this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
1136 points (99.2% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

8923 readers
388 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
  4. Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out:

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Was he actually thinking that those $450 were just gifted by the exporter?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

His tariffs have short shelf lives, exceptions, and are constantly rolled back.

He loves to threaten triple digit tariffs, then ratchet them back down to double digits. The average rate on international imports right now is around 14%, compared to 1.5% under Biden. Trump is very seriously and deliberately attempting to pivot the US from an income tax based government revenue model to an import tax model that we haven't seen since Coolidge (a paleocon celebrity since the Reagan years).

You could pick a given item that was continually tariffed for a year and discover unit by unit what actual effect of tariffs was. You would presumably find that broad tariffs on everything as a source of revenue is ultimately 99./9% a tax on the population

Real price increases haven't kept up with the increased tariff rates. If you ever make it through B-school or drop into a few college economics classes, you'll understand why. Retailers maximize profits at the "clearing rate" for their sales goods. That's the retail price which maximizes gross revenues at an optimal marginal unit price.

You can't pass on 99% of a tariff increase if it results in a drop in sales disproportionate to the rise in price. That is to say, if you sell 1000 units for $1 but only 500 unites for $1.15, you are losing $500 in revenue to avoid paying $150 in taxes. Depending on the profit margin by unit (let's say you pocket 30% of the $1 in sales - or $300 on that $1000 gross expenditure) there may be no incentive to pass on the tax to the consumer for your business. In this example, you can either pay $150 on $300 in pre-tax profit or... $150 on $300 in pre-tax profit.

Losing a lot of your margin may be worthy to keep the business you when you expect it to be rolled back 90 days later it is not acceptable as the permanent state of affairs.

Rapidly changing prices has its own chilling effect on your client base. If consumers see the market price jump 15%, they won't perfectly mathematically optimize their behaviors to match. They'll just blindly cut back on consuming out of sticker shock. Or they'll go hunting for lower rates elsewhere.

The savvier play is one we've already seen across the retail sector - shrinkflation. Reduce the volume of unit sold so the margins stay high but the consumer never suffers sticker shock. A bag of chips doesn't become 15% more expensive, it just gets % lighter.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Nobody has a massive margin to start with to pay for the tariffs. Not just margin on the goods but overall operating margin. Just comparing p:rice of imported goods to tariffs doesn't capture

  • Merchant increasing the cost of a broader basket of goods than is tariffed to soften the cost of paying the tariff
  • Shrinkflation as you mentioned
  • Not changing the price until they have worked through all supply including a larger than normal stock bought as a hedge against inevitably lowered or removed tariffs
  • choosing to maintain business at a temporary cost that cannot reasonably be borne forever

In the long run the oversimplification that a useful understanding. The idea that we can live off the largess of the foreigners instead of taxing income is a moronic idea that hasn't worked any of the other times its been tried. There is every reason for the long term stable price increase to be most of the cost of the tariff even if this isn't true in the short term in a chaotic environment.