this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
714 points (98.9% liked)

politics

23541 readers
2527 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bieren@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago

Old man yells at clouds. Too old and too much dementia to run the country.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If the stuff comes from a place where tariffs have been applied, the price should go up.

If it's modified corn gloop from Kentucky, the price should not go up.

So which prices are going up?

[–] CLOTHESPlN@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That's a bit of a gross oversimplification. Overseas or foreign product? Sure tariffs apply 100%.

But what if the modified corn gloop is processed with a machine from Germany? And quality inspected with a sampling device from Canada? And the cameras used to inspect the packaging come from Japan? And the computers to power the logistics operations come from Taiwan, Korea and China?

Sure the corn gloop isnt taxed via tariff, but every single part of its manufacturing just got 20-120% more expensive (and supply chains got that much less predictable). Most businesses would go under if they tried to eat that cost.

The answer? Sweeping tariffs mean sweeping price increases. The list of which prices won't go up will be infinitely smaller.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 26 minutes ago

Yeah, this is also true. Global supply chains are unfathomably large.

And really, Walmart aren't really doing a lot themselves. All those Walmart branded products are made by a third party, just like the regular branded stuff.

If the amount goes up on Walmart's supplier invoice, the amount goes up on the shelf. High volumes and thin margins means there's no wiggle room to "eat" anything.

Their only two options are to stop stocking a product, or to pay and charge more.

[–] SpaceShort@feddit.uk 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

King Canute knew he couldn't control the tides to but Trump thinks he can control supply and demand.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 2 hours ago

What a Cnut.

[–] wolfarine@lemm.ee 45 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

So the "elected" government is trying to control prices? Isn't that the definition of socialism?

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It's an element of a planned economy which has been more commonly used in authoritarian socialist countries but isn't exclusive to them.

(Fun fact because I just looked it up: There doesn't seem to be one generally accepted definition of "socialism".)

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 2 points 30 minutes ago

Worker ownership of the means of production.

I.e. profits from goods and services go to those who provide them rather than investors.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 52 minutes ago

I'd say a good loose definition is just 'people pooling resources for the common good' so basically all taxes and things paid for by taxes including the military.

[–] Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca 25 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Socialism is only bad when the left does it.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 34 minutes ago

Or the poors

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 18 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

What the fuck did this moron think was going to happen?

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 4 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

He thought that applying pressure through broad import taxes would force foreign manufacturers to drop their prices to avoid losing those sweet sweet US sales, and that foreign governments would line up at his door, begging for "deals". He was wrong, and anyone with a brain would have known that.

[–] JakJak98@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago

I honestly don't think anyone actually informed him of how this would go down.

The president currently holds a cabinet of people and constituents who have, for the greater part of the past 12 years, relied on the ideals of sycophantic behaviour and likewise. To be in the room and suggest that an idea is not good would and likely has turned heads and gotten them removed from their positions. Look at the most recent Removal of the FEMA administrator: bashed on fema previously, incited change, told congress that axing FEMA would be a bad thing, immediately fired and replaced with a sycophant

Lack of informed information because it doesn't align is part of the M.O. of this administration and the GOP for several years now. The only thing that matters is the ideal of greatness, whatever logic that entails.

This individual also has notably refuted and refused to consume media that doesn't tailor to his outlook. Even bashing on Fox, which is the biggest right winged media outlet out there.

My point is, he probably did not truly know what would happen. On paper and in his entourage, tariffs are indeed technically a tax on other countries, but in practice It is a tax on the people.

[–] glitch1985@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Chyna was going to pay the tariffs

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

What does the WWE have to do with any of this?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 28 points 15 hours ago

Rages at reality for doing the thing everyone said would happen?

[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 17 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Hahaha, get fucked both of them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 24 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

doesnt sound very free market to me

if they raise prices because they have to, thats just normal

if they raise prices because they can get away with it, thats kinda nasty though

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 17 points 15 hours ago

Ironically, the Economy was one of the number one concerns among voters during the election. People blamed Biden for the stores raising prices, while the Biden admin actually investigated major grocers over artificially high prices, and then elected Trump who is actually responsible for raising prices.

[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Captain dipshit said he’ll be watching and so will the customers. So? The price will go up from the tariffs. It’s like he struggles to be this much of a moron. I feel like he’s so stupid that I get dumber every time I have to listen to him talk.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

Remember when his business school professor said he was the dumbest student he ever taught? Looks prophetic.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

The hard part is proving one vs the other, and they know it.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 21 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Hahaha! This is the ONE time I agree with Trump.

All defending the house that Sam built, it is the richest company in the world by revenue beating out Amzaon and state owned organizations like Saudi Aramco and Chinese controlled organizations. It regularly bullies its way into small towns, demanding tax cuts and the infrastructure to build their stores, run those stores at a loss until all competition is gone then raises prices to squeeze out the area. Then is happy to shut down the "bottom performing stores" leaving a wasteland behind for these towns that lost everything to the mega giant. They're turning the home town of Bentonville into Austin, even driving out local business for their friends out of Austin.

And the biggest thing is... Project 2025, all of this going on, written by the Heritage Foundation... The Walton Family Foundation is one of the big funders of the Heritage Foundation as well as many of the other Project 2025 advisory board partners. They made it easy to search even! https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/grants-database

I've come from its home town, Walmart has always pushed a radical republican conservative agenda. Walmart is not some hapless victim, this is pure 100% leopards dining on some faces that voted for the leopards eating faces party.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Walmart is garbage, but the claim they can eat 30% tariffs because they made billions is by itself not a credible argument.

They made 16 billion in profit, on the back of 650 billion in revenue. Percentage wise that's 2.5%. The acquisition cost of the goods is a fraction of their operating costs, but if cost of acquiring the goods was even only 10% of their revenue, the tariffs are enough to push them red.

If he is right then I would expect a nice analysis of the financials of Walmart showing this is feasible, rather than a hollow rant.

Alternatively, if it were as he stated earlier temporary pain like medicine to fix the manufacturing imbalance, I would want a more coherent strategy. As it stands, businesses can't plan around his tariff policy as it shifts day to day without warning. If they did bring home manufacturing at significant expense, they lose because Trump gives in and competition that didn't bother has an advantage.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

The only thing I agree with on Trump here is that he's correctly pointing out that WalMart made billions in profits last year. Yes, WalMart supported this monster in the first place thinking it would work out for them in the long run, so it's a leopards eating faces scenario for sure, and I wouldn't be sad if WalMart lost profits this year because of Trump's stupidity. It's just too bad that regular people are going to suffer because WalMart killed the small businesses that used to support towns that they wormed their way into.

We aren't even done adjusting to inflation pricing, and here we are not getting slapped with a Trump Tax on top of it. Madness.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 1 points 8 hours ago

The only thing I agree with on Trump here is that he’s correctly pointing out that WalMart made billions in profits last year.

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. Really my only thing I appreciated is him going after Walmart, and okay, I'll agree they should eat the profits on the tariffs, Musk may be the richest man, but the Waltons are the richest family and not by far. And yes, the tariffs are gonna suck for all of us and is one of the most mouth dribblingly stupid things that could ever be done. But here we are.

For the people hurting. It sucks. I'm in the same pool too so I'm in the same neck deep madness that's our current scenario. I'm sorry... I just can't bring myself to care as I've lived in red states full of people voting against their will and despite years of attempting voting outreach, having friends tell me proudly they just didn't vote even though they're in more danger of the policies than I... I just kind of threw my hands up on empathy and said fuck it, I'm gonna put on a helmet, hunker down and try to ride out this fucking storm with those that I trust. So right now I'm taking what little pleasure I can through schadenfreude of watching one of the companies that put America right where it's at currently get its hand bit by the dog it feeds.

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I’m pressure that Trump doesn’t ACTUALLY care. He just wants to PERFORM like he cares so He can deny that it’s his fault. Walmart won’t lose profits and Trump gets to look like he’s “trying hard” to keep prices low.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 1 points 8 hours ago

I expect him to do absolutely nothing to Walmart, sure. I'm just REALLY REALLY hoping that he keeps ranting about them and gets his red hats angry at Walmart like he's done to other corporations. I expect there won't be any significant damage to its profits, but if it even tweaks the shareholders a little bit I'll be over here cackling like a madman.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 3 points 14 hours ago

That's the one thing I agree with him on as well, but honestly what did he expect? Trump—of all people—should understand greed. Billionaires aren't going to wilfully take a pay cut unless you force them to.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

WalMarts whole thing is tiny profit margins

They literally don't have a choice. It isn't about giving up profit margins, it's about having a profit margin AT ALL.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 20 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Walmarts whole thing is driving out competition. They're the richest company in the world and supported Trump. They asked for this.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

chance are they will rise prices way more than necessary to cover for the tariffs.

they will cry that they had no choice and have record profits.

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I never thought about it but.. what are the chances they don't have to pay tariffs on import? They raise prices because "tariffs", but don't actually pay them. I mean, tariffs are payed to the government by the importer. Trump is technically the mafia. What mechanisms are in place that would prohibit Wallmart from sucking Trumps cock in exchange for getting a secret special 0% import tax license?

They are the biggest corporation. Rules don't necessarily apply at that level. Trump would certainly listen to any proposition they may have.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

if the price up make a product goes up (because tariffs) sell price will go up

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Selling price can go up because of greed too.
Tariffs can be the excuse.
They dont need to pay them if they know which dick to suck.
This is what Im pondering. Is this possible in trumps america?

[–] Azal@pawb.social 1 points 9 hours ago
[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 24 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

It's depressing how important this is. Walmart is core to a lot of American's purchasing. If Walmart decides to kiss the ring, even for a while, when they stop could determine when a wave of anger will hit, maybe even control the midterms. If they just pass on the prices now, many americans' cost of living is going to soar, right at the same time many of them will be facing layoffs as businesses choke to death on materials costs.

Anyone else remember what happened last time large numbers of americans experienced large amounts of free time? Do you think they'll be any happier when they are experiencing that level of free time without the benefit of CoViD stimulus? A lot of people are going to get hurt.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Perfect malicious compliance opportunity: the price tag stays the same, but add an itemized Trump Tax for the difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Volume@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

And once the trade war is done, the prices will remain higher due to "record profits" and "people will continue to pay it because they have to".

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›