this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024

68 points (98.6% liked)

Economics

444 readers

36 users here now

founded 1 year ago

Trump's tariff promises have import-heavy retailers facing 'new reality' (www.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/economics@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Following Donald Trump’s election victory, proposed tariffs of 10%-20% on general imports and 60% on Chinese goods are raising concerns across the fashion, beauty, and footwear industries.

Companies like Steve Madden, Under Armour, and e.l.f Beauty are assessing impacts, with some, such as Steve Madden, planning to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers.

Tariff fears have already affected retail stocks, and executives acknowledge the industry is now more prepared for trade disruptions.

Many brands, including Ralph Lauren and Tapestry, have diversified sourcing in anticipation of restrictive trade policies.

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think that most people really just how big of a deal a 60% tariff on Chinese goods would be. This isn't like paying a bit of extra sales tax. Nearly everything is made in China. This is going to be an absolutely devastating move, as in nearly everything suddenly doubles in price and becomes unaffordable.

How the fuck do so many people think that the economy is going to be better under Trump than Harris? I really don't get it. If the economy was one of my top issues (it isn't), then that would make me even LESS likely to vote Republican.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But things got more expensive when Biden was president, so if we put Trump in the white house prices will go back to where they were.

Also he's gonna make China pay taxes instead of us.

And he's gonna get rid of all them immigrants that are draining the economy with their... uh... crime and pet eating and stuff.

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is such a ridiculous argument. "Things are bad, so anything different MUST be better."

In the words of George Carlin: "Imagine how stupid the average person is, then realize half of all people are stupider than that."

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yes, reading your post, that Carlin quote is exactly what I thought about.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hey, it will mostly affect affordable consumer goods. High-end luxury brands will be least affected. So if you're obscenely rich, it's no issue! Problem solved!

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Rest-assured there will be exemptions for Amazon, Walmart, and any billionaire CEO that calls Trump an economic genius.

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If not, Jeff Bezos is about to go broke. These days, 99% of Amazon is imported Chinese crap, and about half of that could realistically be classified as "garbage."

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago

Amazon could go out of business tomorrow and Jeff Bezos would still not go broke.

[–] neomachino@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Thanks for this. I needed that little bit of a bright side.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago

I owe my soul to the company store.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

lol that's what they voted for

fuck them

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

And the rest of us!

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

This is going to be interesting. People make shit wages and can't afford shit as is. Add more cost to that. I'm hoping for a miracle or something.

[+] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ohh never corporate parasites will have to charge more for plastic trash nobody needs.

We got the cotton, we got the machines and know how and we got the people to make this shit properly here for a marginal surcharge

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We don't. The infrastructure just isn't there to start major manufacturing in the US at the whim of a moron. There needed to be some kind of plan in action to build something out before he tries to fuck everybody with tariffs.

[–] timetraveller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The plan was to continue to buy cheap stuff from China and forget about the problems that it created. No evidently our infrastructure does suck, what is going to make that change, price.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Correct, but who is going to bear the brunt of the cost? I'll give you a hint, it's sure as hell not gonna be Trump's cronies.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Say you've been purchasing from China but now that's looking too expensive. You bust out your Excel sheet and find out you can spin up an American factory and still crank out the goods for just a bit more than before. Great!

But you already know what's going to happen. The tariffs will cause high prices, turn out to be wildly unpopular, fuck up the economy and get rescinded. You want to get caught holding the bag with your brand new factory? Best just to ride it out, Trump will be out of office in 4-years, if not sooner.

[+] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

US manufacturing investment is highest in decades since biden providing state aid to "private" sector for these investments.

Y'all don't seem to have a grasp on the current industrial policy.

Granted garments industry is not covered but there also US made clothes if you care...

But peasants prefer to bug endless plastic trash from Temu to wear ones. This fucking accountability for brain dead consumption patterns

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bros acting like the only thing people buy is clothes, like it's the motherfucking 1800s.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

OP is literally has pictures of garments and they one of the worst offenders.

We can discuss broader Us industrial policy and tariff implications if you prefer.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The tariffs are on everything, not just clothes. But even just looking at the clothes aspect, how do you think increasing the price of clothes, which people need, will be good for the American people?

Forcing people to spend more money on stuff is not going to help them.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trarif policy will be implemented on per category basis.

We have not seen any details yet.

Price gouging increased prices with excess revenue going to corporate.

I don't even support the policy just think y'all having a melt down prematurely lol

But some tarif is warranted at the min cost a visit China and EU and jap at least to equalize them

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You don't support it but you think it's warranted?

Why not prop up local manufacturing with subsidies? You know, make things cheaper to buy.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't support prividing state aid to pad rich peoples profits.

If Us is investmenting, then it should get debt or equity at FMV like any other private investors.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay so you're an idiot great. I guess we should stop all subsidies on our fuckin food and roads then too right?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is no subsidies for roads feds own the intermediate system, states own rest of the rosds.

Agriculture subsidies aren't profits for cargill and other parasites in the US. EU has a better system but US it is just extraortioj racket.

We literallt subsidizing corpos who are poisoning and the state permits them

You got ultra normie understanding of how the world works, LARPing too much teeve, boy?

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay, so the government pays for the roads. And the government gives money to farmers. It makes food cheaper. And it keep your roads drivable.

Tariffs are just taxes on imports, so you're indirectly paying the government to buy the same things but for more money.

Why have more taxes when the government could prop up local industry instead? I'm sorry that a hard concept for you to understand bud.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And the government gives money to farmers.

Lol so you don't really know how famring subsizing operate. Cute.

It make slop cheaper for sure tho... Yum 🤡

You really should study topics you discuss esp if you are going to have this bravado.

So far you fumble with info you heard on teevee.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So are you saying that subsidies aren't money given to farmers? I mean it sounds like you're admitting that it is but don't want to?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here is an article that covers at high level my position re structuring of US DOA policy specifically but also more broadly how US federal funds are being disbursed in practice. It does not cover part where these subsidies don't result in lower prices, they are straight cash transfers into pockets of the people who owner these mega corps.

https://www.landclimate.org/the-cargill-playbook/

A basic litmus test to cross reference this thesis would be: are we getting more or less small hold farmers? Are mega corps getting bigger?

If the government is giving money to the farmers, why are we getting less farmers? Why do we have oligopolies in all key sectors of our economy.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Those issues arise from capitalism. That's going to happen regardless whether or not you have subsidies. If you wanted subsidies to only help smaller farmers then the subsidies need to work that way.

I certainly bet if the US government stopped giving out those subsidies then the price of our food would go way up.