Tariffs?

[Michael K.]

It's always a focus on rising costs. I'll have to look for the article, but I read something along of lines of just what you are saying. Because of the Tariffs, companies that have been outsourcing the work in foreign countries are looking to open manufacturing here. Creating jobs, which stimulates the economy.

[gil]

So, we should support foreign countries to save a little money? How is that working out right now? Seems to be not working out very well at all. Maybe if we are supporting our own economy, we can be taxed a little less? Shit, I'm not pretending to have the answer, but I heard someone complaining about what it was going to do to the price of cars. Once they told me the percentage I was like "you realize that is going to add like ten dollars a month to your payment right? The answer? Yeah, but still....

Come on. If it was Biden or Harris doing this we'd hear how great this is for America. Instead? They are too busy fighting us trying to do anything to improve what has been pretty bad for some time.

I don't see how the absence of tariffs is supporting foreign countries. It's making things cheaper for us.

Maybe some people would say that (cheering Biden or Harris for having tariffs), but it wouldn't be me.

Now think the other way around..... don't we want to have our products sold in other countries? Wouldn't that be good for American industry?

Yes.

[gil]

I don't see how the absence of tariffs is supporting foreign countries. It's making things cheaper for us.

Maybe some people would say that (cheering Biden or Harris for having tariffs), but it wouldn't be me.

You said that if we add tariffs it would make things more expensive for us because we would buy local. I'm saying buying local might actually stimulate our own economy. Not sure how that is bad. Again, is it really going to be that much more that helping our own economy, supporting our own businesses and creating jobs isn't worth it?

Buying Australian beef? Why?

The only way that's going to work is if Trump puts price controls on American products and promotes policies that create competition among American businesses, large and small.

If you limit people to mostly buying American, you can bet that American companies will jack the living hell out of their prices because there's not a vast market of competition. And no, unregulated American competition will not bring prices down because small business will not be able to compete with the Amazons of the world who will just monopolize the manufacturing and distribution of products. Greed has always been the problem in this country.

It would be pretty patriotic if rich business owners said, "yes, I'll move my manufacturing back to the US and eat the costs." Or, "we promise to not raise prices over the next 3 years with the new tariffs in place." Or "we want to see mom and pop businesses make a comeback so we promise to promote their sales above ours or to not instantly buy out every good idea." But they are never going to do that. They NEVER eat the cost and always pass it on to the consumer.

The only reason why prices in the US remain affordable is because the world marketplace creates competition that large American companies have to abide by. Remove the world from the equation, and you just have a bunch of massive American companies screwing consumers over... which has happened time and time and again in American history.

I would love to be proven wrong. But "buying local" isn't a thing unless buying local can somewhat compete with cheaper prices regulated by the world economy. And it sucks to say but the only reason that prices are cheap here is because countries around the globe manufacture and produce w. glorified slave labor. But I suppose the saving grace is that it's not American slave labor...

I think you say a lot of great things here. Competition creates the motivation to invest and innovate and become better at what you do, whether you are a neighborhood sandwich shop or a billion dollar corporation. Profitability is a reward for providing the best value to the customer.

All businesses want to maximize profit, but with a lack of competition, profits come from cutting costs (including the costs associated with innovating) and controlling production (i.e., raising prices). In other words, without competition you've got monopolists, duopolists, whatever.

I do believe that capitalism has faults, and one of them is the tendency for a successful company, one who became successful through innovation, to evolve into a behemoth that stifles competition. I remember in my MBA program studying the early days of WalMart. It was a relatively small (compared to Sears, KMart, etc.) regional company based in Arkansas that built a chain of stores and warehouses outward from its home base. It exposed and exploited inefficiencies in existing distribution and retailing. In other words, it was successful by being good, by being innovative. It even had a "buy American" slogan, and followed that religiously.

So what happened? That isn't the Wal Mart we know today. It eventually grew to have stores from coast to coast, scrapped the idea of buy American so it could lower costs, and essentially anti-competitive.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I don't see how the absence of tariffs is supporting foreign countries. It's making things cheaper for us.

Maybe some people would say that (cheering Biden or Harris for having tariffs), but it wouldn't be me.

Now think the other way around..... don't we want to have our products sold in other countries? Wouldn't that be good for American industry?

Yes.

In general it is good for products made in the USA to be sold elsewhere, but other countries have tariffs against us. So our products are more expensive, and you think this is good?

Pretty backwards man.

[gil]

Now think the other way around..... don't we want to have our products sold in other countries? Wouldn't that be good for American industry?

Yes.

In general it is good for products made in the USA to be sold elsewhere, but other countries have tariffs against us. So our products are more expensive, and you think this is good?

Pretty backwards man.

No.

[Seattle or Bust]

You said that if we add tariffs it would make things more expensive for us because we would buy local. I'm saying buying local might actually stimulate our own economy. Not sure how that is bad. Again, is it really going to be that much more that helping our own economy, supporting our own businesses and creating jobs isn't worth it?

Buying Australian beef? Why?

The only way that's going to work is if Trump puts price controls on American products and promotes policies that create competition among American businesses, large and small.

If you limit people to mostly buying American, you can bet that American companies will jack the living hell out of their prices because there's not a vast market of competition. And no, unregulated American competition will not bring prices down because small business will not be able to compete with the Amazons of the world who will just monopolize the manufacturing and distribution of products. Greed has always been the problem in this country.

It would be pretty patriotic if rich business owners said, "yes, I'll move my manufacturing back to the US and eat the costs." Or, "we promise to not raise prices over the next 3 years with the new tariffs in place." Or "we want to see mom and pop businesses make a comeback so we promise to promote their sales above ours or to not instantly buy out every good idea." But they are never going to do that. They NEVER eat the cost and always pass it on to the consumer.

The only reason why prices in the US remain affordable is because the world marketplace creates competition that large American companies have to abide by. Remove the world from the equation, and you just have a bunch of massive American companies screwing consumers over... which has happened time and time and again in American history.

I would love to be proven wrong. But "buying local" isn't a thing unless buying local can somewhat compete with cheaper prices regulated by the world economy. And it sucks to say but the only reason that prices are cheap here is because countries around the globe manufacture and produce w. glorified slave labor. But I suppose the saving grace is that it's not American slave labor...

I think you say a lot of great things here. Competition creates the motivation to invest and innovate and become better at what you do, whether you are a neighborhood sandwich shop or a billion dollar corporation. Profitability is a reward for providing the best value to the customer.

All businesses want to maximize profit, but with a lack of competition, profits come from cutting costs (including the costs associated with innovating) and controlling production (i.e., raising prices). In other words, without competition you've got monopolists, duopolists, whatever.

I do believe that capitalism has faults, and one of them is the tendency for a successful company, one who became successful through innovation, to evolve into a behemoth that stifles competition. I remember in my MBA program studying the early days of WalMart. It was a relatively small (compared to Sears, KMart, etc.) regional company based in Arkansas that built a chain of stores and warehouses outward from its home base. It exposed and exploited inefficiencies in existing distribution and retailing. In other words, it was successful by being good, by being innovative. It even had a "buy American" slogan, and followed that religiously.

So what happened? That isn't the Wal Mart we know today. It eventually grew to have stores from coast to coast, scrapped the idea of buy American so it could lower costs, and essentially anti-competitive.

I think the bolded text is actually the problem with modern capitalism.

When does maximizing profits conflict with ethical business and contributing to the betterment of your community/society at large?

We're only going to get back to an economy that works for everyone when the goal of business isn't for a few people at the top of companies to make more money than 100,000 poor people combined.

But that's never happening. I fear we're too far gone. Companies are too big to trust bust. The economy/business practices are too set up to benefit only a select few people.

Cheap prices are dependent on the slaver labor of other countries so that mega corporations keep prices low. It's sad to say, but that's where we're at.

[gil]

The only way that's going to work is if Trump puts price controls on American products and promotes policies that create competition among American businesses, large and small.

If you limit people to mostly buying American, you can bet that American companies will jack the living hell out of their prices because there's not a vast market of competition. And no, unregulated American competition will not bring prices down because small business will not be able to compete with the Amazons of the world who will just monopolize the manufacturing and distribution of products. Greed has always been the problem in this country.

It would be pretty patriotic if rich business owners said, "yes, I'll move my manufacturing back to the US and eat the costs." Or, "we promise to not raise prices over the next 3 years with the new tariffs in place." Or "we want to see mom and pop businesses make a comeback so we promise to promote their sales above ours or to not instantly buy out every good idea." But they are never going to do that. They NEVER eat the cost and always pass it on to the consumer.

The only reason why prices in the US remain affordable is because the world marketplace creates competition that large American companies have to abide by. Remove the world from the equation, and you just have a bunch of massive American companies screwing consumers over... which has happened time and time and again in American history.

I would love to be proven wrong. But "buying local" isn't a thing unless buying local can somewhat compete with cheaper prices regulated by the world economy. And it sucks to say but the only reason that prices are cheap here is because countries around the globe manufacture and produce w. glorified slave labor. But I suppose the saving grace is that it's not American slave labor...

I think you say a lot of great things here. Competition creates the motivation to invest and innovate and become better at what you do, whether you are a neighborhood sandwich shop or a billion dollar corporation. Profitability is a reward for providing the best value to the customer.

All businesses want to maximize profit, but with a lack of competition, profits come from cutting costs (including the costs associated with innovating) and controlling production (i.e., raising prices). In other words, without competition you've got monopolists, duopolists, whatever.

I do believe that capitalism has faults, and one of them is the tendency for a successful company, one who became successful through innovation, to evolve into a behemoth that stifles competition. I remember in my MBA program studying the early days of WalMart. It was a relatively small (compared to Sears, KMart, etc.) regional company based in Arkansas that built a chain of stores and warehouses outward from its home base. It exposed and exploited inefficiencies in existing distribution and retailing. In other words, it was successful by being good, by being innovative. It even had a "buy American" slogan, and followed that religiously.

So what happened? That isn't the Wal Mart we know today. It eventually grew to have stores from coast to coast, scrapped the idea of buy American so it could lower costs, and essentially anti-competitive.

I think the bolded text is actually the problem with modern capitalism.

When does maximizing profits conflict with ethical business and contributing to the betterment of your community/society at large?

We're only going to get back to an economy that works for everyone when the goal of business isn't for a few people at the top of companies to make more money than 100,000 poor people combined.

But that's never happening. I fear we're too far gone. Companies are too big to trust bust. The economy/business practices are too set up to benefit only a select few people.

Cheap prices are dependent on the slaver labor of other countries so that mega corporations keep prices low. It's sad to say, but that's where we're at.

That's a pretty depressing take on things there. And I can't argue with it. I really do think that there are structural problems with how modern economies work, with scale and scope being rewarded, that leads to the success of larger and larger companies that seek lower prices.

I try to buy things made in America. And I try to buy things made by companies that have good values. These are my choices, and as I said, I really don't want to force other people to do this if they can't afford it. But just to name a few: Burt's Bees, Gorilla Glue, Lodge cast iron cookware, LL Bean for retail clothing (mostly made in America I believe). These are products that I feel good about buying. And my hope is that these companies are combining too invest and get better and, ideally, not just gain market share in the U.S. but also are able to export their products (without or with tariffs).

[bpj]

The big companies have to try and maximize profits for the little guy, don't they?

Stockholders won't be happy otherwise. That is the little guy.

The people living on the corner aren't their responsibility.

[gil]

The big companies have to try and maximize profits for the little guy, don't they?

Stockholders won't be happy otherwise. That is the little guy.

The people living on the corner aren't their responsibility.

Yes, they are supposed to maximize profits for stockholders. Not sure that stockholders are "the little guy" though; I think stock ownership is concentrated at higher income levels.

the top 10% now holding a record 93% of US equities, according to Federal Reserve data ... the bottom 50% of Americans owned just 1% of all stocks and mutual fund shares in the third quarter, central bank data shows

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 024-1?op=1

[Seattle or Bust]

The big companies have to try and maximize profits for the little guy, don't they?

Stockholders won't be happy otherwise. That is the little guy.

The people living on the corner aren't their responsibility.

There's a pretty considerable gap between people on the corner and stockholders. Those people are quickly being forgotten.

I don't think we've seen the last of Luigi Mangioni types taking matters into their own hands so long as profit over people is the goal.