E.J. Antoni

So markets are probably going to continue overreacting to whatever news comes out. In other words, if a piece of good news comes out, we'll see that big bull run. But if a piece of bad news comes out, it'll go the other way. Markets overreacted in the days after April 2nd, and frankly, they're overreacting now again. That's just the nature of the market. These markets are a beast.

Not quite, although we are vastly improved since the infamous Jim Cramer said we're going to have another Black Monday event. It turns out that that was probably the market bottom.

Not quite, although we are vastly improved since the infamous Jim Cramer said we're going to have another Black Monday event. It turns out that that was probably the market bottom.

But again, for the most part, if we look at a lot of different things, not just equities, you can look at the treasury markets and others, we're basically back, not quite, but we're basically back to where we were on April 1st.

But again, for the most part, if we look at a lot of different things, not just equities, you can look at the treasury markets and others, we're basically back, not quite, but we're basically back to where we were on April 1st.

Well, I'm no attorney, but the attorneys that I have talked to on certain tariffs say there's absolutely no way they hold up. Things like the tariff on foreign films, for example. to do this. Another one is that 10% baseline tariff. I've heard from a lot of legal minds that say that's the least likely to hold up in court.

Well, I'm no attorney, but the attorneys that I have talked to on certain tariffs say there's absolutely no way they hold up. Things like the tariff on foreign films, for example. to do this. Another one is that 10% baseline tariff. I've heard from a lot of legal minds that say that's the least likely to hold up in court.

You're much more likely to see things like the individual rates on particular countries hold up in court. So a 35% rate on China versus a 25% rate on Canada, whatever the case may be. The individual rates are much more likely to hold up than the 10% across the board. But frankly, that's all the more reason why you should put that 10% rate into statute.

You're much more likely to see things like the individual rates on particular countries hold up in court. So a 35% rate on China versus a 25% rate on Canada, whatever the case may be. The individual rates are much more likely to hold up than the 10% across the board. But frankly, that's all the more reason why you should put that 10% rate into statute.

Don't do it as a tariff, do it as a border adjustment tax. So that way you're not doing things like double taxing an item that crosses a border more than once. That happens a lot in the automotive industry as parts go back and forth before they turn into a final assembly.

Don't do it as a tariff, do it as a border adjustment tax. So that way you're not doing things like double taxing an item that crosses a border more than once. That happens a lot in the automotive industry as parts go back and forth before they turn into a final assembly.

The other really nice thing about that is the fact that once you have enshrined that into statute, now you can actually use the revenue from something like a border adjustment tax to offset the lost revenue for reducing personal marginal income tax rates. I think that's a win-win because you're helping to shift some of the tax burden overseas.

The other really nice thing about that is the fact that once you have enshrined that into statute, now you can actually use the revenue from something like a border adjustment tax to offset the lost revenue for reducing personal marginal income tax rates. I think that's a win-win because you're helping to shift some of the tax burden overseas.

Certainly reductions in rates, also the expensing provisions where you're not gonna force a business that has to buy a large item like a factory today to then take the tax deduction over multiple years. If they're outlaying the cash today, they should be able to take the full deduction today. Now, although that is in the bill, the problem is it's not permanent.

Certainly reductions in rates, also the expensing provisions where you're not gonna force a business that has to buy a large item like a factory today to then take the tax deduction over multiple years. If they're outlaying the cash today, they should be able to take the full deduction today. Now, although that is in the bill, the problem is it's not permanent.

It's only going to last for a few years. And then we just have to go through this whole rigmarole all over again to try to get that provision renewed once more. So I would love to see things like that, the most pro-growth parts of this tax bill become permanent. And as always, I would like to see even further reductions in terms of those marginal tax rates.

It's only going to last for a few years. And then we just have to go through this whole rigmarole all over again to try to get that provision renewed once more. So I would love to see things like that, the most pro-growth parts of this tax bill become permanent. And as always, I would like to see even further reductions in terms of those marginal tax rates.

I would not be surprised if on paper, and this is an important distinction here, if on paper you do see a recession and we can look at the first quarter GDP print as evidence for that. You saw the headline number drop about three tenths of a percentage point. Well, government spending, the reduction there in government purchases contributed a quarter percentage point decline.

I would not be surprised if on paper, and this is an important distinction here, if on paper you do see a recession and we can look at the first quarter GDP print as evidence for that. You saw the headline number drop about three tenths of a percentage point. Well, government spending, the reduction there in government purchases contributed a quarter percentage point decline.

In other words, it accounted for almost all of the decrease. Well, you continue down that trend of shrinking government purchases, reducing government spending, what's going to happen to headline GDP? It's going to continue to go down. But that's not a sign of impoverishment. That's a sign of wealth.