this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
621 points (99.7% liked)

politics

31119 readers
2076 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 130 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How did they figure that one out? Did they Open their eyes to see the most obvious fucking thing ever?

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There actually was something in the article that surprised me:

The analysts also said consumers have paid for about 50% to 70% of the total tariff cost to date.

I was shocked it wasn't 100% to 120%. The fact that any businesses are shouldering even a portion of the tariffs is incredible. I fully expected them to go "Oh tariff is 50%? Better charge the consumer 60% just so we get our cut."

[–] Steve@startrek.website 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Theres a game of chicken going on. Try to hold out until the illegal tariffs are refunded so you dont lose customers.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 12 points 10 months ago

Yup, and if they are rescinded the companies get to double dip as they get the tariffs back and don't have to share the refund with customers.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

Don't forget classic market pressure. Consumers were already struggling, if your product goes up too much many simply can't buy it

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

I wonder if it is by item or by dollar value. I imagine smaller businesses are often more likely to shoulder the burder of the tariff than larger, because they are more reliant on customer satisfaction. I'm talking out of my ass, though

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 115 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We don't care about overwhelming evidence in this administration.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Evidence is "treason"

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 52 points 10 months ago (3 children)

In other news, it appears that water is wet.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Water is not wet though, what water touches is wet

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 17 points 10 months ago

Not this shit again.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Water that touches other water is wet.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ah... but what is the quantum of water that you can separate from a bucket of water that then becomes "dry"?

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 1 points 10 months ago

If you heat it up enough into steam, there's probably enough separation of molecules for a split microsecond at any given moment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The news doesn't like to commit to a position these days.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

"Unbiased!!!!" (Yeah, right)

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 44 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Shocking: making things more expensive doesn’t lower the prices!

[–] FancyPantsFIRE@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

Hm, but what if we just haven’t tarrifed hard enough yet?

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

We just aren't importing enough bootstraps

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago
[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 35 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 3 points 10 months ago

"You can't hear pictures"

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

The fact there is even a discussion around it is wild to me. Of course tariffs would raise consumer prices. That's how they work

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

...yes, that is the purpose of tariffs. Raising prices on imported goods until they become so expensive that local goods are competitive. This automatically increases consumer prices. It causes a huge shock upon introduction and over time it (in theory anyway) should promote domestic production by undercutting foreign competition.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

MAGATs: Bank of America is WOKE now!!! People go to Wells Fargo!

[–] credo@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Trump will take his sharpie and change their name to Bank of Mexico, then start an investigation into BoM’s history of funding Antifa.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They must be writing this hoping maga reads it because this is already known to everyone else.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If MAGA could read, they'd be very upset

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 3 points 10 months ago

If MAGA could read, they'd ~~be very upset~~ applaud this as yet another win for the Trump administration

Up is down in MAGA world

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

They already read an article written by ChatGPT that told them the opposite.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago

"zzzzzzz...FaKe NeWzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
--maga

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Tariffs have been a disaster for sure.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Hey Bank of America, GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 12 points 10 months ago

Fake news. The grocery stores pay me to take their food. Technically, I just work there and steal. But same thing.

[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Someone finally checked their bank account?

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Well duh. How could it not? Isn't the idea to make foreign sourced goods more expensive for consumers, so competing domestic goods (if any) get sold instead at "their* higher prices? The only plus for anyone is that the extra $$ paid in tarriffs go into the Trump slush fund for ballrooms, bathrooms and direct payoff to himself. Yay.

[–] Master167@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yep, this is true. Wasn’t the point to make off-shore manufacturing more expensive to incentivize manufacturing jobs domestically? Have you heard of any new manufacturing plants being built domestically?

No? I wonder why. Almost like the people who could make those investments are not because they’re not affected by that price change. Like we’ll need a specific intervention that doesn’t affect everyone when a small portion made the decisions to off-shore manufacturing.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wasn’t the point to make off-shore manufacturing more expensive to incentivize manufacturing jobs domestically?

Depends on your ideological camp. There's an anti-trade camp that thinks insourcing the entire US economy makes us more independent and improves our labor participation rate. There's also an anti-income tax camp that thinks the tariffs can replace the IRS. They're kind-of in tension, as more domestic industry would mean lower tariff revenues, while higher tariffs (to replace the income tax) would discourage the trade it is intended to tax.

Have you heard of any new manufacturing plants being built domestically?

Here's a list from June 2025

Would these plants exist without the tariffs? Probably. Trump's only been in office for ten months and new manufacturing plants take years to plan and build. But if we see a permanent GOP majority (or a Dem base that just chases the GOP's tail, like centrist Dems have historically done since Reagan), then tariffs will become entrenched and domestic manufacturing will have a real incentive relative to overseas imports.

But its still a juggling act between cost of labor/access to materials abroad and cost of production at home. What we've seen a lot of in the states is assembly plants - particularly in the automotive sector - where foreign car companies ship in parts at a low price and turn them into "Made In America" vehicles that sell at a high price.

We could see a lot more of that in the future.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 7 points 10 months ago

No shit. That's what tariffs are supposed to do...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Are they including the scamflation and shrinkflation in that 50-70%?

I mean, where companies have just raised costs, gone for cheaper ingredients, and messed with sizes, simply because they can?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Journalism finds new ways to not state the obvious.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago
[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

Thanks for keeping the prices in RoW stable

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

But they still support them...