this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
496 points (99.8% liked)

politics

26252 readers
2858 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

there’s also overwhelming evidence that 2+2=4 but the people of america don’t trust the intellect anymore

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Next time, baby!

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

Well duh. How could it not? Isn't the idea to make foreign sourced goods more expensive for consumers, so competing domestic goods (if any) get sold instead at "their* higher prices? The only plus for anyone is that the extra $$ paid in tarriffs go into the Trump slush fund for ballrooms, bathrooms and direct payoff to himself. Yay.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 28 points 11 hours ago

The fact there is even a discussion around it is wild to me. Of course tariffs would raise consumer prices. That's how they work

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 104 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How did they figure that one out? Did they Open their eyes to see the most obvious fucking thing ever?

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 24 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

There actually was something in the article that surprised me:

The analysts also said consumers have paid for about 50% to 70% of the total tariff cost to date.

I was shocked it wasn't 100% to 120%. The fact that any businesses are shouldering even a portion of the tariffs is incredible. I fully expected them to go "Oh tariff is 50%? Better charge the consumer 60% just so we get our cut."

[–] Steve@startrek.website 23 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Theres a game of chicken going on. Try to hold out until the illegal tariffs are refunded so you dont lose customers.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 8 points 11 hours ago

Don't forget classic market pressure. Consumers were already struggling, if your product goes up too much many simply can't buy it

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 8 points 12 hours ago

Yup, and if they are rescinded the companies get to double dip as they get the tariffs back and don't have to share the refund with customers.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

I wonder if it is by item or by dollar value. I imagine smaller businesses are often more likely to shoulder the burder of the tariff than larger, because they are more reliant on customer satisfaction. I'm talking out of my ass, though

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 24 points 12 hours ago

...yes, that is the purpose of tariffs. Raising prices on imported goods until they become so expensive that local goods are competitive. This automatically increases consumer prices. It causes a huge shock upon introduction and over time it (in theory anyway) should promote domestic production by undercutting foreign competition.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

MAGATs: Bank of America is WOKE now!!! People go to Wells Fargo!

[–] credo@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Trump will take his sharpie and change their name to Bank of Mexico, then start an investigation into BoM’s history of funding Antifa.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 98 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

We don't care about overwhelming evidence in this administration.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Evidence is "treason"

[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 33 points 14 hours ago
[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 44 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

In other news, it appears that water is wet.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Water is not wet though, what water touches is wet

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 16 points 13 hours ago

Not this shit again.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Water that touches other water is wet.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Ah... but what is the quantum of water that you can separate from a bucket of water that then becomes "dry"?

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago

If you heat it up enough into steam, there's probably enough separation of molecules for a split microsecond at any given moment.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Surface tension.

[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The news doesn't like to commit to a position these days.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

"Unbiased!!!!" (Yeah, right)

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 hours ago

Thanks for keeping the prices in RoW stable

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 14 points 13 hours ago

Hey Bank of America, GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 38 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Shocking: making things more expensive doesn’t lower the prices!

[–] FancyPantsFIRE@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago

Hm, but what if we just haven’t tarrifed hard enough yet?

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

We just aren't importing enough bootstraps

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 35 points 16 hours ago
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They must be writing this hoping maga reads it because this is already known to everyone else.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If MAGA could read, they'd be very upset

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 2 points 8 hours ago

If MAGA could read, they'd ~~be very upset~~ applaud this as yet another win for the Trump administration

Up is down in MAGA world

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago

Tariffs have been a disaster for sure.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 15 points 16 hours ago

"zzzzzzz...FaKe NeWzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
--maga

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

Are they including the scamflation and shrinkflation in that 50-70%?

I mean, where companies have just raised costs, gone for cheaper ingredients, and messed with sizes, simply because they can?

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Journalism finds new ways to not state the obvious.