- 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
re: Swatch Group raises prices on watches, frontloaded exports to get ahead of tariffs
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:24 pm to BurlesonCountyAg
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:24 pm to BurlesonCountyAg
quote:
Roger has a point: the reason so many global economies are in recession is because they have been tariffing the US.
According to MAGA, y'all want to be just like these shithole countries who put tariffs on US products.
0
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:25 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Until we can address the underlying economic problems, they are better than doing nothing.
Thats how progressives think, not conservatives.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:27 pm to RogerTheShrubber
“masking and social distancing until we get a vaccine”. The urge to “do something” is rarely successful.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
“masking and social distancing until we get a vaccine”. The urge to “do something” is rarely successful.
Indeed.
"Doing something" has gotten us where we are today.
Govt actions almost always cause unintended consequences and we never learn.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:30 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
”Dont distract me with 100’s of years of real world experience. This time it’s different!”
A hundred years ago, the country was early in the course of our dollar experiment. Now we're into intermittent massive monetization of public and private debt, multi-trillion dollar budget deficits, record debt to GDP, trillion dollar trade deficits, massive NIIP, massively unfunded future obligations ,and getting progressively worse. This is definitely different.
This post was edited on 8/13/25 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:30 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
CEO said in the article they will not just absorb a 39% tariff
Guess they will go out of business then.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:32 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Guess they will go out of business then.
Thats very socialist of you.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:36 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
The last few paragraphs sound eerily similar to what happens when a city or state cranks up taxes
It will hit other ways too. Last week I was at a metal supplier that buys internationally and domestically. The supply house is adjusting prices to cover the international tariffs, but also noticed that their domestic producers raised prices because now they can.
Consumers will pay higher prices, USA will get more tariff revenue and domestic producers will have higher margins.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:37 pm to dat yat
quote:
Consumers will pay higher prices, USA will get more tariff revenue and domestic producers will have higher margins.
Sounds like a lose/lose for consumers. Higher prices and less choice.
Bernie's wet dream.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:52 pm to Ingeniero
Would be 10-15% and not 39% if their dumb woman president worked a deal. Trump sent her packing back to Switzerland last week.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 12:55 pm to Ingeniero
I have no sympathy.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:00 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Trump sent her packing back to Switzerland last week.
One of the few nations with a better standard of living than the USA. Swiss products are highly desirable here so I understand the working class USA jealousy regarding Switzerland.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:04 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Thats how progressives think, not conservatives.
My definition of "addressing underlying problems" is for the govt to do less. Less spending, less borrowing, less interference in financial markets, less bureaucracy, less regulating, less mandating, less wars that aren't our business, eventually less taxes. In other words, less government. If that's how progressives think, sign me up.
If you thought "addressing underlying problems" meant more of the same, it's not an option for a viable future and we'll have to use government means to counteract government consequences.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:06 pm to Ingeniero
Seriously have no idea why people would want to put tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars into a piece of jewelry to wear around on their wrist.
I guess people feel superior when they wear a fancy watch that no one gives a frick about unless someone is marking you to be robbed.
I guess it could be a tax write off as a “gift”? Investment?
Anyways, my give a shite about your Swiss watch price going up is about negative 15%
I guess people feel superior when they wear a fancy watch that no one gives a frick about unless someone is marking you to be robbed.
I guess it could be a tax write off as a “gift”? Investment?
Anyways, my give a shite about your Swiss watch price going up is about negative 15%
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:07 pm to wdhalgren
Sometimes in administration, doing less is better than more. However, that doesnt win elections.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:11 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
This is a 5% increase just due to the uncertainty of future tariffs. They shipped in a ton to stockpile before tariffs kicked in and the CEO said in the article they will not just absorb a 39% tariff. You think this is the only industry that's going to pass on costs to the consumer once their warehouse supply runs out?
If they can do that successfully then so be it.
Consumers have a say.
Do you think Swatch could have increased prices all this time and were just being kind?
This post was edited on 8/13/25 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:11 pm to Ingeniero
Swatch.
It’s 1986 all over again.
It’s 1986 all over again.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:13 pm to honeybadger07
quote:
Anyways, my give a shite about your Swiss watch price going up is about negative 15%
What about a handgun from Italy?
A scope from Japan?
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:29 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Sometimes in administration, doing less is better than more. However, that doesnt win elections.
All true, which is why I'm skeptical about every single politician. Trust none of them to make the hard choices. I agree when it fits my observations of the state of our economy and disagree when it doesn't. My overriding observation now and for the last 35 years is that we can't afford to keep piling on debt and manipulating interest rates to avoid defaults. It has warped our economy and destroyed jobs or driven them elsewhere, which makes our debt and foreign dependency grow faster. Status quo is a dead end but politicians don't want to be blamed for the inevitable downsizing if we change course. I'm not optimistic.
This post was edited on 8/13/25 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:32 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
All true, which is why I'm skeptical about every single politician. Trust none of them to make the hard choices. I agree when it fits my observations of the state of our economy and disagree when it doesn't. My overriding observation now and for the last 25 years is that we can't afford to keep piling on debt and manipulating interest rates to avoid defaults. It has warped our economy and destroyed jobs or driven them elsewhere, which makes our debt and foreign dependency grow faster. Status quo is a dead end but politicians don't want to be blamed for the inevitable downsizing if we change course. I'm not optimistic.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News