No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

Increase in prices of individual products =/= inflation.

Increase in overall prices in terms of money = inflation.

It's simple tautology.

---

What's the term for Americans having less money because of what's done in Washington?

---

Taxes.

---

Taxes made groceries, gas, and everything else go up in the past year? I thought we all got a tax cut?

---

Paying for spending by printing money is the same thing as paying for spending by collecting taxes.

To spend is to tax, the only difference is timing.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

The official measure of inflation is CPI, which is a measure of the increase in prices. It tracks the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers for a "market basket" of common goods and services (food, housing, transportation, medical care, apparel, recreation, education, etc.).

So yes, an increase in prices IS inflation.


eta: the issue with what I posted above that most people don't understand is that if the amount of money is fixed, then it's impossible - in the long term - for the entire basket of prices to remain high. If I'm spending more money on good/service A, then I'm forced to spend less on good/service B - I only have so much money I can spend. If everyone is making that same choice, then the price for B will eventually go down. Presto, no inflation.

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Give me a break. What does AI have to do with anything I posted?

---

Pretty much everything.

Do you believe that the US' comparative advantage of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is going to decrease with the advent of AI?

---

There are approximately 462,000 manufacturing jobs available right now. How many are being shipped overseas, exactly? Is it bad that those jobs are disappearing as AI becomes more powerful and useful for everyone?

Let me put it this way: in 1930, about 25% of the labor force was in agriculture, and nowadays it's about 2%. Plus, we're producing up to 5 times as much food. I would argue we are better off even with the substantial decrease in agricultural labor.

If you think manufacturing is structurally different, that might make sense. But modern manufacturing is already much, much more capital- and technology-intensive, so it's not obvious we should expect large increases in labor demand even if more production returns onshore.

---

I disagree here pretty vehemently.

US manufacturing will employ fewer people than foreign manufacturing, but there is room for a LOT of employment growth.

Just for example, Tesla employs about 0.1% of all US private employees to produce about $100 Billion in manufacturing output. Tesla primary manufactures things, and they do it pretty efficiently. In an alternate reality, there is enough room in the US economy for 10 - 15 Tesla's before we hit manufacturing output that is on par with our global share of GDP. That's another 2 million manufacturing jobs. That is significant, and it is not that far fetched.

---

There are about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, representing about 8% of the workforce and about 10% of GDP. Just so I'm clear, you think there is room in the US for another 10-15 companies of TSLA's size and output? TSLA is one of the top 10 largest public companies of ALL TIME (and all time is a long time). SO you believe there is enough capacity to simultaneously recreate the output of these companies (top 10 market cap):

MSFT
AAPL

NVDA

Saudi Aramco (not US listed)

GOOG

AMZN

META

All the while, adding 2 million more jobs, an increase of over 15% from current levels. That would be a seismic shift. Especially given current demographics and a declining labor force participation rate.

By comparison, your 'not far fetched post' rests on there being enough room in the employment landscape to shift 2 million jobs into manufacturing, which represents the entirety of the following industries (source chatgpt):
Software publishing & computer systems design: ~2-2.5 million

Trucking: ~2 million drivers and related workers

Legal services: ~1.52 million

Air transportation + support: ~1-2 million

Utilities (electric, gas, water): under 1 million directly, but large infrastructure impact

Automobile manufacturing and parts: roughly 1 million+

Warehousing and storage: around 2 million

Construction of buildings (subset of construction): a few million

Agriculture/farm-related employment: ~2-3 million

To be fair, I love the enthusiasm. I just don't trust any of your figures or assumptions

---

Market cap is not a measure of output, but a prediction of future value. For the record, I think that Tesla is WAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

Tesla created about $100 billion in vehicles and solar panels with 135,000 employees in 2025. That $100 billion is a pretty fair estimate of manufacturing output considering what it is made of. Close enough for government work.

• Manufacturing output in the US is about $3 trillion or about 15% of world output.
• US GDP was about $30 trillion, or about 25% of world GDP of $120 trillion.
• If you increase US manufacturing to be 25% of US GDP, that is an increase to $7.5 trillion, or increase of $3.5 trillion.
• $3.5 trillion is about 35 Teslas of output, or about 4.7 million employees.
• So, if you add another 15-20 Teslas, you are talking about ~2 million manufacturing jobs, $1.5 to $2.0 trillion in more manufacturing output, and manufacturing makes up about 16% - 18% of 2025 US GDP

These are all of course round numbers, and US GDP, world GDP are all going to rise.

So, ambitious, but not crazy. In a world where US manufacturing is not undercut by slave labor and IP thieves, it is actually pretty feasible.

How many people are going to lose their jobs to AI in the next 10 years? More than 2 million?

Cisco leads Wall Street to more records and the Dow back to 50,000

As usual, "unexpected"

Quote:

---

The U.S. stock market rose to more records Thursday after Cisco Systems joined the parade of U.S. companies reporting fatter profits for the start of 2026 than analysts expected.

---

Quote:

---

The S&P 500 climbed 0.8% to set an all-time high for a second straight day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 370 points, or 0.7%, and finished above the 50,000 level for the first time since the war with Iran began, while the Nasdaq composite added 0.9% to its own record.

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

The official measure of inflation is CPI, which is a measure of the increase in prices. It tracks the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers for a "market basket" of common goods and services (food, housing, transportation, medical care, apparel, recreation, education, etc.).

So yes, an increase in prices IS inflation.

---

But, increase in individual product prices =/= increase in overall prices.

BusterAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

The official measure of inflation is CPI, which is a measure of the increase in prices. It tracks the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers for a "market basket" of common goods and services (food, housing, transportation, medical care, apparel, recreation, education, etc.).

So yes, an increase in prices IS inflation.

---

But, increase in individual product prices =/= increase in overall prices.

---

I agree. But with a product like oil, that's at the bottom of it all. Everyone will increase price to protect margins. But even so, see my ETA in my original post.

Logos Stick said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

The official measure of inflation is CPI, which is a measure of the increase in prices. It tracks the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers for a "market basket" of common goods and services (food, housing, transportation, medical care, apparel, recreation, education, etc.).

So yes, an increase in prices IS inflation.

---

But, increase in individual product prices =/= increase in overall prices.

---

I agree. But with a product like oil, that's at the bottom of it all. Everyone will increase price to protect margins. But even so, see my ETA in my original post.

---

Because there is a finite amount of money laying around, someone is going to have to decrease prices in order to pay for the increased prices of things that use oil.

All of those expensive hotel rooms in Vegas are going to get cheaper, for example.

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Give me a break. What does AI have to do with anything I posted?

---

Pretty much everything.

Do you believe that the US' comparative advantage of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is going to decrease with the advent of AI?

---

There are approximately 462,000 manufacturing jobs available right now. How many are being shipped overseas, exactly? Is it bad that those jobs are disappearing as AI becomes more powerful and useful for everyone?

Let me put it this way: in 1930, about 25% of the labor force was in agriculture, and nowadays it's about 2%. Plus, we're producing up to 5 times as much food. I would argue we are better off even with the substantial decrease in agricultural labor.

If you think manufacturing is structurally different, that might make sense. But modern manufacturing is already much, much more capital- and technology-intensive, so it's not obvious we should expect large increases in labor demand even if more production returns onshore.

---

I disagree here pretty vehemently.

US manufacturing will employ fewer people than foreign manufacturing, but there is room for a LOT of employment growth.

Just for example, Tesla employs about 0.1% of all US private employees to produce about $100 Billion in manufacturing output. Tesla primary manufactures things, and they do it pretty efficiently. In an alternate reality, there is enough room in the US economy for 10 - 15 Tesla's before we hit manufacturing output that is on par with our global share of GDP. That's another 2 million manufacturing jobs. That is significant, and it is not that far fetched.

---

There are about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, representing about 8% of the workforce and about 10% of GDP. Just so I'm clear, you think there is room in the US for another 10-15 companies of TSLA's size and output? TSLA is one of the top 10 largest public companies of ALL TIME (and all time is a long time). SO you believe there is enough capacity to simultaneously recreate the output of these companies (top 10 market cap):

MSFT
AAPL

NVDA

Saudi Aramco (not US listed)

GOOG

AMZN

META

All the while, adding 2 million more jobs, an increase of over 15% from current levels. That would be a seismic shift. Especially given current demographics and a declining labor force participation rate.

By comparison, your 'not far fetched post' rests on there being enough room in the employment landscape to shift 2 million jobs into manufacturing, which represents the entirety of the following industries (source chatgpt):
Software publishing & computer systems design: ~2-2.5 million

Trucking: ~2 million drivers and related workers

Legal services: ~1.52 million

Air transportation + support: ~1-2 million

Utilities (electric, gas, water): under 1 million directly, but large infrastructure impact

Automobile manufacturing and parts: roughly 1 million+

Warehousing and storage: around 2 million

Construction of buildings (subset of construction): a few million

Agriculture/farm-related employment: ~2-3 million

To be fair, I love the enthusiasm. I just don't trust any of your figures or assumptions

---

Market cap is not a measure of output, but a prediction of future value. For the record, I think that Tesla is WAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

Tesla created about $100 billion in vehicles and solar panels with 135,000 employees in 2025. That $100 billion is a pretty fair estimate of manufacturing output considering what it is made of. Close enough for government work.

• Manufacturing output in the US is about $3 trillion or about 15% of world output.
• US GDP was about $30 trillion, or about 25% of world GDP of $120 trillion.
• If you increase US manufacturing to be 25% of US GDP, that is an increase to $7.5 trillion, or increase of $3.5 trillion.
• $3.5 trillion is about 35 Teslas of output, or about 4.7 million employees.
• So, if you add another 15-20 Teslas, you are talking about ~2 million manufacturing jobs, $1.5 to $2.0 trillion in more manufacturing output, and manufacturing makes up about 16% - 18% of 2025 US GDP

These are all of course round numbers, and US GDP, world GDP are all going to rise.

So, ambitious, but not crazy. In a world where US manufacturing is not undercut by slave labor and IP thieves, it is actually pretty feasible.

How many people are going to lose their jobs to AI in the next 10 years? More than 2 million?

---

The GDP figures are based on the price of goods and services. Why not just raise the price of the goods and services by 25%? Same output, higher GDP.

Heck why not make 1 million TSLAs and give everyone $1million wages!! No more salve labor and no need for IP thieves! You and Mayor Mamdani can central plan this economy to the moon!

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Give me a break. What does AI have to do with anything I posted?

---

Pretty much everything.

Do you believe that the US' comparative advantage of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is going to decrease with the advent of AI?

---

There are approximately 462,000 manufacturing jobs available right now. How many are being shipped overseas, exactly? Is it bad that those jobs are disappearing as AI becomes more powerful and useful for everyone?

Let me put it this way: in 1930, about 25% of the labor force was in agriculture, and nowadays it's about 2%. Plus, we're producing up to 5 times as much food. I would argue we are better off even with the substantial decrease in agricultural labor.

If you think manufacturing is structurally different, that might make sense. But modern manufacturing is already much, much more capital- and technology-intensive, so it's not obvious we should expect large increases in labor demand even if more production returns onshore.

---

I disagree here pretty vehemently.

US manufacturing will employ fewer people than foreign manufacturing, but there is room for a LOT of employment growth.

Just for example, Tesla employs about 0.1% of all US private employees to produce about $100 Billion in manufacturing output. Tesla primary manufactures things, and they do it pretty efficiently. In an alternate reality, there is enough room in the US economy for 10 - 15 Tesla's before we hit manufacturing output that is on par with our global share of GDP. That's another 2 million manufacturing jobs. That is significant, and it is not that far fetched.

---

There are about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, representing about 8% of the workforce and about 10% of GDP. Just so I'm clear, you think there is room in the US for another 10-15 companies of TSLA's size and output? TSLA is one of the top 10 largest public companies of ALL TIME (and all time is a long time). SO you believe there is enough capacity to simultaneously recreate the output of these companies (top 10 market cap):

MSFT
AAPL

NVDA

Saudi Aramco (not US listed)

GOOG

AMZN

META

All the while, adding 2 million more jobs, an increase of over 15% from current levels. That would be a seismic shift. Especially given current demographics and a declining labor force participation rate.

By comparison, your 'not far fetched post' rests on there being enough room in the employment landscape to shift 2 million jobs into manufacturing, which represents the entirety of the following industries (source chatgpt):
Software publishing & computer systems design: ~2-2.5 million

Trucking: ~2 million drivers and related workers

Legal services: ~1.52 million

Air transportation + support: ~1-2 million

Utilities (electric, gas, water): under 1 million directly, but large infrastructure impact

Automobile manufacturing and parts: roughly 1 million+

Warehousing and storage: around 2 million

Construction of buildings (subset of construction): a few million

Agriculture/farm-related employment: ~2-3 million

To be fair, I love the enthusiasm. I just don't trust any of your figures or assumptions

---

Market cap is not a measure of output, but a prediction of future value. For the record, I think that Tesla is WAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

Tesla created about $100 billion in vehicles and solar panels with 135,000 employees in 2025. That $100 billion is a pretty fair estimate of manufacturing output considering what it is made of. Close enough for government work.

• Manufacturing output in the US is about $3 trillion or about 15% of world output.
• US GDP was about $30 trillion, or about 25% of world GDP of $120 trillion.
• If you increase US manufacturing to be 25% of US GDP, that is an increase to $7.5 trillion, or increase of $3.5 trillion.
• $3.5 trillion is about 35 Teslas of output, or about 4.7 million employees.
• So, if you add another 15-20 Teslas, you are talking about ~2 million manufacturing jobs, $1.5 to $2.0 trillion in more manufacturing output, and manufacturing makes up about 16% - 18% of 2025 US GDP

These are all of course round numbers, and US GDP, world GDP are all going to rise.

So, ambitious, but not crazy. In a world where US manufacturing is not undercut by slave labor and IP thieves, it is actually pretty feasible.

How many people are going to lose their jobs to AI in the next 10 years? More than 2 million?

---

The GDP figures are based on the price of goods and services. Why not just raise the price of the goods and services by 25%? Same output, higher GDP.

Heck why not make 1 million TSLAs and give everyone $1million wages!! No more salve labor and no need for IP thieves! You and Mayor Mamdani can central plan this economy to the moon!

---

Whatever.

Let's do it another way:

in 2025, total US imports of durable goods and capital goods were about $2 trillion. We cut that in half, and export 25% of what we make and consume domestically (in total), and we are back to $1.5 trillion and 2 million jobs.

Again, aggressive, but not infeasible over a couple of decades.

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Give me a break. What does AI have to do with anything I posted?

---

Pretty much everything.

Do you believe that the US' comparative advantage of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is going to decrease with the advent of AI?

---

There are approximately 462,000 manufacturing jobs available right now. How many are being shipped overseas, exactly? Is it bad that those jobs are disappearing as AI becomes more powerful and useful for everyone?

Let me put it this way: in 1930, about 25% of the labor force was in agriculture, and nowadays it's about 2%. Plus, we're producing up to 5 times as much food. I would argue we are better off even with the substantial decrease in agricultural labor.

If you think manufacturing is structurally different, that might make sense. But modern manufacturing is already much, much more capital- and technology-intensive, so it's not obvious we should expect large increases in labor demand even if more production returns onshore.

---

I disagree here pretty vehemently.

US manufacturing will employ fewer people than foreign manufacturing, but there is room for a LOT of employment growth.

Just for example, Tesla employs about 0.1% of all US private employees to produce about $100 Billion in manufacturing output. Tesla primary manufactures things, and they do it pretty efficiently. In an alternate reality, there is enough room in the US economy for 10 - 15 Tesla's before we hit manufacturing output that is on par with our global share of GDP. That's another 2 million manufacturing jobs. That is significant, and it is not that far fetched.

---

There are about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, representing about 8% of the workforce and about 10% of GDP. Just so I'm clear, you think there is room in the US for another 10-15 companies of TSLA's size and output? TSLA is one of the top 10 largest public companies of ALL TIME (and all time is a long time). SO you believe there is enough capacity to simultaneously recreate the output of these companies (top 10 market cap):

MSFT
AAPL

NVDA

Saudi Aramco (not US listed)

GOOG

AMZN

META

All the while, adding 2 million more jobs, an increase of over 15% from current levels. That would be a seismic shift. Especially given current demographics and a declining labor force participation rate.

By comparison, your 'not far fetched post' rests on there being enough room in the employment landscape to shift 2 million jobs into manufacturing, which represents the entirety of the following industries (source chatgpt):
Software publishing & computer systems design: ~2-2.5 million

Trucking: ~2 million drivers and related workers

Legal services: ~1.52 million

Air transportation + support: ~1-2 million

Utilities (electric, gas, water): under 1 million directly, but large infrastructure impact

Automobile manufacturing and parts: roughly 1 million+

Warehousing and storage: around 2 million

Construction of buildings (subset of construction): a few million

Agriculture/farm-related employment: ~2-3 million

To be fair, I love the enthusiasm. I just don't trust any of your figures or assumptions

---

Market cap is not a measure of output, but a prediction of future value. For the record, I think that Tesla is WAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

Tesla created about $100 billion in vehicles and solar panels with 135,000 employees in 2025. That $100 billion is a pretty fair estimate of manufacturing output considering what it is made of. Close enough for government work.

• Manufacturing output in the US is about $3 trillion or about 15% of world output.
• US GDP was about $30 trillion, or about 25% of world GDP of $120 trillion.
• If you increase US manufacturing to be 25% of US GDP, that is an increase to $7.5 trillion, or increase of $3.5 trillion.
• $3.5 trillion is about 35 Teslas of output, or about 4.7 million employees.
• So, if you add another 15-20 Teslas, you are talking about ~2 million manufacturing jobs, $1.5 to $2.0 trillion in more manufacturing output, and manufacturing makes up about 16% - 18% of 2025 US GDP

These are all of course round numbers, and US GDP, world GDP are all going to rise.

So, ambitious, but not crazy. In a world where US manufacturing is not undercut by slave labor and IP thieves, it is actually pretty feasible.

How many people are going to lose their jobs to AI in the next 10 years? More than 2 million?

---

The GDP figures are based on the price of goods and services. Why not just raise the price of the goods and services by 25%? Same output, higher GDP.

Heck why not make 1 million TSLAs and give everyone $1million wages!! No more salve labor and no need for IP thieves! You and Mayor Mamdani can central plan this economy to the moon!

---

Whatever.

Let's do it another way:

in 2025, total US imports of durable goods and capital goods were about $2 trillion. We cut that in half, and export 25% of what we make and consume domestically (in total), and we are back to $1.5 trillion and 2 million jobs.

Again, aggressive, but not infeasible over a couple of decades.

---

When we cut imports in half, I assume you are including the rare earths, pharma chemicals, industrial parts, semiconductors, precision tools, and robotics needed for domestic manufacturing to even begin. US companies can just figure all of that out in a couple of decades, sure. I bet farmers can just pull the potash and phosphates they need right out of their asses, too. Supply chains are super easy to create and plan.

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

Increase in prices of individual products =/= inflation.

Increase in overall prices in terms of money = inflation.

It's simple tautology.

---

What's the term for Americans having less money because of what's done in Washington?

---

Taxes.

---

Taxes made groceries, gas, and everything else go up in the past year? I thought we all got a tax cut?

---

Paying for spending by printing money is the same thing as paying for spending by collecting taxes.

To spend is to tax, the only difference is timing.

---

That makes sense.

If only citizens didn't get screwed over because of politician's poor timing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Reports today that tax refunds are far outpacing what they originally predicted / thought. So it's all the increased spending from the OBBB tax refunds that's driving demand and costs higher.

---

So you're thinking 6-7 D Chess, a la, "yes, you're paying more, BUT your tax refund was higher than expected, so you should be good to go?"

Did you catch the "6-7 reference?"

I don't know if you have nuts or not, but you may should be punched in them for a 6-7 reference.

But seriously, you can put together bits like that, add a chart, quote to experts and start a narrative about how Trump tax cuts drove inflation.

Then we could start a thread here and argue about it through bans and derails and the like.

People are correct when they vote with how their wallet feels. But how that wallet feels can be manipulated to a great extent.

Many people are being manipulated into thinking the economy and affordability are at the precipice of eminent doom.

In reality they are nervous cause of a bit of uncertainty, I bit of a lesson in budgeting and fiscal planning, and then being gaslit by even the podcast bros who themselves are simply making a buck off your attention span.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I don't know if you have nuts or not, but you may should be punched in them for a 6-7 reference.

But seriously, you can put together bits like that, add a chart, quote to experts and start a narrative about how Trump tax cuts drove inflation.

Then we could start a thread here and argue about it through bans and derails and the like.

People are correct when they vote with how their wallet feels. But how that wallet feels can be manipulated to a great extent.

Many people are being manipulated into thinking the economy and affordability are at the precipice of eminent doom.

In reality they are nervous cause of a bit of uncertainty, I bit of a lesson in budgeting and fiscal planning, and then being gaslit by even the podcast bros who themselves are simply making a buck off your attention span.

---

Well said. No disagreement to any of that.

I didn't want to imply it was tax cuts that caused prices to go up. That's way too far off reality.

As for the 6-7 thing, sorry, my buddy is a teacher and telling me the horrors of that moment he dealt with last year. My bad, but mad respect the the punching comment. Looking back, I'd say the same.

I enjoy your posting. Maybe not always 'no spin' but certainly open to seeing things in different ways.

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Give me a break. What does AI have to do with anything I posted?

---

Pretty much everything.

Do you believe that the US' comparative advantage of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is going to decrease with the advent of AI?

---

There are approximately 462,000 manufacturing jobs available right now. How many are being shipped overseas, exactly? Is it bad that those jobs are disappearing as AI becomes more powerful and useful for everyone?

Let me put it this way: in 1930, about 25% of the labor force was in agriculture, and nowadays it's about 2%. Plus, we're producing up to 5 times as much food. I would argue we are better off even with the substantial decrease in agricultural labor.

If you think manufacturing is structurally different, that might make sense. But modern manufacturing is already much, much more capital- and technology-intensive, so it's not obvious we should expect large increases in labor demand even if more production returns onshore.

---

I disagree here pretty vehemently.

US manufacturing will employ fewer people than foreign manufacturing, but there is room for a LOT of employment growth.

Just for example, Tesla employs about 0.1% of all US private employees to produce about $100 Billion in manufacturing output. Tesla primary manufactures things, and they do it pretty efficiently. In an alternate reality, there is enough room in the US economy for 10 - 15 Tesla's before we hit manufacturing output that is on par with our global share of GDP. That's another 2 million manufacturing jobs. That is significant, and it is not that far fetched.

---

There are about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, representing about 8% of the workforce and about 10% of GDP. Just so I'm clear, you think there is room in the US for another 10-15 companies of TSLA's size and output? TSLA is one of the top 10 largest public companies of ALL TIME (and all time is a long time). SO you believe there is enough capacity to simultaneously recreate the output of these companies (top 10 market cap):

MSFT
AAPL

NVDA

Saudi Aramco (not US listed)

GOOG

AMZN

META

All the while, adding 2 million more jobs, an increase of over 15% from current levels. That would be a seismic shift. Especially given current demographics and a declining labor force participation rate.

By comparison, your 'not far fetched post' rests on there being enough room in the employment landscape to shift 2 million jobs into manufacturing, which represents the entirety of the following industries (source chatgpt):
Software publishing & computer systems design: ~2-2.5 million

Trucking: ~2 million drivers and related workers

Legal services: ~1.52 million

Air transportation + support: ~1-2 million

Utilities (electric, gas, water): under 1 million directly, but large infrastructure impact

Automobile manufacturing and parts: roughly 1 million+

Warehousing and storage: around 2 million

Construction of buildings (subset of construction): a few million

Agriculture/farm-related employment: ~2-3 million

To be fair, I love the enthusiasm. I just don't trust any of your figures or assumptions

---

Market cap is not a measure of output, but a prediction of future value. For the record, I think that Tesla is WAAAAAYYYYY overpriced.

Tesla created about $100 billion in vehicles and solar panels with 135,000 employees in 2025. That $100 billion is a pretty fair estimate of manufacturing output considering what it is made of. Close enough for government work.

• Manufacturing output in the US is about $3 trillion or about 15% of world output.
• US GDP was about $30 trillion, or about 25% of world GDP of $120 trillion.
• If you increase US manufacturing to be 25% of US GDP, that is an increase to $7.5 trillion, or increase of $3.5 trillion.
• $3.5 trillion is about 35 Teslas of output, or about 4.7 million employees.
• So, if you add another 15-20 Teslas, you are talking about ~2 million manufacturing jobs, $1.5 to $2.0 trillion in more manufacturing output, and manufacturing makes up about 16% - 18% of 2025 US GDP

These are all of course round numbers, and US GDP, world GDP are all going to rise.

So, ambitious, but not crazy. In a world where US manufacturing is not undercut by slave labor and IP thieves, it is actually pretty feasible.

How many people are going to lose their jobs to AI in the next 10 years? More than 2 million?

---

The GDP figures are based on the price of goods and services. Why not just raise the price of the goods and services by 25%? Same output, higher GDP.

Heck why not make 1 million TSLAs and give everyone $1million wages!! No more salve labor and no need for IP thieves! You and Mayor Mamdani can central plan this economy to the moon!

---

Whatever.

Let's do it another way:

in 2025, total US imports of durable goods and capital goods were about $2 trillion. We cut that in half, and export 25% of what we make and consume domestically (in total), and we are back to $1.5 trillion and 2 million jobs.

Again, aggressive, but not infeasible over a couple of decades.

---

When we cut imports in half, I assume you are including the rare earths, pharma chemicals, industrial parts, semiconductors, precision tools, and robotics needed for domestic manufacturing to even begin. US companies can just figure all of that out in a couple of decades, sure. I bet farmers can just pull the potash and phosphates they need right out of their asses, too. Supply chains are super easy to create and plian.

---

Im just spitballing.

This has ceased to be helpful.

But, just to respond, rare earth's are not likely to be included in durable goods or capital goods. Same with a lot of other things on your list above.

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Increases in prices =/= inflation. No need to be upset about that.

---

Increase in prices of individual products =/= inflation.

Increase in overall prices in terms of money = inflation.

It's simple tautology.

---

What's the term for Americans having less money because of what's done in Washington?

---

Taxes.

---

Taxes made groceries, gas, and everything else go up in the past year? I thought we all got a tax cut?

---

Paying for spending by printing money is the same thing as paying for spending by collecting taxes.

To spend is to tax, the only difference is timing.

---

That makes sense.

If only citizens didn't get screwed over because of politician's poor timing.

---

Would better timing ensure that no citizens get screwed? I mean, the economics joke is that in the long run, we are all dead. But, not all of us (the human race) will be dead. At least, I hope not.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I enjoy your posting. Maybe not always no soon but certainly open to seeing things in different ways.

---

Right back at ya.

It's nice to have a back and forth that makes me think about the other side, and even appreciate it for what it is.

Till the next thread.

Gradin said:

---

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation.

---

What he really meant was, he doesn't care.

Geminiv said:

---

Gradin said:

---

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation.

---

What he really meant was, he doesn't care.

---

No, it means he cares enough about it to bring long term solutions not cheap gas promos and other gimmicks like student loan forgiveness for affluent white peoeple.