Best Buy and Target CEOs say prices are about to go up because of tariffs

2025-03-051:36169244www.theverge.com

Prices could go up within the next couple of days.

Target relies on produce from Mexico during the winter, while Best Buy sources most of its products from Mexico and China.

Target relies on produce from Mexico during the winter, while Best Buy sources most of its products from Mexico and China.

Target and Best Buy say Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China could raise prices in their stores as soon as this week. During an interview with CNBC, Target CEO Brian Cornell said consumers will “likely see prices increase over the next couple of days,” while Best Buy CEO Corie Barry similarly told investors that more expensive prices are “highly likely.”

Cornell told CNBC that half of Target’s goods come from the United States, but the company depends on Mexico for “a significant amount” of fruits and vegetables during winter, potentially leading to more expensive strawberries, bananas, and avocados. “Those are categories where we’ll try to protect pricing, but the consumer will likely see price increases over the next couple of days,” Cornell added.

Meanwhile, Best Buy’s Barry said during an earnings call that China and Mexico remain the top two countries where the company gets its products. “We expect our vendors across our entire assortment will pass along some level of tariff costs to retailers, making price increases for American consumers highly likely,” Barry said.

On Tuesday, Trump followed through on threats to impose 25 percent tariffs on products imported from Canada and Mexico, while imports from China will face an additional 10 percent tax on top of the 10 percent tax previously enacted. However, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Fox Business that Trump might “work something out” with Canada and Mexico, adding that he could announce a potential compromise on Wednesday.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By captainkrtek 2025-03-052:398 reply

    Sure miss the days where there wasn’t headline generating chaos from the White House resulting in market volatility. Make Government Boring Again.

    • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:43

      Volatility is profit for insiders.

    • By neilv 2025-03-053:122 reply

      Is the market actually disciplining?

      Or are Wall Street actors gaming the volatility for further profit?

      Or both?

      • By esalman 2025-03-053:13

        Strongly believe it's the second.

        Just learned from Twitter tariffs will be rolled back in a day or two.

      • By idkfasayer 2025-03-0520:18

        [dead]

    • By MrMcCall 2025-03-052:432 reply

      "It used to be simple: vote for the guy you liked the most. Then it became vote against the guy you disliked the most. Now it's vote for who you dislike the least." --A Whitney Brown

      I remember seeing that on SNL in the 80s; it has always stuck with me.

      • By leptons 2025-03-053:491 reply

        > Now it's vote for who you dislike the least.

        For 1/3 of eligible voters, it's "I don't care about voting".

        • By ToucanLoucan 2025-03-0518:581 reply

          For a substantial portion of those third:

          1) They can't vote, either because of local politicians meddling in their election process/with their polling places, being convicted of bullshit non-crimes, or simply being unable to get to a polling place. Shock of shocks, majority of political fuckery involved in taking away people's right to vote is brought about by conservatives. Even more shocking, the groups that tend to be disenfranchised trend progressive in their voting habits, wow, such a weird coincidence.

          2) They have no desire to vote, because as much as I understand voting for the lesser of two evils (and doing it with regularity) that just isn't motivating, and neither is choosing which party you want to join that's going to leave you for dead the second the election is over. To be clear: this is not "both sides are bad." Both sides are bad, but one is just useless bad, and the other is actively tearing down the state to sow chaos that it can use to consolidate power and bring about a theocracy. And while both of those are bad, they are not even remotely comparable.

          • By leptons 2025-03-077:55

            >To be clear: this is not "both sides are bad." Both sides are bad, but one is just useless bad, and the other is actively tearing down the state to sow chaos

            Nope, that's just more uninformed "both sides are the same" nonsense.

            The Democrat and Republican voting record proves you wrong.

            And one side is only "useless" because the other side are obstructionists, and that side can only obstruct because too many people with low IQs believed lies and voted against their best interests.

      • By wnmurphy 2025-03-053:00

        I heard he used to be _The_ Whitney Brown.

    • By bamboozled 2025-03-0512:29

      It was a nice 4 years...

    • By bamboozled 2025-03-0512:28

      It was a nice 4 years

    • By galimalint 2025-03-053:093 reply

      [flagged]

      • By esalman 2025-03-053:121 reply

        4 out of those 5 headlines you listed are basically empty promises. Otherwise known as clickbait.

        • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:31

          The 5th one is just outright misinformation. The title:

          >DOGE says it's saved $105 billion, though it's backtracked on some of its earlier claims

      • By toast0 2025-03-053:27

        > Illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border down 94% from last year, Border Patrol chief says

        Economic migrants stop appearing when the future of the economy starts looking bleak. You can also make housing affordable by encouraging murders on the street.

      • By scarface_74 2025-03-053:171 reply

        TSMC announced investments in the US in 2020 and 2022.

        It later came out that the DOGE numbers are innacurate. Even if they were accurate, the US budget is 7 Trillion. The tax cuts that Trump is proposing is much more than all of the cuts.

        • By galimalint 2025-03-053:191 reply

          the $100 billion investment in 2025 is new. the first investment in 2020 is also from trump first term.

          doge has only been at work for 45 days, give it time. it's starting to look into military and medicare already.

          • By scarface_74 2025-03-053:263 reply

            There is no way that conservatives are going to let DOGE touch Medicare that and social security are the third rail and he can’t cut either one without Congress. What is he going to do? Not send checks to senior citizens?

            The minute you cut military spending - again you can’t do it without Congress - Republicans are going to grow a spine.

            Do you remember the FoxConn investment that never happened?

            https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back...

            • By chrsig 2025-03-053:491 reply

              > he can’t cut either one without Congress. What is he going to do? Not send checks to senior citizens?

              cut it anyway then deal with the 'consequences' in court. obviously.

              • By scarface_74 2025-03-053:551 reply

                The minute that Republicans allow one penny of cuts to social security, senior citizens - the most active voters - are going to abandon the Republican Party in droves. It might even turn Florida Blue again.

                If they cut Medicare reimbursements or force senior citizens to pay more, it will have the same affect.

                Modifying health care benefits that people already have has hurt Democrats in 2010 with the ACA and Republicans in 2018 trying to repeal it.

                • By chrsig 2025-03-055:04

                  no...they'll just let the seniors die.

            • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-03-054:03

              > What is he going to do? Not send checks to senior citizens?

              Yes, he's going to do precisely that. Musk will identify that some segment of the recipients is "fraud", or identify some employees who play a critical role in the processing pipeline as "waste". Then when the first senior citizens stop getting their checks, he'll call the reporters who talk about it liars or blame the Social Security Administration for "malicious compliance".

              I don't necessarily expect you to believe me, even though he's already run this playbook in multiple other agencies. I'm just some guy on the Internet. But when you read the headlines in a couple months about missed Social Security payments, I hope you'll remember this comment, and adjust accordingly for your future predictions about what the administration wouldn't dare touch.

            • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:38

              >There is no way that conservatives are going to let DOGE touch Medicare that and social security are the third rail and he can’t cut either one without Congress. What is he going to do?

              I've been highly disappointed everytime I said this year "there's no was X". I heard Medicaid was the same but look what's happening as we speak.

              He'll break something, bad. Maybe then people will wake up. He's already starting the astroturfing over "dead people collecting social security" because the programmers don't understand the code they are reading. That's how it starts, eroding trust in the system.

    • By zeroonetwothree 2025-03-052:441 reply

      What year was that? 1999?

      • By acdha 2025-03-053:081 reply

        I know it’s been a long 43 days, but the average American didn’t see daily news updates affecting their life before January 20th.

    • By jameslk 2025-03-053:063 reply

      This could be an interesting topic, but inevitably these posts devolve into politics and it’s always about the same thing. Yet this is the type of comment at the top. Why bother leaving a comment like this?

      • By kadoban 2025-03-053:482 reply

        You appear to be asking people to keep politics out of politics. What am I missing?

        • By pfannkuchen 2025-03-055:181 reply

          More like asking people to focus on the economic considerations because the political discussion is boring and repetitive, I think.

          • By lazide 2025-03-056:401 reply

            Is invading Greenland really all that boring?

            • By pfannkuchen 2025-03-057:182 reply

              Have people not noticed that Trump seems to habitually make hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements?

              Like it’s not doing him any favors, I tend to feel it’s some kind of personality defect.

              Though it did get him a lot of attention in the past, which substantially led to him becoming president.

              Either he can’t turn it off, or the decade plus of increasingly internet centric media exposure among the general population just selected for a guy who had obvious populist but not too radical views and also makes ridiculous statements to get attention.

              Greenland will not be taken by force. The reminder of a possibility of force may be used as leverage in the negotiation. The messaging is kind of whacky, but it would make sense to broadcast the threat widely to achieve credibility. Like “he’s so crazy he might just pull the trigger”.

              • By lazide 2025-03-058:131 reply

                I have a lot of experience with this kind of person. I personally will bet real money that the US has troops in Greenland within a year, and is claiming it as US territory.

                In my experience, the ‘personality defect’ you are thinking of is what many folks would call ‘malignant narcissistic personality disorder’. He only wants Greenland because someone once told him he couldn’t have it, and it gets him attention every time he brings it up.

                It wouldn’t surprise me if he has no actual idea what Greenland actually is like, and has never visited it. He might even be confused between Iceland and Greenland, if you asked him to point to Greenland on an unlabeled map.

                Plenty of other people though would benefit from the strife created by him actually taking it, or from him being happy with them by actually getting it for him, so I expect there are active plans in motion right now to invade Greenland.

                He’s telling everyone what he wants to do, no one is delivering real consequences to stop him, and he is in charge. Listen to what he’s saying.

                Refusing to take him ‘seriously’ and actually act against him, is exactly what normalizes his actions when he later does the thing that seemed crazy a month or a year ago.

                Look at what he was saying that seemed crazy and hyperbolic a year or two ago. Look at what he is doing now, and no one is stopping him.

                • By pfannkuchen 2025-03-059:153 reply

                  Yes, I agree that the personality defect is a form of narcissism.

                  I think, though, that the narcissism mechanism acts a bit differently than you say.

                  I think he sees himself as a great man, a man who can see further than others, a man who gets things done and above all a man who makes deals. I’m not saying his is any those things, he’s not, just that this is how he narcissistically sees himself.

                  Interestingly, I think this disordered thinking is probably what makes him not give any shits about what other people think. Like, from his perspective he’s going to do a thing that will be unpopular because people are myopic, but eventually his results will be too obvious to ignore. Picture a narcissistic software engineer, they do the same thing. He does this very clumsily, because he is not actually a great man in the way he sees himself, and he has never made any attempt to work on his personality shortcomings, because narcissism.

                  To be absolutely clear, this is what I think is occurring in his mind, I am not personally saying that he is a great man etc. His self perception as that is just what drives how he acts.

                  Anyway, he does want Greenland. Taking Greenland would make him a major historical figure, from the perspective of a man (himself) who developed his sense of historical significance from literal school history books, not from any deep thinking. Physics phds want to be the guy in the physics textbook. He wants to be the guy in the history textbook. Annexing Greenland would give him that.

                  However, he will not use physical force to achieve that. I would put big money on that prediction. It doesn’t fit with his m/o. He is bluffing about using physical force, in order to strong arm Denmark into a purchase deal. Because, you know, he sees himself as a master deal maker. Doing a deal on Greenland would be a massive win for that aspect of his persona, in terms of that self belief being supported in the narcissistic sense.

                  Using physical force on Greenland would be literally insane, and if you listen to the man talk for a long enough time, as I have, he has shown signs of being many, many things, but being literally insane is not one of them. Nothing he has done so far has surprised me (with the exception of the Gulf of America, he did catch me off guard with that one).

                  His supporters don’t really care about Greenland. I think from their perspective, Trump does some pretty goofy stuff, but if he’s the guy who will do something about 1) the Mexicans and 2) the trade policies that created the rust belt, then he’s their guy.

                  • By jemmyw 2025-03-0513:071 reply

                    The problem comes when he thinks about making a deal that can't be made. Denmark can't sell Greenland. It's just not possible within their framework of relationship with the citizens of Greenland. So what will he do when it doesn't pan out? I don't know. We're seeing the same thing with Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not yet in a position where peace is possible. He wants to be seen making the peace. It can't happen, so he's going to punish Ukraine because they lost the blame game.

                    • By lazide 2025-03-067:141 reply

                      What do you think the odds are that Denmark would ‘start’ a war between the US and NATO over Greenland?

                      That answer is why he’ll almost certainly end up ‘taking’ Greenland.

                      • By jemmyw 2025-03-0610:061 reply

                        No, they won't go to war over it. But it'll be the end of the post war consensus, probably the end of NATO. It's a cliff, once you go over it there's no coming back.

                        • By lazide 2025-03-0611:021 reply

                          He’s literally said he wants to get the US out of NATO multiple times, because it’s a ‘bad deal’.

                          • By jemmyw 2025-03-0712:031 reply

                            Yeah I know. Not arguing, just pointing out it's not a small move. He's said a lot of stuff, but hasn't yet put the US in a position with it's allies that can't be rowed back.

                            • By lazide 2025-03-085:06

                              How long do you think until he does?

                              Personally, I figure a month or less.

                  • By Tainnor 2025-03-0510:36

                    > and if you listen to the man talk for a long enough time, as I have, he has shown signs of being many, many things, but being literally insane is not one of them

                    I guess the disconnect comes from the fact that for many people including myself, the perception has always been of the exact opposite.

                  • By lazide 2025-03-0510:56

                    It depends entirely on the definition of insanity, eh?

                    I don’t think he is clinically insane, or incompetent in a court of law insane. Deep down he knows what the truth is, or he couldn’t do what he is doing. You can’t go in the opposite direction of something if part of you doesn’t know where it actually is.

                    NPD is a disorder, which isn’t the psychological definition of insanity either.

                    He just refuses to believe or acknowledge anything that doesn’t reinforce his world view, regularly preferring (and enforcing on others) his delusional world view instead, which has him as a strong man, excellent deal maker, etc.

                    He also goes out of his way to destroy anyone who disagrees with his delusional world view, to the point of committing what appears to be clear criminal acts to do so, and prefers coercive control over any sort of mutually beneficial bargaining.

                    It all fits.

                    Look at the consistent outcome for people who are around or under the control of malignant narcissists, and you’ll see why this is a big problem. He is going to end up destroying everything valuable or real in everything he has control over in his attempt to make it fit his world view, and destroy anyone he can who attempts to stop it.

                    If economic means don’t work, he has assassinated folks before, and while yes it doesn’t fit his MO to start wars directly - at some point it’s going to happen.

                    All it takes is for someone to stand up to him in the right circumstances.

                    If he can take Greenland, and sees no real consequences (he certainly didn’t get any for taking out the Iranian general, despite hundreds of service member injuries), even if it involves force - seriously, why wouldn’t he in your world view?

                    And do you think the cowards currently in power elsewhere are going to risk starting WW3 for a bunch of ice? Greenland only has 56k people in the whole country, and most of them are rural farmers who will never have to care what gov’t is actually running the country.

                    Oh, and here it is again today - he’s going to ‘make them rich’ [https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-people-greenland-we-will...].

              • By lawn 2025-03-058:431 reply

                Saying crazy things like implementing general tariffs?

                Or wanting to create "camps" to hold immigrants, and then sending them to Guantanamo?

                Things like threatening retaliations against perceived enemies?

                Withdrawing support from Ukraine and groveling to Putin?

                I'm pretty tired of people dismissing his crazy outbursts as something he just says because he's not just all talk, he (too) often does the crazy things.

                • By pfannkuchen 2025-03-059:371 reply

                  [flagged]

                  • By bodiekane 2025-03-0514:032 reply

                    I like that you did a full 180 between your two comments in this thread.

                    First it was "Trump seems to habitually make hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements" to pretend it's all talk and not representative of actual policy.

                    And then a complete switch to supporting all of the policies which started as "hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements" on tariffs, immigration and Russian imperialism.

                    Also, it seems your worldview is straight out of a fairy tale from Fox News and/or Russian propaganda. Maybe reading some more diverse and less biased news sources would help you (AP News, BBC, Bloomberg, WSJ, Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc)

                    • By pfannkuchen 2025-03-096:30

                      It’s not a full 180, you are just viewing a flattened lower dimensional version of what I am saying (I can speculate on the reasons).

                      Hyperbolic and ridiculous statements include: annexing Greenland by force, annexing Canada at all, permanent significantly higher tariffs on Canada and Mexico

                      Actual goals: maybe annexing Greenland through pressure tactics, making Canada stop expecting special treatment (the whole annexation thing is just “if you want special treatment, you’re welcome to become a state, otherwise gtfo”), temporary tariffs as a pressure tactic on allies, permanent protectionist tariffs against China and places that launder Chinese goods, America stops interfering in extended family disputes internationally.

                      For the record I think Trump as a person is a clown and I wish we had serious people as politicians, but it is annoying to see everyone being hysterical all the time over the guy.

                      I am calling your worldview fairy tale because it moralizes political and international matters. Russia is not evil. America is not good. America is not evil. Russia is not good. These are massive oversimplifications, and it is worryingly reminiscent of war propaganda from old newspapers.

                    • By _DeadFred_ 2025-03-0521:17

                      Average "I'm middle of the road with regard to politics" American.

        • By jameslk 2025-03-053:561 reply

          Straw man

      • By Ar-Curunir 2025-03-053:142 reply

        You realize that the only reason this is a topic of discussion is because of politics, right?

        • By jameslk 2025-03-053:331 reply

          No? I see comments here discussing things other than politics

          • By consteval 2025-03-055:101 reply

            You don't, you just don't understand how they're intrinsically linked to politics. That's not me being mean, because a lot of the time it isn't obvious. But, you would be shocked how often you can trace an exact bill or executive order that is causing the thing people are thinking about.

            I mean, you can trace various seemingly random effects today to Reagan policies.

            • By jameslk 2025-03-056:09

              I responded to a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43263416

              Essentially, yes those other comments are linked to politics. All things could be extrapolated to politics. That doesn't mean we should directly talk about the political aspects, otherwise it drowns out curious discussion

        • By MichaelZuo 2025-03-053:411 reply

          There rarely seem to be any substantive discussion in these types of threads, beyond vibes or repeating tautologies and talking points.

          Over the past few months I doubt there have even been 10 discussions total with some non-circular, credible, arguments along with some coherent logic backing them…

          • By ty6853 2025-03-053:461 reply

            Both right wing economists like Friedman and Mises, and left wing, understand initiating tariff wars against friendly neighbors is economically illiterate. No persons of educated thinking have anything fundamental to add.

            There is nothing to discuss. What we are witnessing is, to be crass, an exercise of pure idiocy.

            • By MichaelZuo 2025-03-053:552 reply

              Based on what logic…?

              There’s not a widely agreed upon definition of intelligence last time I checked. So it seems impossible for “idiocy” to be any better defined.

              There’s not even such an agreement that all human adults are even sentient in the first place, or what the critical threshold is.

              • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:291 reply

                >Based on what logic

                That trump's narrative of what tariffs are is a lie and that these do not in fact help the economy. They can help, but not the way trump is using the tools.

                >There’s not a widely agreed upon definition of intelligence last time I checked.

                >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

                https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

                • By MichaelZuo 2025-03-054:501 reply

                  How does this relate to the prior claim?

                  It’s clearly possible for people to have ulterior goals and motives… so assessments based on outward usages, of anything, seem irrelevant to determining intelligence, or the lack of it.

                  • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-055:011 reply

                    This is my first reply to you, AFAIK. So I'm not sure what the thoughts are of the claim up the chain.

                    I'm not interested in this tangent here that you keep trying to veer on. Point it many economists know this trade war is not good for the economy. The history of this is as recent as Trump 45.

                    • By MichaelZuo 2025-03-055:471 reply

                      This doesn’t make sense. Of course I know you are a different user, otherwise I would have reiterated the unanswered question directly.

                      • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-055:501 reply

                        I'm not a mind reader and my question was never focused on that part of the conversation. I have no opinion on the aforementionedtamgent. What are you asking me about (since you won't engage in the original conversation)

              • By beveldropshadow 2025-03-061:42

                You really got him good..?

      • By thunkingdeep 2025-03-053:161 reply

        [flagged]

        • By jameslk 2025-03-053:321 reply

          [flagged]

          • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:261 reply

            >When did I say that?

            I interpreated as such here:

            >inevitably these posts devolve into politics

            • By jameslk 2025-03-054:341 reply

              It looks like your interpreter might be buggy

              • By thunkingdeep 2025-03-055:421 reply

                For what it’s worth it wasn’t me that flagged your reply.

                All I’m saying is that politics is as intertwined with technology news as much as economics or religion or pop culture or anything else, and imho should be considered as equally valid sidebar conversations as the others.

                If we can’t talk about things that make people uncomfortable, sicko people will take control of those very things and we will all suffer down the road. Better to just bite the bullet and let it all hang out.

                • By jameslk 2025-03-056:061 reply

                  It's alright, I'm not shy to the flagging and downvotes. I appreciate your thoughtful response

                  From my understanding, your argument is a variation of "many/all things are politics and therefore politics cannot be disentangled from the topic" which I've seen others mention before. Sure, you can find ways to connect things to certain policies and politicians and then talk about that solely. Yes, economics becomes politics and recent tariffs are certainly policy-related. That doesn't mean we must discuss the political aspects of it.

                  The problem becomes that jumping to politics is very polarizing, identity-driven, and quickly drowns out curious discussion. The OP made a political statement, which won him easy points to push his comment to the top since there are so many who share the mindset of OP's comment. Any discussion about things not directly related to politics was pushed down. The effect happens across threads so frequently that no other conversation is left but politics. Those who don't want to talk politics spend time elsewhere, creating a feedback loop.

                  PG has a great essay about this here: https://paulgraham.com/identity.html

                  • By thunkingdeep 2025-03-057:45

                    I mean, I see where you’re coming from. In a direct democracy system like HN or Reddit, this is indeed a problem.

                    I was approaching the topic with a smidge of nuance and perhaps that was not clear, and I’m sorry.

                    Identity is definitely an issue in modern political culture, but I don’t know if PG can solve it anymore than you and I can. I think people just need to recognize and appreciate conjunctive nuances in their own opinions. Politics is identity AND culture AND religion etc etc. that’s my contention anyways.

                    Thanks for the thoughtful reply yourself!

  • By Sabinus 2025-03-052:1814 reply

    Any bets on how this will be justified by Trump voters?

    I'm thinking at first it'll be 'playing hardball negotiating tactic' and when it looks like the tariffs are here to stay 'paying more is patriotic'.

    • By throwaway657656 2025-03-052:272 reply

      "These are external taxes paid by the exporting countries. Beautiful tariffs will allow the US to eliminate the IRS and replace it with an ERS".

      Basically no point in even having a conversation about it. The same way you don't discuss evolution with someone who thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

      • By tombert 2025-03-053:12

        This is so frustrating, because of course manufacturing countries aren't going to operate at a loss, so whatever price increase that happens will be paid for by the consumer eventually.

        And if they eliminated the IRS because the ERS covers all our expenses, that would effectively mean that we have shifted all of our income tax revenue away from relatively wealthy high-earners to the poor (who currently pay little to no income tax), since the poor have to buy items at the price they're listed.

      • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:454 reply

        Who pays the tariff depends on the relative elasticity of supply and demand.

        • By crazygringo 2025-03-053:061 reply

          It is extremely rare for manufacturers to absorb the tariffs.

          Profit margins in most industries simply aren't high enough to cover it. A business can't absorb 20-25% tariffs if its profit margin is only 5%.

          And manufacturing is particularly known for its low profit margins.

          So no. I mean, in theory you are technically correct. But the way elasticity works in practice is that the buyer is who pays the tariffs in virtually all circumstances.

        • By mitthrowaway2 2025-03-053:041 reply

          Is your reasoning that the supplier has the option of eating the tariff by cutting prices, such that the price paid by the purchaser remains the same?

          If they had that much margin headroom available to cut prices by 20% and remain profitable, wouldn't that basically prove that they weren't dumping product in the first place?

          • By throwaway48476 2025-03-053:12

            What I stated is the textbook definition.

            For suppliers with fixed costs there are strong incentives to lower prices to stimulate demand sufficient to maintain utilization where possible. The commodity NAND market is an example of this. The fabs are extremely sensitive to utilization which leads to wild profit and loss swings.

        • By insonable 2025-03-053:11

          sure, and a good baseline assumption for most consumer goods is that price elasticity of demand is pretty low in the short term, so consumers pay most of the tariff. then in the long run perhaps things change and more non-tariffed substitutes become available resulting in maybe a 50/50 split of "who pays" (after all, the substitutes didn't have comparative advantage before, so are probably a bit more costly to produce). in any case, total quantity sold will be less, consumers benefit less, and suppliers benefit less... but the government does get revenue.

        • By baby_souffle 2025-03-054:49

          Can you give a few examples of this?

    • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:37

      Its very very stupid. Tariffs can work but not like this. A good tariff policy would be targeted at a strategic industry, have a long phase in period, and have a guarantee that it won't be removed quickly. Businesses don't like risk, especially if you want them to commit to building a new factory in the US with a decade long payback period.

    • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-052:414 reply

      well, going to r/conservative, top answer in a tarriff thread:

      >To influence companies to produce their goods domestically instead of internationally. What is so hard to understand about this?

      So they are stuck in Just World Land.

      another top comment linked this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-pr...

      So they more or less buy into "The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl"

      P.S. more than happy to take suggestions of a better forum representing conservative opinion

      • By tmpz22 2025-03-053:192 reply

        r/conservative is a bad litmus test. Between AI-driven bots (read comment histories!), flair-only posts, and chronically online users it's a terrible reflection of the average American who identifies as conservative.

        We need to stop reaching for the easiest data source just because we're desperate for a data source. There's a reason great research is hard - mostly because it requires stupendous effort (and funding!) to get reliable results.

        • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-053:41

          >We need to stop reaching for the easiest data source just because we're desperate for a data source.

          I agree. Pretty much all internet sources are inherently biased due to response bias, so there's no fixing that without talking to such people face to face (which is a bit hard in my area).

          But if you aggregate enough data you can at least start to see some sort of prevailing trends and sentiments. So I am open to better sources and some biased/compromised forums are still better that choosing to be trapped in an echo chamber. I have browsed around on other comments sections from news sources and the results unfortunately make Reddit look like a think-tank.

        • By JeremyNT 2025-03-0514:40

          > r/conservative is a bad litmus test. Between AI-driven bots (read comment histories!), flair-only posts, and chronically online users it's a terrible reflection of the average American who identifies as conservative

          Sure, the average American who identifies as conservative just shows up every 4 years and hits the R without giving it much though. Thinking about them doesn't really give us much either.

          I think /r/conservative tells us a lot, even if it's not representative of the constituency. The President is driven by memes and is extremely online. The "vibes" in /r/conservative (and on X, The Everything App) are extremely relevant, because these are the audiences Trump plays to.

      • By bluGill 2025-03-053:033 reply

        What ever happened to the free market consevatives? The ones who were proud to work with Clinton to pass NAFTA in the first place.

        • By klipt 2025-03-053:07

          Heck Trump himself negotiated USMCA his last term and is now apparently reneging on his own agreement?

          "A Trump never keeps his word"

          "A Trump never pays his debts"

          I don't know if it's dementia or if Putin has compromising info on him, but he seems intent on speed running the tearing apart of the west.

        • By guyfromfargo 2025-03-053:21

          [dead]

        • By balls187 2025-03-053:201 reply

          They got tired of nonsensical progressive social policies and threw in their hat with a politician that wins, a lot.

          Pre-Trump the 2nd, it seemed to me that conservative view-points were being “shouted down.”

          Anecdotally I recall even on HN conservative views weren’t looked too kindly.

          Remember that Google engineer who had an odd-take about less qualified Googlers, and getting ostracized for it?

          • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-053:382 reply

            I never particularly thought of "free trade" as a conservative policy. I thought it was fairly bipartisan that large corporations want to get the cheapest prices for stuff (which often is not within the US).

            • By bluGill 2025-03-053:571 reply

              Clinton wasn't able to get a significant number of his own party to vote for it while significant numbers of republicans supported it. At the time free trade was a rebuplican talking point and many democrats opposed it.

              • By andelink 2025-03-055:321 reply

                Because NAFTA is the brainchild of Reagan. Bush Sr worked out most of the policy with CA/MX. Finally, Clinton signed it into law, with little influence on the policies overall.

                • By bluGill 2025-03-0512:45

                  Clinton pushed congress to pass it. He may not have had influence to the content (this is false - he added two amendments and had opportunity to restart talks on anything he cared about, though he may have decided some things were not worth bothering with it was still his choice) but he used his influence to get it passed in congress. It was his right to refuse to send it to congress.

            • By balls187 2025-03-053:443 reply

              As far as I am aware, Free Trade was a clinton era policy, which sparked globalization. Yes it cost American industry jobs, but gave rise to a significant boom in non manufacturing jobs.

              • By verdverm 2025-03-053:591 reply

                Free trade and globalization have been around a lot longer than most of us here have been alive, maybe all of is

                It has been a rising tide that lifts all boats on our blue marble

                • By rsynnott 2025-03-0510:501 reply

                  All of us, presuming that there's no-one here aged over 200.

                  • By verdverm 2025-03-0514:56

                    I hear the bicentennials are happily collecting social security or serving in congress

              • By cmrdporcupine 2025-03-058:28

                The FTA was Reagan/Mulroney era policy. It was enacted by conservatives on both sides of the border, and the liberals on both sides "opposed" it (and then had a religious conversion once they took power again, and supported its successor, NAFTA).

                The 88 election debate in Canada is famous for the confrontations around this topic. I was in my early teens it was the first election debate I remember watching and having strong opinions about.

              • By rsynnott 2025-03-0510:48

                "Free trade", as a named policy position, goes back to the 19th century, though as a _thing_ it's somewhat older.

                In particular it was a major political controversy in the UK for most of the 19th century.

      • By llamaimperative 2025-03-053:11

        Nothing says “I need to relocate my supply chain” like 24 hours of tariffs

      • By roshin 2025-03-054:591 reply

        I didn't formally verify it, but during the Russian internet blackout, r/conservative was very quiet. I assume that the responses you read on that forum are not from actual US conservatives. After reddit purged most conservative subs (in 2 waves, when Trump 1 began and when Trump 1 ended), I don't think you'll find any conservative subreddits.

        Unfortunately, I haven't found a forum that's accessible and with lots of conservatives. You have some on X and you have YouTube channels. Both are harder to engage with.

        • By jeltz 2025-03-059:16

          Reddit purged them due to infections by what you complain about for /r/conservative.

    • By SSchick 2025-03-052:222 reply

      Plenty of videos around, default rethoric is to 'give them time, they said it would hurt at first' which sounds awfully close what people in abusive relationships would say now that I think about it.

      • By HKH2 2025-03-053:061 reply

        It also sounds like delayed gratification.

        • By ok_dad 2025-03-057:44

          Masochistic edging, perhaps.

      • By MrMcCall 2025-03-052:37

        Or just very stupid, hateful losers.

    • By cmrdporcupine 2025-03-052:263 reply

      There's already talk about the tariffs being curtailed tomorrow. Which got the stock market all hopeful at end of day.

      Which I'm sure if this happens, will be accompanied by some bullshit claims of some concessions he supposedly obtained.

      And a lot of people in-the-know who made easy coin on the stock market today.

      And his followers will eat it up. Last month there was all sorts of blather on social media about how "Trudeau caved" because "Trump strong" etc. despite Canada simply re-iterating the same position it had had since December.

      • By slavik81 2025-03-052:453 reply

        It's hard to overstate how pissed off Canadians are about Trump's threats to annex Canada through economic bullying. People I know who have never boycotted anything are now boycotting US goods and services. There will be long-term consequences even if it's walked back tomorrow.

        • By klipt 2025-03-053:36

          100 years of friendship thrown away by a demented Russian asset president.

        • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:57

          Its a brand equity bonfire.

        • By cmrdporcupine 2025-03-052:56

          Yeah I am generally not a nationalist by conviction or intellect but this stuff has me tearing up to the national anthem and putting stuff back on the shelf at the grocery store.

      • By plagiarist 2025-03-052:31

        Classic Elon Musk securities fraud to publicly declare things, whether true or false, which move the market.

      • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:42

        [flagged]

    • By jmyeet 2025-03-052:321 reply

      Oh, we've already seen it. I believe Fox News has already come out and said it's "patriotic" to pay higher egg prices.

      We live in a post-fact world. There are no principles in play. The key organizing principle of this society is cruelty. Truth is simply what powerful people say it is.

      And there's no opposition to any of it. Our supposed political opposition is way more interested in crushing progressive sentiment and voices within their party. They are completely complicit in what's now going on.

      • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-03-052:47

        Fox - remarkably - were explaining that it would in fact make most things much, much more expensive.

        I think support is ambivalent, at best.

        A few people are going to short hard and make out like bandits. But all-party social unrest on a huge scale is going to kick off long before they can fulfil their dream of buying up the entire country for pennies.

        Cooler heads understand this.

    • By tayo42 2025-03-052:361 reply

      R/conservative on reddit has some real time spin on everything

      My irl interactions make it seem like they're not even aware of what's been happening

    • By inverted_flag 2025-03-053:24

      Not sure about the higher prices, but the coming recession is being talked about in MAGA circles as a correction and a fault of the Fed.

    • By dehrmann 2025-03-052:381 reply

      I did start wondering what Trump (or any leader with loyal supporters) would have to do, or what outcomes supporters would have to see, to lose support.

      • By speed_spread 2025-03-053:52

        The leader can do no wrong. All its decisions are justified and without nuance. The idea of questioning the logic doesn't even exist. It's a cult.

    • By codazoda 2025-03-052:4514 reply

      I haven’t paid attention to the politics here much, but isn’t driving up the price the point?

      If you charge Canada a 25% tariff then products sold in the U.S. and shipped from Canada should cost U.S. consumers about 25% more. That, in turn, makes U.S. products look more attractive. A U.S. business pays taxes at the federal and state levels. A U.S. business also hires U.S. employees, who pay taxes as well and spend into the economy.

      I’m sure I’m way over simplifying this, to the point of stupidity, but tariffs raise prices on foreign goods to encourage the sale and/or development of local goods, don’t they?

      • By rsynnott 2025-03-0510:52

        > I’m sure I’m way over simplifying this, to the point of stupidity

        This is, to an extent, the problem, yes.

        There are plenty of problems, but here's one very obvious one; your own industry almost certainly depends heavily on imports, particularly if you're a developed country. If you basically only have primary industry, then this sort of protectionism can _theoretically_ work and allow development of secondary industry (though in practice there aren't many examples of this), but for a developed country it really makes very little sense.

        You're also assuming that local industry _will_ compete on price, versus just accepting the newly-set tariff-induced base price. That will happen in some cases, but not all; in particular for near-monopolistic industries (cars, a lot of heavy consumer goods like kitchen appliances), really, it makes a lot of sense for them to raise their prices under such circumstances.

      • By dmalik 2025-03-053:101 reply

        > I’m sure I’m way over simplifying this, to the point of stupidity, but tariffs raise prices on foreign goods to encourage the sale and/or development of local goods, don’t they?

        What about all the businesses that export products or the ones that rely on imports. Businesses go bankrupt, prices go up for everyone and less people have jobs.

        • By verdverm 2025-03-054:01

          We had to bail out soy bean farmers last time to the tune of $25B. That's just one instance of how they backfired and did more harm than good

      • By theluketaylor 2025-03-053:371 reply

        Way over simplifying.

        A study was done on washing machine prices during tariffs of the previous Trump administration. Rather than undercutting foreign goods on price, local manufacturing raised their prices to absorb extra profit. As a kicker, the price of dryers also went up even though they were not subject to tariffs.

        The US and Canadian economies have become deeply intermingled over generations. Many materials cross the border multiple times on the way to becoming finished goods and will be subject to tariff each time. There will be 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects for a long time even if these tariffs go away quickly, not to mention the poisoning of the closest relationship between nations the world has ever seen.

        My fellow Canadians are horrified and enraged at the tariffs that amount to economic warfare and the continuous violations of our sovereignty. I have never seen the whole country this united on anything before. Canadians are furious and every grocery store has American produce rotting on shelves. We will not forgive and forget quickly.

        https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190611

        • By sigmar 2025-03-053:48

          >Rather than undercutting foreign goods on price, local manufacturing raised their prices to absorb extra profit.

          For another source on this point quoted above- (and for people that prefer video explainers) the wall street journal covered how domestically produced washers/dryers went up in price after those tariffs: https://youtu.be/_-eHOSq3oqI?t=102

      • By cmrdporcupine 2025-03-053:04

        Depending on elasticity of demand and supply it will drive up the US made products (if they exist) at the same time.

        Also encouraging people to produce the stuff locally only works if they can rely on the stability of the market.

        Plus there's an intrinsic advantage that exporters in lower wage zones have over the domestic market. US workers are paid more than Canadian, and certainly paid a hell of a lot more than Chinese ones. So whatever is made domestically is just intrinsically more expensive.

        You can make an argument for protectionism and self-sufficiency on various basis. But you can't make a good argument for erratic and sudden and unreliable protectionism.

      • By HarHarVeryFunny 2025-03-053:17

        50% of fruit sold in US, and 60% of vegetables come from Mexico. How is US going to replace that in winter?

      • By warkdarrior 2025-03-052:522 reply

        That is the theory. But there is no incentive for US manufacturers to compete on price. If the product from China costs $100 (including the tariff), the same product from US will be $99.99. Selling it any cheaper would be stupid.

        • By WillPostForFood 2025-03-053:062 reply

          That would only be conceivable if there was a single domestic manufacturer. You don't need a foreign product to keep prices honest in a competitive domestic market.

          • By mlinhares 2025-03-053:14

            You do, actually. Countries that have succeeded with tariffs to "build an industry" eventually forced their companies to compete in the foreign market (look at Japan and South Korea) so that they would not be fake leaders.

            These markets produced actually competitive businesses that thrived and outcompeted the market leaders (US and European companies) in multiple industries. So if you keep tariffs forever you end up with Russia or some other backwater where people are forced to buy shitty goods because you have no access to external markets.

            The computer market in Brazil, for instance, was like that. Most of what we had were pirated hardware, because there was never an effort to create a real industry in the country, they would just copy and paste whatever was available out there and "launch" in the local market, so even with years of tariffs and protectionism the country did not produce any player in the computer manufacturing market.

          • By rsynnott 2025-03-0510:58

            See the Soviet and East German automobile industries, and to a large extent the British one pre-European accession. Hideously outdated and uncompetitive, years behind the rest of the world, and both vanished practically completely when the protectionist systems which kept them alive collapsed. When the government more or less makes people buy your shit no matter how bad it is, on the basis that it is the only option that isn't taxed into oblivion, there is little incentive to make it good, and in practice this does seem to hold up to a large extent even when there are a few local competitors.

        • By throwaway48476 2025-03-052:591 reply

          This isn't 'wrong' but only accounts for a two party market.

          • By KajMagnus 2025-03-053:201 reply

            That's interesting, so, prices might not drop to pre-tariff levels, until not just one, but many, manufacturers appear in the US, and start competing on price (well, obviously, I guess some would say)

      • By Marsymars 2025-03-0521:00

        The other replies missed a big issue with the tariffs - which is that you're not wrong, but tariffs basically guarantee counter-tariffs, which means that while you're no longer buying imports, you're also no longer able to competitively export. In the case of Canada, if you don't include raw resources, the US has a trade surplus, so tariffs make the inputs of your value-added-over-raw-resources local goods more expensive while also cutting down the export market.

      • By rodgerd 2025-03-053:53

        It's stupider than that - a lot of people believe that the manufacturer will just eat a 25% hike in tax. Build a tariff wall and make China pay, as it were.

      • By kieranmaine 2025-03-053:15

        Don't forget retaliatory tariffs impacting exporters. See

        From "Donald Trump’s tariffs will bring ‘nothing but pain’ to rural America, farmers say - " https://www.ft.com/content/ba4569d3-3c54-47d9-90af-125751434...

        "Trump’s last trade war, with China in 2018...led to $27bn in losses for US agriculture, according to estimates by farming groups..farms received as much as $23bn in compensation from the federal government"

      • By klipt 2025-03-053:331 reply

        If tariffs are such a great idea, should California slap tariffs on Florida oranges to protect its domestic orange growers?

        • By fingerlocks 2025-03-056:27

          Oh they would have tried if it wasn’t for that pesky commerce clause in the constitution

      • By ipaddr 2025-03-053:04

        They also raise the price of local foods because the materials they import cost more.

      • By nwatson 2025-03-053:02

        The time and expense to set up a manufacturing line for anything nontrivial is large. And Trump's policy volatility makes the risk completely not worth it.

      • By mitthrowaway2 2025-03-053:07

        Yes, but with Trump you have to wonder if the tariffs will be reversed in three weeks when he has a change of mood. So it may not drive long-term investment in factories and supply chains, just a short term advantage for companies that already have local product.

      • By throw0101a 2025-03-0512:16

        > That, in turn, makes U.S. products look more attractive.

        Unless they raise prices to get better margins since their competition has higher prices now. This is exactly what happened with Trump 1.0 tariffs: foreign product prices went up and so did domestic ones.

        > A U.S. business also hires U.S. employees, who pay taxes as well and spend into the economy.

        It takes time to on-shore, and until that happens the public is paying higher prices, potentially for a few years. So you take the total higher prices, and divide by the number of jobs created, and you can get the price per job. For washing machines it was $800K/job:

        * https://www.nber.org/papers/w25767

        There is an argument to be made that production capacity is strategic asset of course:

        * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

    • By smrtinsert 2025-03-052:26

      "Tariffs will save the free market!" or some other typical contradictory blather.

    • By wnc3141 2025-03-054:332 reply

      When your'e deified, "god works in mysterious ways" sort of thing...

      • By wnc3141 2025-03-054:34

        Fascism is not and never was about ideological coherence.

      • By deepfriedchokes 2025-03-055:52

        I read an article, can’t find it now, that the Christian right believes Trump is basically a biblical messiah like Cyrus the Great from Isaiah 45. Basically a nonbeliever who God controls to help his people.

        People believe what they want to believe.

    • By jurenbert 2025-03-052:48

      [dead]

    • By move-on-by 2025-03-052:272 reply

      No, it will be Biden’s fault for ruining the economy and causing inflation. Trump didn’t have a choice, just trying to save the economy really. Doing what’s best for the people.

      • By watwut 2025-03-056:351 reply

        Trump promised to lower inflation and eggs prices. Are those lowering?

        • By move-on-by 2025-03-0514:40

          I’m answering a question:

          > Any bets on how this will be justified by Trump voters?

          This is not what I believe

      • By dalyons 2025-03-052:541 reply

        Imagine actually believing this. Contrary to every economist and qualified takes.

        • By move-on-by 2025-03-0514:40

          I’m answering a question:

          > Any bets on how this will be justified by Trump voters?

          This is not what I believe

  • By aussieguy1234 2025-03-052:542 reply

    What's the impact here on inflation, by extension interest rates and funding available to startups?

    • By msy 2025-03-052:561 reply

      Near term inflation but more broadly increasing paralysis of business investment of all stripes in the fact of a wildly unpredictable political landscape.

      • By rogerrogerr 2025-03-052:592 reply

        The general path of the country is fairly clear at this point - business that manufacture closer to consumers will have fewer issues with the government. Even Biden kept a bunch of Trump1 anti-China policies in place.

        If I was directing investment at a large business, onshoring manufacturing would be a no brainer in many businesses. Mexico might be the happy medium, but I’d really push for US manufacturing facilities with high automation levels to hedge against labor cost.

        • By throwaway48476 2025-03-053:033 reply

          Most of the post 2016 China exit investment was to other cheaper southeast Asia countries. My phone was made in Vietnam.

          • By doctorpangloss 2025-03-053:113 reply

            Your phone was made in the US. They’re all black rectangles. The reason you picked the phone you use is because of the software, written here. All the LTV is tied up in software and services. Almost all made by Americans. To me, the status quo is very good - there can be unlimited valuable software written but people only need one phone. A policy of pro manufacturing doesn’t necessarily make sense in each specific.

            • By throwaway48476 2025-03-053:18

              The value of software without the hardware to run it on is 0. It's like starting an AI company with no GPUs.

            • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:43

              >the reason you picked the phone you use is because of the software, written here

              No, I picked it because of hardware too. You can't just say "your sandwich was made in america because the bread was made here". I didn't order bread, I ordered a whole sandwich.

              And honestly, the sentiment of the software being American made is also more suspect by the day.

            • By lukas099 2025-03-053:43

              People definitely pick phones for hardware too.

          • By runamok 2025-03-053:19

            Yup. My wife's company moved production lines from China to Thailand.

          • By rsanek 2025-03-053:531 reply

            which is a win! less concentration in a single country, particularly a hostile one, is a positive outcome

            • By johnnyanmac 2025-03-054:40

              This isn't going to end with more companies building domestically. Trump disrupting the CHIPS act shows that isn't his goal.

        • By verdverm 2025-03-053:53

          If it is half the cost to produce it over seas, 25% more is still much less than on shoring. On shoring is more than just the CoG, it requires capital investment which may no longer be needed in a year or four. It's not a simple or no brainer decision for most of the tariff targets with them being so broad

    • By tmpz22 2025-03-053:13

      Massive wealth redistribution to the ultra-wealthy over the next 4 years. The ultra wealthy will need to find new places to invest their capital, so some form of startup funding will remain available even as research funding dries up.

      Creating startups will be easier as more Americans will be looking for work, leading to depressed salaries.

HackerNews