What does eat the tariffs mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walmart needs to stop buying Chinese crap

Yeah, I mean yeah, by why come we can’t make none this stuff in Kentucky? Why can’t I marry my cousin to?

Walmart is the #1 reason our manufacturing is in China. They pushed it over there because of their awful policies. This is well documented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Walmart is a very profitable company so while they likely can’t eat the entire tariff they could indeed help absorb some cost. The downside is that then their profits decrease and their share price will decrease. This does matter because people’s retirement savings are in the market.

What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system.

While I’m all for Walmart absorbing some cost and any true Dem should be as well - a better path would have been if there was greater certainty of which tariffs would stick to allow investors to reallocate their portfolios accordingly.

Why would your version of a “true Dem” be in favor of Walmart absorbing some of the cost of Trump’s tariffs? Most Dems would not be in favor of the tariffs at all — particularly ones as poorly thought out as those have been. While it would stabilize things to know what tariffs will “stick” — the tariffs were stupid and completely unnecessary in the first place. There is no brilliant goal here that Trump’s tariffs address. He wanted to punitively fling his power around, and didn’t care who suffers in the process. That’s it.

They might mean that this way some of the tax burden would be on shareholders, except the wealthiest shareholders get the biggest tax breaks.

[Anonymous]

No company is going to eat tariffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Walmart is a very profitable company so while they likely can’t eat the entire tariff they could indeed help absorb some cost. The downside is that then their profits decrease and their share price will decrease. This does matter because people’s retirement savings are in the market.

What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system.

While I’m all for Walmart absorbing some cost and any true Dem should be as well - a better path would have been if there was greater certainty of which tariffs would stick to allow investors to reallocate their portfolios accordingly.

Why would your version of a “true Dem” be in favor of Walmart absorbing some of the cost of Trump’s tariffs? Most Dems would not be in favor of the tariffs at all — particularly ones as poorly thought out as those have been. While it would stabilize things to know what tariffs will “stick” — the tariffs were stupid and completely unnecessary in the first place. There is no brilliant goal here that Trump’s tariffs address. He wanted to punitively fling his power around, and didn’t care who suffers in the process. That’s it.

They might mean that this way some of the tax burden would be on shareholders, except the wealthiest shareholders get the biggest tax breaks.

Shareholders don't have to eat it, the company doesn't have to eat it.

The company has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. It sucks but that's captalism for you.

[Anonymous]

Trump wants billionaires and investors to voluntarily pay more taxes instead of just taxing them directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Walmart is a very profitable company so while they likely can’t eat the entire tariff they could indeed help absorb some cost. The downside is that then their profits decrease and their share price will decrease. This does matter because people’s retirement savings are in the market.

What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system.

While I’m all for Walmart absorbing some cost and any true Dem should be as well - a better path would have been if there was greater certainty of which tariffs would stick to allow investors to reallocate their portfolios accordingly.

Why would your version of a “true Dem” be in favor of Walmart absorbing some of the cost of Trump’s tariffs? Most Dems would not be in favor of the tariffs at all — particularly ones as poorly thought out as those have been. While it would stabilize things to know what tariffs will “stick” — the tariffs were stupid and completely unnecessary in the first place. There is no brilliant goal here that Trump’s tariffs address. He wanted to punitively fling his power around, and didn’t care who suffers in the process. That’s it.

They might mean that this way some of the tax burden would be on shareholders, except the wealthiest shareholders get the biggest tax breaks.

Shareholders don't have to eat it, the company doesn't have to eat it.

The company has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. It sucks but that's captalism for you.

This is a myth.

https://thekeypoint.org/2020/05/16/the-shareholder-value-myth/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Walmart is a very profitable company so while they likely can’t eat the entire tariff they could indeed help absorb some cost. The downside is that then their profits decrease and their share price will decrease. This does matter because people’s retirement savings are in the market.

What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system.

While I’m all for Walmart absorbing some cost and any true Dem should be as well - a better path would have been if there was greater certainty of which tariffs would stick to allow investors to reallocate their portfolios accordingly.

Bull. As a Democrat, I have no desire to see my retirement portfolio that had shares in Walmart decline because of Trump’s idiocy.

[Anonymous]

So screw Walmart shareholders and those who have that in their retirement plans as patriotism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In other words, Trump wants Walmart to cover up his idiocy by raising taxes on them.

Thanks. coming here to say this so it's not sugar coated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Walmart is a very profitable company so while they likely can’t eat the entire tariff they could indeed help absorb some cost. The downside is that then their profits decrease and their share price will decrease. This does matter because people’s retirement savings are in the market.

What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system.

While I’m all for Walmart absorbing some cost and any true Dem should be as well - a better path would have been if there was greater certainty of which tariffs would stick to allow investors to reallocate their portfolios accordingly.

"What we are seeing is the challenge of making central market decisions in a capitalist system."

Exactly!

Will Trump issue an Executive Order that establishes a price freeze on Walmart, etc.? It's giving Chinese and Russian Communism, Five-Year Plan vibes.

Did Trump truely graduate from Wharton? He is clearly a wannabe commie dictator. Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave.

Yup....to he## with the Americans-he's here for Russia.

[Anonymous]

I thought Trump said the tariffs would be paid by the other countries.

[Anonymous]

It’s posturing. He knows companies won’t and shouldn’t eat the tariffs. If they did, profits would evaporate, the stock market would crash, retirement accounts would collapse, many of our largest companies would go bankrupt and layoff huge numbers of employees, and all sorts of economic ruin would occur.

But he knows his base is easily confused and will use such statements to blame retailers for inflation rather than him for clumsy policies. He’s hoping spin will help avoid landslide midterm losses and a potential third impeachment.

Evidently he’s not confident he will get out of the hole he dug without at least some tariffs persisting, and now the other countries at the table know he’s sweating to the point he’s having to say such nonsense so the finger gets pointed at for-profit businesses trying to remain profitable.

If Obama had said companies should eat massive tariffs, Republican media would’ve gone nuts and alleged he knows zero about economics and business and is therefore unfit to lead.

[Anonymous]

These companies are not going to eat the tariffs. That’s just delusional MAGA thinking talking again.

But considering the Walmarts and Targets and small business owners are the reason this clown is in office, I really have no problem with watching them squirm, and have zero desire to waste any political capital on them. They were so busy counting their tax breaks they lost sight of the bigger picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an example: say Walmart buys a widget from China. The widget previously costs $10, but with tariffs, it now costs $25. Trump wants Walmart to still charge customers $10 for the widget and have Walmart’s bottom line bear the cost of the extra $15.

That's not how it works.

If Walmart sells a widget for $10 but they buy it from China for $2, the tariff is on the $2, not the $10. So if there were a 30% tariff applied, that would be 60 cents. So the idea is that a company like Walmart can either continue to charge the $10 for the product or raise the price to $10.60, BUT.......

....tariffs are paid by the country selling the goods. So in the example above, China can eat the 60 cents themselves, slightly raise the price to cover the tariff increase so they make the same amount of money, or only slightly increase it.

Tariffs are never 100% passed off to consumers. It can be passed a little, a lot, or none. There are too many variables, including the idea that consumers can choose to stop purchasing certain products (which is why a retailer, or China, may want to eat some or all of the tariff).

[Anonymous]

Besides the limited "framework" with the UK (i.e., not really a deal) and agreement with China to mutually lower the tariffs raised during his idiot trade war (i.e., worse off than when we stareted), does he have anything?