Tariffs do not always 100% immediately get passed on to buyer.
If there's a $100 product you'd like to purchase and there's a 100% tariff, it won't be $200.
That product was made abroad, let's for $20. So the tariff should be $20, not $100.
The US-based owner will go to the supplier, say they're getting squeezed by tariffs and first they'll try to see what they can do to recategorize the tariff, or negotiate with their supplier to absorb some of the expense. Let's say that got it down to $15. The owner still doesn't want to increase costs by 15%, so they'll hold off for a while and absorb, and then eventually maybe increase 5-10 and absorb further; perhaps eventually going the full stretch - maybe not.
Squeezing the supplier may work in the short term, especially for goods already ordered, and produced, which can't be sold elsewhere.
But in the short-medium term it creates uncertainty for the supplier. (The on / off / on nature of these tariffs doesn't help.) For some goods this means suppliers will develop new markets, or will adjust prices up for American purchasers.
For example, say I have an orange farm. Say I have been selling to the US for ages. Simple, reliable sale, no need to look for other customers.
This year there's turmoil. We take a hit because US buyers need a discount (or might cancel the order.) OK, I'll take the hit. But I'll also put out feelers for other markets for next years crop. Maybe Saudia Arabia is looking. Maybe Europe is looking. Next year, do I develop those relationships, or do I reserve my crop for my US buyer?
Tariffs are not necessarily the problem. They are an important long-term tool used to support local production. Uncertainty though is a huge problem- it's easier to sell elsewhere.
Seems like a mixed bag. Parents, eldest sister and eldest all have Teslas and have done cross-country road trips with no problems, and use FSD very regularly. Brother, also the most cynical (and probably on HN), swears it's out to kill him and claims it nearly put him under a truck had he not taken over.
Tesla has never published the data required to substantiate this claim.
Next what you'll post is Tesla's press release where they look at accidents per mile with no segregation by driving type (city, freeway, age of car, weather conditions, etc)
Then the next step after that should be for you to say, "huh, it actually is odd that they publish something that purports to show it's safer than human drivers, but they consistently decline to publish the data necessary to actually evaluate whether it's safer than human drivers."
Most wealthy people’s wealth is in investments. If the value of the investments goes down, there are fewer resources to “buy the dip.” It doesn’t hold water as a theory. Basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes, but investors move in and out of cash positions. Bershire Hathaway is currently sitting on $334 billion in cash. If you're an active investor, you'll have periods of both buying and selling - so you'll have cash, or you won't have cash. To assume 100% is allocated at all times is incorrect.
Investors do hold some cash, but they generally prefer not to hold a lot of it because inflation reduces its value. $44B sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it’s only around 8% of the $632B of assets they hold. (Not sure where you got your much bigger figure; mine is from their consolidated balance sheet reported in their 10-K report for Dec 31, 2024.)
They have people whose jobs it is to even out those troughs, and I don't think you realize just how wealthy the wealthiest wealthy really are. Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Larry Ellison each have a net worth that is on par with the total gross economic output of a small American metropolitan area.
> Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Larry Ellison each have a net worth that is on par with the total gross economic output of a small American metropolitan area.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Net worth is in dollars, while economic output is dollars per unit of time. The comparison does not make sense.
You didn't even say which unit of time! Hell, I have a higher net worth than the total economic output of the US, given a short enough time frame.
This level of pedantry won't play in reality against someone who just lost everything and is seeking revenge on the tech bros who they perceive as enabling all of this.
I hope lenerdenator didn't just lose everything and isn't seeking revenge on the tech bros - more likely he's a tech bro!
It's not pedantry though. It really makes no sense to compare earnings per unit of time to accumulated wealth. They are entirely different things.
Compare the wealth of Elon vs wealth of average person on the Earth, or average US citizen. Those are also mind-boggling numbers and it makes sense to compare them.
I'm sure all those billionaires who paid Trump the $1m to grin behind him are dreading the impact on their groceries and upward mobility like the rest of us. Never forget that Trump and Bezos and Zuckerberg truly think of us first and wouldn't be so antisocial as to trade your family for a little bit more.
Creatine is quite literally the most researched supplement in the world. It's safe, effective, and recommended by both gym rats and doctors in any field. It's naturally occurring in many foods.
It's the only supplement that's actually given insanely effective results for my own anecdotal use.
Any study that says otherwise I'm just going to assume is complete BS. Normally I'd give something a chance and read their evidence, but this is practically up there with someone trying to argue the world is flat for me.
I pretty much immediately bounced due to your website design. Idk how to describe it - but, I guess just too much going on? I had zero interest in actually reading any of it because it was just so... I don't know.
Turn it into a normal ol' expected ecom product page so I can actually read and just click and see things and different angles and such and I would've stayed.
I do not believe this Federal Reserve study can classify such things. It either has a metric which is so incorrect as to be worthless or a biased human judging a dataset so small as to be worthless.
There are families which cram 3 generations and a dozen people into a few hundred square feet. There are people in Hong Kong living in spaces smaller than most American kitchens. By those metrics are we ALL in excessive lodging?
Is it excessive to be in a 1600 square foot house whose mortgage is lower than rent for a 500 square foot studio because you bought when interest rates were far lower?
The Federal Reserve study classifies non-ordinary expenses with households by comparing against median data for a region. For example, having a massive house means the square footage is significantly above median for the region and classifies it as a non-ordinary expense. As far as I know, it doesn't look at interest rates on individual mortgages because I don't believe they have that data accessible. It is a pretty sophisticated multi-dimensional approach they look at household income levels, regional economic conditions, household composition, rural vs urban, local cost of living, etc. It accounts for whatever the team of economic phds who designed it could think of with the data they have available.
The point is that the Fed isn't classifying those things. "Ordinary" includes all primary mortgages, whether for a modest home or a luxury pad. It includes all personal car payments, whether for a shared Honda or a Maserati.
Tariffs do not always 100% immediately get passed on to buyer.
If there's a $100 product you'd like to purchase and there's a 100% tariff, it won't be $200.
That product was made abroad, let's for $20. So the tariff should be $20, not $100.
The US-based owner will go to the supplier, say they're getting squeezed by tariffs and first they'll try to see what they can do to recategorize the tariff, or negotiate with their supplier to absorb some of the expense. Let's say that got it down to $15. The owner still doesn't want to increase costs by 15%, so they'll hold off for a while and absorb, and then eventually maybe increase 5-10 and absorb further; perhaps eventually going the full stretch - maybe not.