- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Turns out supply side is keeping prices low to keep market share
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:17 am
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:17 am
And thereby eating a big part of the tariffs. And thereby keeping inflation at the same level. How is it that even I can see that, but Powell can’t? Isn’t he a PHD?
9
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:20 am to Padme
I was shocked NPR ran a article yesterday that acknowledged this.
LINK
quote:
Many companies are eating new costs
Suppliers and retailers who are paying higher tariffs – the current 10% for most imports or 30% for Chinese ones — are hesitant to pass on the full cost to inflation-weary shoppers.
"I think we raised [prices] about 10% and absorbed the rest," said Bobby Djavaheri, whose Los Angeles-based company Yedi Houseware imports air fryers and waffle irons from China. "It's simply impossible to pass on all of it because folks aren't going to buy the product."
Major carmakers are mostly absorbing new tariffs as a hit to profits. General Motors last week reported tariffs cost the company about $1.1 billion in the latest quarter. Stellantis – whose brands include Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Ram – says it paid more than $300 million in tariffs and built fewer vehicles overall to avoid paying even more.
Industry data shows car prices this summer increased less than usual.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/30/25 at 9:21 am
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:24 am to Padme
quote:
but Powell can’t?
Because he reads government CPI numbers and his goal is 2% inflation. The CPI is above 2% right now. When CPI gets below 2% he will cut.
But Trump is right to call Powell "Too Late Powell" because the FR is always reactionary instead of proactive.
That is the blue pilled argument which is an argument within the current system.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:26 am to Padme
How nice.
These corporations will rape you, but not slap you cuz that would be rude.
These corporations will rape you, but not slap you cuz that would be rude.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:29 am to GeauxBurrow312
It’s a shame that business has to swallow these costs
As an investor, it’s horrible business. There’s little chance any public company will hurt investors by eating these costs but we’ll see.
As an investor, it’s horrible business. There’s little chance any public company will hurt investors by eating these costs but we’ll see.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:38 am to Padme
Can anyone explain to me why new vehicle selections are so low?
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:39 am to GumboPot
Powell, like most if not all feds, yet has made a proper move on rates. Yes they shoot for that 2%, surely an arbitrary goal tied at the hip of governments printing press, but it’s not been close to being the best decision making in the last 20 plus years. They actually may be the cause for the whole damn problem
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:40 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
As an investor, it’s horrible business. There’s little chance any public company will hurt investors by eating these costs but we’ll see.
GM, a publicly traded company, ate 1.1 billion by itself as mentioned in the article I quoted. GM's stock is up 6% in the past 6 months, their investors are fine
Most of the tariffs are being eaten on the foreign side, if they dont eat it Americans will source from countries with lower tariffs or onshore
Companies have to eat costs because consumers cant and wont. Most Americans already live paycheck to paycheck, or close to paycheck to paycheck. They arent about to start paying 30% more
A benefit of tariffs I haven't seen talked about much, is that they will force publicly traded companies to operate more like private companies - in that they will need to prioritize the long term over quarterly results. Choosing to offshore for short term gains at the expense of the long haul is less viable when offshoring incurs tariffs, and also makes the bad orange man angry
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:05 am to Nosevens
quote:
Yes they shoot for that 2%, surely an arbitrary goal tied at the hip of governments printing press
It’s not arbitrary. That’s the number that’s considered “healthy” as it provides the stability needed to manage all the moving parts and interrelated intricacies of the economy. (Y’all realize the economy is a wildly complex system that has no perfect state, right? The variables are always reacting/interacting, so it’s a “managed” system.)
Inflation is a natural product of economic growth —> increased monetary supply —> increased demand —> increased output —> around and around.
If money supply gets way out in front of economic output, you get higher inflation. (See any program that injects money into the economy without a corresponding increase in output.)
2% isn’t a target because 2% is the target. 2% is the indicator of the economic system being in a manageable state.
The worst thing they can do for us is also the best thing they can do for themselves - inject money into the economy in disproportion to growth. It makes them immensely wealthy to do so.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:08 am to GumboPot
quote:
But Trump is right to call Powell "Too Late Powell" because the FR is always reactionary instead of proactive.
No, Powell is playing politics. The Globalists have to be a lot more crafty with there tactics this time around. Trump knows them and what their game is.
Trump knows that Powell is being told not to cut. Because when he does, things will likely explode in a good way.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:15 am to Longhorn Actual
Money supply is what causes inflationary pressures as a whole. Yes their goals of 2% are the target but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 1% instead, obviously negative inflation could be construed as bad if other factors were in play. But there is no absolute that continual 2% inflation is anything but a goalpost
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:15 am to GumboPot
the make-up of the fed presidents and governors includes a lot of dems. they will not give DJT one inch on this, which means they will overshoot and be forced to do something proving him right once again.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:18 am to Longhorn Actual
quote:
Inflation is a natural product of economic growth
Market pricing is impacted by three major categories:
1. Deflationary pressure on the prices of all goods. In general all goods increase in supply so there is more deflationary pressure than inflationary pressure. Sure there are pockets of natural and artificial scarcity but overall the price pressure on goods is deflationary.
2. Inflationary pressure on prices due to population increase.
3. The rate of inflation or deflation based on the supply of money.
Absent of money, 1 deflates at a higher rate than 2 inflates. So the FR controls economic inflation through 3 with their monetary policy enabled by congressional overspending fiscal policy.
This post was edited on 7/30/25 at 10:20 am
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:25 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
There’s little chance any public company will hurt investors by eating these costs
They'll eat them rather than lose market share, which would cost them more money.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:56 am to Nosevens
quote:
Money supply is what causes inflationary pressures as a whole. Yes their goals of 2% are the target but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 1% instead, obviously negative inflation could be construed as bad if other factors were in play. But there is no absolute that continual 2% inflation is anything but a goalpost
As I explained, 2% isn’t the goal because the goal is 2%.
2% indicates, in general terms, a state in which all the variables in the complex system are being managed in balance.
2% is an economic vehicle with an engine that’s running well, good tires with the right air pressure, etc. We can run and maintain a good speed that allows us to stay between the lines all the way to our destination (the future).
Some people are demanding more HP - frick the tires and/or our ability to control it…just fricking floor it. And we’ll wind up in the ditch like a 16-yr old with a Lambo. The ride won’t last long, but we’ll get to the scene of the crash really quickly.
We need an economic Cadillac, not the hypercar wrapped around a tree.
This post was edited on 7/30/25 at 11:00 am
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:58 am to GumboPot
What was the CPI when he cut rates under Biden?
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:18 am to GeauxBurrow312
quote:
Most of the tariffs are being eaten on the foreign side, if they dont eat it Americans will source from countries with lower tariffs or onshore Companies have to eat costs because consumers cant and wont. Most Americans already live paycheck to paycheck, or close to paycheck to paycheck. They arent about to start paying 30% more
Can you give some backup on the first part of above?
Which foreign companies are eating these tarriff costs?
If a company has to eat the cost- the margins shrink and that is horrible business. They might eat the tarriff cost for a while but I don’t think they will longterm. A lot depends on the type of business and the financial wherewithal for that company to eat a tarriff cost. I’d expect that some companies could eat the cost to gain market share but others won’t be able to and they’ll suffer.
There’s no way I want to invest in any company that says they will eat the tarriffs longterm. Maybe short term. I want bigger margins/profitability, not shrinking.
Only exception is if they’re transparent about it and want to shrink margins as part of a temporary strategy to gain market share.
Unfortunately that type of scheme hurts the little guys.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:26 am to GeauxBurrow312
quote:
GM, a publicly traded company, ate 1.1 billion by itself
GM should have did what Ford did and moved their operations back the US. It was BAD MANAGEMENT.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:27 am to Rip Torn
quote:
What was the CPI when he cut rates under Biden?
Didn’t matter, whatever it took to get Harris in.
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:35 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
Chinese factory owners offered price cuts for American customers to help them manage two 10% tariff hikes that Trump imposed after returning to office. But now, with average U.S. tariffs so much higher, many say they can’t discount further without operating at a loss.
quote:
Chen Qirun, a producer and exporter of PVC pipes in Guangdong, has received multiple emails from U.S. clients since Trump’s “Liberation Day,” asking for lower prices. That is after he already agreed to cut prices by 8% following Trump’s earlier tariff rounds.
quote:
Ma said his company lowered prices by around 4% earlier this year to give some tariff relief to his customers, which include companies such as Fila. He said he earns a profit of roughly 5%
LINK
quote:
Rice uses dozens of vendors. The largest are absorbing some of the cost of the tariffs and passing on the rest. One vendor is raising prices by 20% and another 25%. But Rice is expecting smaller vendors to increase prices by much higher percentages.
LINK
quote:
American retail giants are now demanding that their Chinese suppliers shoulder half to 66 per cent of the cost of US import duties.
SCMP
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News