzzer. A chime sounded over the loudspeaker, followed by a computer voice announcing, 'Customer needs assistance in the health and beauty aisle.' After several minutes, a store employee came to assist me and asked how she could help. Hicks: Why tariffs lead to recession, even after Trump caved to China She fumbled with the keys until she found the right one to open the cabinet. I opened a few gels to smell their fragrances before settling on a citrus scent. I always do that, but the store employee was in a hurry. She asked me if I intended to make any additional purchases. When I told her no, she took the gel from my hand and instructed me to follow her to the checkout register. Curious, I asked her if people steal often. Her reply: "All the time." Walgreens CEO Timothy Wentworth said during a Jan. 10 call with investment analysts that putting more products in locked display cases "does impact how sales work through the store because when you lock things up, for example, you don't sell as many of them." Wentworth is right. You can't lock everything up in a store because if you do, you no longer have a store and turn customers away. However, while Walgreens says you can't keep locking things up, retail giant Walmart shocked some shoppers when it placed rows of steak cuts in small metal wire cages. An April 8 TikTok video showcasing the meat garnered 2 million views and thousands of angry comments. However, this isn't a new tactic, another TikToker posted a similar video from Walmart in 2022. The central question is how far businesses will go to combat retail theft. Will they start locking more items behind glass, hire additional security guards or install more cameras? Equally important, can we expect anything meaningful from our leaders in Washington or Madison to address why theft is on the rise? I'm not hopeful. We only need to review Trump's speeches on the campaign trail to understand what he really thinks. In Pennsylvania last fall, he noted that New York City and San Francisco stores are already locking their merchandise behind glass doors to prevent theft. Trump's proposed solution is 'one rough hour' of law enforcement to deter retail theft. 'We have to let the police do their job. And if they have to be extraordinarily rough ...' Trump said, eliciting cheers from the crowd. Briggs: Indiana hides executions. Firing squads would be more honest. His proposal sounds reminiscent of a concept from a movie like 'The Purge," a dystopian film set during a time of rampant crime and economic inequality where the government sets aside an annual 12-hour period where any crime is allowed to settle scores. How about paying people a fair wage, especially as the prices of basic goods and food continue to rise? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food prices are projected to increase by 3.5% this year, with a predicted range of 1.9% to 5.1%. Indiana is one of 20 states with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, unchanged since 2009. As food costs keep climbing and the possibility of a recession grows, we can't expect to see any relief. There is plenty of blame for retail theft and its causes, and both parties — Democrats and Republicans — share the responsibility. Many people blame parents for not monitoring their children's stealing, but most videos highlight adults engaging in theft. While I don't condone stealing, my feelings about it vary based on what the person is taking. For example, if someone steals a car and drives recklessly or crashes it, I believe they should face serious consequences. If someone steals a TV or designer clothing to show off on social media, I have little sympathy for them. Opinion: Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs? However, my perspective changes when it comes to stealing essential items. If someone steals baby formulas, diapers, or food because they are hungry and their SNAP benefits don't stretch far enough, I have sympathy for their situation. A senior stealing medication would garner my sympathy more than anger. Given the current circumstances, we must consider raising the minimum wage and increasing wages for those just a paycheck or two away from severe financial distress. Recklessly slashing federal programs and the VA is only going to make things worse. Addressing these underlying issues early on is far more effective if we want to reduce retail theft. Otherwise, we may find items locked behind cabinets and possibly encased in barbed wire in the future.
