17 ms·
US retail giants raise prices due to tariffs
- bix6 1y agoAre we stagflating yet?
- thisisit 1y agoNext step, Feds need to lower the interest rates.
- mlinhares 1y agoWait, Lutnick said tariffs would lower the prices, this can't be real.
- pandemic_region 1y agoThat was Fake News I'm afraid.
- platevoltage 1y agoYou don't trust that smile?
- janice1999 1y agoIf only he could seek the financial wisdom of the former owner of his home and his long time neighbor, adviser to the rich and powerful, high school drop out Jeffrey Epstein.
- analognoise 1y agoObviously we trusted the economic prowess of the author of “The Art of the Deal”, the convicted felon who bankrupted a casino and should have been barred from running for his actions on J6. I’m glad we’re all in such tiny, bruised, felonious hands.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoDidn't he bankrupt four casinos?
- tim333 1y agoShame we didn't get the actual author of the Art of the Deal, Tony Schwartz. Trump had it ghost written. I read it years ago and thought this guy is pretty cool, not realising it wasn't Trump. In 1987 the real Trump was off in Moscow being groomed by the Russians.
- slipperydippery 1y agoApproximately all of those kinds of books are ghost-written. People with money who aren't otherwise authors only very rarely write their own books. It takes a lot of time, and business "leader" sorts especially are extremely comfortable delegating that and then putting (only) their name on it. Trump's is unusual in that it's widely known not just that it was ghost written, but who did it. Often the real writer's name isn't known, and we can only guess at whether it was ghost written (again, the answer is almost always "yes").
- jrs235 1y agoWhen demand destruction (due to lacking discretionary income) occurs...
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoDo we have a better source? El País’ “ideology has been defined by a leaning towards Europeanism, progressivism, and social liberalism. … In the late 1970s and 1980s, El País had close connections with the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE)” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs
- crooked-v 1y agohttps://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/nx-s1-5509592/walmart-tariff-costs-rising-earnings https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/nx-s1-5509592/walmart-tariff-... > On Thursday, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said his company's costs keep climbing: "We've continued to see our costs increase each week, which we expect will continue into the third and fourth quarters," he said on an earnings call.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoThis is a better source—it’s clear about where the figures come from and the degree to which we know who is raising prices versus who has yet to report. (So is the CNBC article.)
- sundaeofshock 1y agoI did a Google search for “retailers raising prices because of tariffs” and the link below was the first result. Seriously, do you really think that retailers are just going to eat the cost of tariffs for the next three years? https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-raising-prices-increases-trump-tariffs-2025 https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-raising-prices-inc...
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI don’t doubt the message. I was just surprised at the lack of citations in the article. Then I learned about the source’s bias.
- 1y ago
- sour-taste 1y ago[flagged]
- platevoltage 1y agoNah, They just need to do the Tim Cook special and give him a nice little gold trophy for his mantle.
- ea550ff70a 1y ago[flagged]
- shmerl 1y agoTariffs are essentially just a sneaky way to tax the consumer who ends up paying for this.
- randunel 1y agoSony actually made Europeans and Australians pay for US consumers' tariffs. They raised prices everywhere else to keep US prices unchanged.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoThey were very recently announced to go up for the US PS5 as well.
- esalman 1y agoYes, as soon as the inventory runs out.
- senectus1 1y agolol.. hampering the sales globally so that you can look good to the man-child emperor. Remember future contenders... bribery is legal now.
- Guthur 1y agoIt has been legal for quite some time, why do you think companies and high worth individuals provide so much money to the political elites, and quite often to both sides. It's just that Trump is quite vulgar and has thrown out any pretense, but they were all quite guilty.
- shmerl 1y agoIt ends up working like the sales tax. Officially it's the seller who is obligated to pay it, but it's the buyer who ends up paying it anyway.
- Congeec 1y ago
- kenjackson 1y ago[flagged]
- conception 1y agoThey are actually getting exactly what they want unfortunately. It’s a fairly well documented phenomenon, and I admit I used the gpts to hunt for the study so apologies for the slop forth coming but the studies are real - A classic, directly on point study is: Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.” In these “minimal group” experiments, people randomly split into trivial groups repeatedly chose allocations that reduced their own group’s absolute payoff as long as it increased their advantage over the out-group. In other words, participants accepted worse outcomes for themselves to ensure the disliked/other group got it even worse. https://ia902305.us.archive.org/23/items/15341_Readings/15341_Readings/Intergroup_Conflict/Tajfel_Experiments_in_Intergroup_Discrimination.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://ia902305.us.archive.org/23/items/15341_Readings/1534... If you want an economics variant showing the same logic at the individual level: • Zizzo & Oswald (2001), “Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others’ Incomes?” Participants literally paid to “burn” others’ money—taking a loss themselves to make others worse off. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/finaljuly13paris.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/final... As long as whoever they’ve been told is the outgroup, and that group is getting hurt, they will literally pay for that out of their own lives .
- kelseyfrog 1y agoI wonder if this applies the other way too, like how people care more that billionaire wealth outpaces their own despite their standard of living steadily marching up?
- bawolff 1y agoI suppose its kind of like war. You pay a ton of money on weapons and such in order to shoot them at your opponent. Everyone loses.
- autoexec 1y ago
- layman51 1y agoThis reminded me of an earlier headline I had read about "16 Nobel-Prize winning economists signing a letter saying that the economic policies put forth by the Republic party would ignite inflation again".
- baron816 1y agoIn a sane political system, we would’ve raised taxes (across the board). That would’ve slowed down consumption and allowed the Fed to lower interest rates, which would’ve raised investment. It also would’ve reduced the deficit, which would also be good for long term economic health. Instead, we blew up the deficit and lowered taxes (but only for the really rich). So many problems and social angst is downstream of expensive housing. Higher interest rates, fewer laborers, and more expensive building supplies (due to tariffs) is just making the housing crisis worse. Oh and just wait until the Fed’s independence is completely gone. Our economy is galloping towards Peronism. Favored groups get economic benefits. Inflation is out of control. Competitiveness is gone. Capital flight. Rapid erosion of quality of life. It won’t be fun.
- apercu 1y ago" we would’ve raised taxes (across the board)" So I lived in Canada (Ontario) for 18 years, and I've been back in the US for 4. In Canada (and here) I don't see how you "raise taxes across the board" when most tech salaries (90-180k) by the time you add in sales tax and fuel taxes you're already paying 45-50% tax rate. For example, hypothetically one year I was buying a house, so no RRSP contributions that year. On my hypothetical 160k salary I paid $58k in income tax and withholding, plus 13% HST on just about every single purchase, plus something like 24% for fuel/road taxes. That means an effective tax rate of something like 45%. But we don't get pensions or anything like that, so you also need to save. A lot. If my hypothetical example doesn't sound so bad, imagine if you were making $45k. Sure, lower tax rate, but still. I'm sorry, as bad as it sounds to everyone, it's time for the capital class to pay up, the middle class can no longer subsidize society because it's simply too small now. edit I want to be clear that I am not against taxes, I am for social services, I'm just tired of paying 10% of my net worth every year while folks worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars pay very little tax because they have limited "income", but then I pay for the roads they drive on and the public services they use.
- King-Aaron 1y agoI'm frankly stunned that there is an argument in the US about "who pays for tariffs". It's like dictionaries don't exist or something. The literal definition of the word reveals who the tax is effectively applied to.
- spankibalt 1y agoYou obviously didn't get the memo: Dictionaries are woke.
- King-Aaron 1y agoWith the way old Donald wants to rewrite history in the museums, it wouldn't surprise me if dictionaries were next.
- spankibalt 1y agoMy comment was about the intellectual aptitude of Trump's most vocal fans... and therefore easiest marks.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoThey're double plus bad or should that be bigly bad?
- jader201 1y agoYou’re applying a literal definition, but in practice, it can be different. For (a simplified) example, if there’s a 30% tariff on a $100 item, all else equal, the price is now $130, and the customer that originally would have paid $100 is now paying $130. But what can — and I’ve experienced firsthand — happen, is that the US retailer will eat some/all of the tariff in order to not lose the customers business (or even just out of goodwill). Also, the foreign supplier can do the same thing. Rather than lose the business of the US retailer, they may, in turn, eat some/all of the tariff. I’ve seen both of these happen with products I’ve purchased over the past few months. I’m not saying this happens a lot, but I don’t know that it doesn’t, either. I’m just saying that it’s not as clear cut as the definition.
- Incipient 1y agoIf you have two competing providers, technically one could reduce margins to wear some of the tariff to out compete their competitor. Even if that DID happen, chances are wallmart etc would STILL put up prices, blame the tariffs, and just enjoy a higher profit margin. Essentially even in an unrealistically optimistic position, the consumer will STILL get stuck with higher prices.
- thelastgallon 1y agoRetailers can add mandatory tips!
- thisisit 1y agoI always surprised that people defending these tariffs don't see the conflicting defenses. The default defense comes from Trump who has - since 1980s has pushed for tariffing other countries to raise government revenue. The idea being - America drives lot of market demand. This seems to ignore basic economic facts. Importers pay tariffs and also that corporates are all about profit maximization. Companies might eat some of the tariffs in short term but they will always reduce costs in long term. That means jacking up prices slowly, finding ways to circumvent tariffs, using low cost - maybe even harmful but unbanned substitutes in products to name a few. Even the domestic company has a reason to hike up prices just below the price of imported goods. And also, because there is less competition domestic company might even reduce R&D because they can continue to rake in profits from local markets. The second defense is around domestic companies. I don't think anyone will disagree that each country needs to protect its most crucial domestic industries. But in those cases tariffs ae a precision tool, not a hammer. Tariffing everything doesn't make sense except it goes back to original defense - the point is to raise revenue.
- bananapub 1y agoit really is striking how pathetic almost all elites in the US have turned out to be, and in particular, almost all business leaders. why is there ~zero prominent CEOs/managers on tv explaining how turning US trade policy in to a personalised autocracy of one senile old man is Bad, Actually?
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoBecause he'd destroy them one by one. They'd need to collectively form some kind of union to fight that power imbalance. Which they know from being on the other side of that dynamic.
- UncleMeat 1y agoBecause the destruction of labor power is what they want, and Trump is giving it to them. Increasing unemployment means more competition for jobs. Fewer people switch jobs to increase pay. Fewer people negotiate. Higher costs mean that laborers are more precarious and more dependent on their income. Fewer people get fed up with the bosses and leave. The bosses hate us and Trump lets them control us more effectively.
- jurking_hoff 1y ago[dead]
- jrs235 1y agoBecause their businesses will be targeted and persecuted by the petty administration who demands no dissent.
- duxup 1y agoThe courts should solve this problem. That's their function. However, SCOTUS has shielded the Executive branch from any consequences. The one branch that should do the thing has abandoned doing their job / the constitution.