Summary
Fox News host Julie Banderas warned that President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs—25% on products from Mexico and Canada and 10% on those from China—could significantly raise costs for Americans, as many businesses rely on foreign goods.
While some companies are shifting to U.S.-based suppliers or stockpiling goods ahead of the tariffs, Banderas noted that buying American often results in higher prices.
She highlighted that the financial burden would likely fall on consumers, questioning, “Who’s going to pay for that? We are.”
Economists have also warned of inflation risks.
This is the honest conversation that Fox News should have with its viewers before the election. It’s moot at this point.
The “Buy American” companies will raise their product prices to match the foreign companies hit by tariffs. Governments and corporations NEVER pay tariffs. They pass on the tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
My sister’s fiance thought just because an iPhone (for instance) was designed in the states that it wouldn’t be subject to tariffs, despite being made in China and using foreign parts.
Network that spends all of its time pretending that claims that Donald will immediately reach favorable and equitable peace agreements in two international wars, get the price of eggs to go down, secure the southern border, deport all the criminals, and fix healthcare with “concepts of a plan” are totally reasonable: “Let’s be realistic”. 🤡
😆
You guys skewed reality so far that it has broken entirely for your viewers. How do you expect them to be realistic now?
Here’s the thing. Even if the terrifs, somehow, didn’t directly cause inflation, the fact that we are taking about inflation means that companies can raise prices and gouge just like last time.
Man, I sure am worried about deflation.
Deflation is actually really bad. It essentially means that not spending money is the best option, which makes it so people stop buying as many things and the economy slows down dramatically. A small amount of inflation is ideal. It encourages spending but doesn’t do much harm either.
That’s actually neoliberal propaganda and not true. “The economy” in the context of GDP turned out to really mean “rich people”.
Sure, yeah. It’s especially sucks for rich people and business owners, but no it’s not just “neoliberal propaganda.” It’s really simple economics and logic. If your money becomes more valuable over time, it is on your benefit to save it. If it becomes less valuable over time, the opposite is true and you should spend it. And yeah, capitalism sucks, but we’re all tied to the health of the economy, which doesn’t mean the stock market like the media often links it to, but if businesses can’t afford to hire as much staff, all of us lose.
simple economics and logic. If your money becomes more valuable over time, it is on your benefit to save it. If it becomes less valuable over time, the opposite is true and you should spend it.
This is true, but it’s a bad thing. The economy would be better off if people had savings. We could afford to strike without going homeless. We would consume less and pollute less. Wages would be growing in proportion to the overall economy, not falling relative to the cost of living.
Us being forced to spend money on businesses is good for the businesses, but it hasn’t been good for us. Businesses being able to hire more people because we’re forced to invest in them is trickle-down economics.
Wages would not necessarily grow in proportion to the economy. In fact, they probably wouldn’t. It’s a nice idea, but it’s assuming a lot. As more people are laid off, there’d be more people competing for the same jobs, allowing businesses to pay less. They’d also be in the same situation as everyone else, where spending is disincentivized. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never know a business to pay more than they have to.
As long as inflation is low, it doesn’t force you to spend money. In fact, saving is still encouraged because you can normally get higher returns than inflation. It just encourages you to not sit on money that isn’t doing anything. Every dollar spent multiplies. When money changes hands a fraction of it is saved, but the rest is spent. The more that’s spent and less saved the more effective dollars there are, as the federal reserve requires a fraction of every dollar saved in a bank to be stored in with the Fed where it can’t be loaned out. This isn’t trickle-down economics. That is a totally different thing.
If you can find where a concensus of experts say deflation actually helps workers, I might believe you. It’s my understanding that they don’t think so.
Wages did in fact grow in proportion to the economy before Nixon.
Are we using the same pool of neoliberal economists who brought us here?
In our current economic model, any deflation creates a perverse incentive to not spend. It is extremely bad for the economy, and all of us reliant on it. The rich are one of the few groups that come out ahead (relatively).
Like it or not, we are all stuck on that merry go round. Until we find a graceful way off, it’s in no-one’s interest to jam it up.
Can you not eat? There are some things you have to consume all days.
Just basic requirements for life and nothing extra will destroy any developed countries economy. If things aren’t sold they’ll stop sending them there, so as people just stop buying luxuries, they’ll stop even being an option. Less tax money means the government has issues more than normal, and if you aren’t buying anything who are they gonna tax? The companies won’t have money because they aren’t selling anything.
If you don’t buy luxuries but keep buying groceries, what do you think they will do? Just a hint: groceries also have taxes.
This sounds completely backwards, like if you are talking purely about investment.
If not it seems to completely ignore that high prices alone would discourage spending, particularly on non-essential things (even then, don’t think for a second that there aren’t people skipping healthcare or meals).
The only other way I could interpret would be that high prices force people to spend more money on just essentials (even if they’re buying less than they otherwise would), somehow painting living paycheck-to-paycheck as a good thing because it means more money in the economy.
It’s not about the price. Price is just a number. Prices today would look insane to someone 100 years ago. It’s about how price changes over time.
If your money becomes less valuable the longer you wait, it’s worse to wait. The longer it takes for you to spend it the less buying power it has.
If it becomes more valuable over time then it encourages hoarding your money because the longer you take to spend it the more buying power it has.
The average person likes stuff and wants their stuff now. The average person will buy shit on a credit card even though saving up to pay cash would make the cost much cheaper. Particularly disciplined people may put off purchases for a few months if they think the price will drop (maybe a few years for something really big like a house) but those folks are the exception rather than the rule. Are there real world examples of times when deflation triggered a mass consumer cash hoarding? Or is this something that only exists in economics books?
If you’re talking about investing and the behavior of companies, then maybe you’re right. Although I suspect it would also depend on interest rates and stock market performance.
The average person buys their stuff from companies and investors or businesses who get their supplies from said companies and investors. The people will not be able to buy things if those companies decide that they are more profitable sitting on pile of coins.
How can a financially broken, over stressed, oppressed public fight? This is by design, to further oppress, divide and conquer. But I’ll wait over here with the other couple million people that have been screaming this for months till the shit hits the fan and we can actually start working toward a common greater good.
BuT tHe StOcK mArKeT iS uP!
And it won’t be once sales drop precipitously across entire industries. Lots of manufacturing simply doesn’t exist in the US anymore, and there isn’t enough time to start it up before massive economic impacts.
The effects of this Trump administration will be clear and they will be bad. I’m somewhat optimistic that they will eventually start to generate a kind of unity we haven’t seen in the US in a long time. But, to be clear, it will be a very, very, very rough few years to get there, and it assumes the world isn’t consumed by massive wars anyway.
What’s gonna happen is that prices will go up, and companies in the US will gouge even harder on top of that because they have an external excuse to. Maybe things will get so bad that Democrats are able to win in the next election, but after the Biden administration, it’s not like they have any credibility when it comes to standing up to price gouging in any meaningful way.
Democrats will need a candidate who isn’t some preordained corpodem like the last 3 cycles. Because if they do that again, they will be running as second worst yet the fuck again, and any noises they make about wanting prices to come down or wages to go up will be just that. Noise.
