• wolfarine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    So the “elected” government is trying to control prices? Isn’t that the definition of socialism?

    • Don_alForno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Worker ownership of the means of production.

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

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Social ownership (public) of production, doesn’t have to be the workers

          State capitalism exists though, ROK and CCP are the more famous examples

          • zqps@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            No it’s not. Socialism is compatible with economic and political systems beyond communism. Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days 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.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Still be worth it. And isn’t Walmart changing prices on a regular base, anyway?

        Here would it be a simple database push, and the price tags would update with tariffs, but we don’t have them.

    • JakJak98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days 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.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days 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.

  • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

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

  • Sunsofold@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Their costs go up because of the tariffs, he can’t expect them to lose profit at scale just to appease him. It would be a super bad business decision on Walmarts side if they do that.

      • LogicalFallacy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 days ago

        They literally can’t without getting sued by investors. Look at United Healthcare - they’re getting sued for lost profits because they couldn’t deny more claims after Luigi.

      • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’ll be shocked if Walmart choses to “eat the cost” for tariffs.

        They don’t “eat the cost” so their employees don’t need food stamps, a program also on the chopping block. If they gut medicate/medicaid the Walmart pharmacy will also definitely feel that loss.

  • Azal@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days 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. 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.

      • Psythik@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days 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.

      • Azal@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days 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.

  • YangChow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why not refund the taxpayers cost of tariffs from the tariffs collected? Tariffs are being broken out on invoices, file the tariff tax as deductions on 1040’s. It would be a wash for the taxpayers.

    • TheBloodFarts@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Well you see the problem here is that you’re using your brain and well we just can’t be having that

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      That seems convoluted but also as stated it wouldn’t be a wash.

      A deduction means pretend that portion of income never existed and the taxable portion of it is not charged.

      Then generally the deduction has to be above the standard deduction to make sense to use, and the standard deduction is just so high nowadays.

      So if you claimed a hypothetical deduction of 1,000, then you reduce your tax burden by only 200 or so, assuming you otherwise had like 20 some odd thousand in deductions to get you close to the standard deduction.

      The only way it would be a wash is if it were a refundable tax credit with no qualifications, and that almost never happens for anything. I could imagine a non refundable credit that would make it a wash for anyone with sufficient tax liability.

      However, this would make the tariffs an utterly pointless needless complication, needing a whole lot more accounting by sellers and consumers just to get to a similar and simpler position of not doing the tariffs in the first place.

    • pacology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      The goal seems to be replacing of federal income tax with import tariffs (like it was in the 1800s). The flat rate they set could collect as much as the income tax if import levels stay the same. Also, some of the stats shared by the administration early on on collections per day would multiply up to the total income tax collected. Writing them off would be counterproductive.

      The only downside with consumption taxes is that they are regressive. People in the lowest income levels will end up paying more percentage richer people because there is so much that rich people can consume from overseas vs poorer people.

  • Volume@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 days ago

    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”.

    • Azal@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      100% This. Walmart is far from the “aw shucks” helping the common man image it wants to portray

    • NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Certainly what we appear to have experienced in the UK, I’m sure it’s the same in other countries

      • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Britain’s a bit different, as it’s caught in a perfect storm. It got a large amount of its energy from Russia, and the invasion hit just as Britain was also pouring massive investment into renewables and nuclear, which has to be paid for via energy bills. Add onto that the £40bn annual loss to the economy from Brexit and yeah, prices aren’t going down any time soon, but it isn’t necessarily because of profiteering. For example, rail freight operators have mothballed their electric fleet because the tariff per mile is so much higher than diesel at the moment. And they’re a business sector who can readily change from electricity.

  • SpaceShort@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 days ago

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

  • Jackcooper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      6 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          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.

            • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days 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?