That second chart seems a bit odd. Is the Y-axis price change in percent? If so, how can the distant-to-distant price shift for the US be of minus 135%? Minus 100% would mean they’d get their goods for free, so … 🤔
Very well spotted and I admit, I had to go into the bowels of the paper to find an explanation.
The bars are the aggregated median cost savings over several years. The fact that they are adding up 'median' cost savings means that the combined total can reach more than 100% because the median in year 1 might be a 50% saving and the median in year 2 might be a 60% saving on some other products. The total savings are of course not 110% but 50% and then 60% on the 50%, so 80%. At least that is what I think happened.
the problem is in not producing a time series but in simply adding individual items and years together, which is simply wrong.
That of course casts doubt on the other numbers as well, but my gut feeling is that the relative direction and size of the bars shouldn't change much.
Yet, whenever he is mentioned in the professional investment press, his name is usually accompanied by phrases like "highly respected"...
And compared to the rest of Trump's cabinet, I would say he is certainly highly respected - in pretty much the same way the Brits tell Swiss people they have 'mountains' in their country.
It's this kind of lunar thinking -- the very idea that less trade can lead to lower prices -- that enabled Brexit.
That second chart seems a bit odd. Is the Y-axis price change in percent? If so, how can the distant-to-distant price shift for the US be of minus 135%? Minus 100% would mean they’d get their goods for free, so … 🤔
Very well spotted and I admit, I had to go into the bowels of the paper to find an explanation.
The bars are the aggregated median cost savings over several years. The fact that they are adding up 'median' cost savings means that the combined total can reach more than 100% because the median in year 1 might be a 50% saving and the median in year 2 might be a 60% saving on some other products. The total savings are of course not 110% but 50% and then 60% on the 50%, so 80%. At least that is what I think happened.
the problem is in not producing a time series but in simply adding individual items and years together, which is simply wrong.
That of course casts doubt on the other numbers as well, but my gut feeling is that the relative direction and size of the bars shouldn't change much.
very much liked the decomposition attempted even if the numbers are a bit funky.
it is likely, but not obvious, that the 'most critical' goods to re-source, could also be the most expensive and slowest.
cutting-edge semi comes to mind, as it is not even agreed that it is feasible to have a completely redundant eco-system as exists in taiwan.
Oh, the common chart crime of (sometimes purposefully) not labelling the axes … dear me, Mr Bessent, dear me.
Scott Bessent = The new King of Wishful Thinking
Yet, whenever he is mentioned in the professional investment press, his name is usually accompanied by phrases like "highly respected"...
And compared to the rest of Trump's cabinet, I would say he is certainly highly respected - in pretty much the same way the Brits tell Swiss people they have 'mountains' in their country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UWT0dMrYOM