Summary
Fox News host Julie Banderas warned that President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs—25% on products from Mexico and Canada and 10% on those from China—could significantly raise costs for Americans, as many businesses rely on foreign goods.
While some companies are shifting to U.S.-based suppliers or stockpiling goods ahead of the tariffs, Banderas noted that buying American often results in higher prices.
She highlighted that the financial burden would likely fall on consumers, questioning, “Who’s going to pay for that? We are.”
Economists have also warned of inflation risks.
The “Buy American” companies will raise their product prices to match the foreign companies hit by tariffs. Governments and corporations NEVER pay tariffs. They pass on the tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
And those price increases won’t translate to paid workers since unlike the Democrats, he doesn’t plan to properly raise minimum wage. So underpaid workers will still be underpaid, but will be hit with inflation
It will all go to share holders or management
How can a financially broken, over stressed, oppressed public fight? This is by design, to further oppress, divide and conquer. But I’ll wait over here with the other couple million people that have been screaming this for months till the shit hits the fan and we can actually start working toward a common greater good.
Now might be a good time to get into the torch and pitchfork business
That’s old school. You gotta get into the modern equivalents: Airplane tracking and semi-autonomous robotics.
BuT tHe StOcK mArKeT iS uP!
Most Americans do not follow the markets and are clueless to their existance. You are giving them too much credit.
But they have no idea when some neoliberal talking head tells them that data shows the economy is fine, that person is talking about the stock market.
Although this time around I’m not so sure that line go up. Looking for signs for when to cash out of the casino.
THINK OF THE POOR SHAREHOLDERS YOU UNGRATEFUL MONSTER. /s
I do think of them. In terms of cooking recipes. Yummy yummy shareholder steak
I’m always thinking of them.
It was fine until the 80s converted all the pensions into “mutual” funds. Now all our retirements are tied to the fucking stock market. We’re gonna need a general strick and the billionaires reckoning to fix this shit.
Since the Nixon Shock you’ve had to either invest in exploitation or watch your savings evaporate.
Billionaires shouldn’t even exist.
And it won’t be once sales drop precipitously across entire industries. Lots of manufacturing simply doesn’t exist in the US anymore, and there isn’t enough time to start it up before massive economic impacts.
The effects of this Trump administration will be clear and they will be bad. I’m somewhat optimistic that they will eventually start to generate a kind of unity we haven’t seen in the US in a long time. But, to be clear, it will be a very, very, very rough few years to get there, and it assumes the world isn’t consumed by massive wars anyway.
I’ve been asking people, might as well ask you. When’s the right time to cash out of the casino? Maybe buy puts?
Might seem crass to talk about making money off this disaster, but I have people I love to take care of.
Depends, are you near retirement age? Else holding for another 20 years is nearly always the right move. Hold and buy the dip, if at all possible.
Haha I’ll never retire. I know this advice has been true forever but this time really could be different. Thanks.
If it’s ACTUALLY different, the US dollar no longer exists. so no worries trying to outplay
I’ve said pretty much the same thing before!
Sept. 2, 1929.
The best way to win is not to play
Thanks for responding but the best way to win is to play smart. I’ve made great plays and stupid plays. 90% of the money we’ve saved for a downpayment on a house is in the market, in index funds.
I’m just asking around, mostly in person, for when other people are going to cash out and why.
What’s gonna happen is that prices will go up, and companies in the US will gouge even harder on top of that because they have an external excuse to. Maybe things will get so bad that Democrats are able to win in the next election, but after the Biden administration, it’s not like they have any credibility when it comes to standing up to price gouging in any meaningful way.
Democrats will need a candidate who isn’t some preordained corpodem like the last 3 cycles. Because if they do that again, they will be running as second worst yet the fuck again, and any noises they make about wanting prices to come down or wages to go up will be just that. Noise.
I keep thinking about how musk was talking about the upcoming hardship… I wonder if he was maybe referring to this too. He had to have known.
I think that’s the thing. The system will fail if all these policies are put in place. But at this point, it sounds like a lot of voters need an example of what such a failure looks like.
That’s kind of my point. They don’t want to believe the truth, they will just have to experience reality. It’s like a kid and a stove, sometimes they will only learn if you let them touch it.
I agree in principal, but my concern with this is that people will see it happening to them, done by trump and will believe trump when they’re told that they’re suffering because of “the illegals” or the “woke mind virus” or whatever doublethink bullshit trump’s advisors come up with.
They’ll say it’s Biden’s policies costing everyone money, and they’re fighting oh ever so hard to fix this.
Definitely a possibility.
till the shit
Weird hobby.
Till, until, and 'til are all valid and equivalent with till actually being the oldest word of the bunch. I found this out the hard way when I made fun of a school poster for using what I thought was the wrong till
It ain’t gonna till itself.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
That’s all that Bobby left me.
Wild that we talk about Fox News like we’re breaking into a different world. Even wilder that this person is being honest with their viewers.
My sister’s fiance thought just because an iPhone (for instance) was designed in the states that it wouldn’t be subject to tariffs, despite being made in China and using foreign parts.
In the end there will be all sorts of carveouts for whatever company kisses Trump’s ass the most. Apple products will be on that list almost assuredly.
This is a bad thing because it’ll be yet another thing for people to point to and say “See! The tarrifs aren’t so bad.”
To be fair, an iPhone could be manufactured entirely in the US it would just cost 4x as much. Maybe 10x, actually.
CPU manufacturing would be the hardest to bring online. The second most difficult one would be screens (though we may not have tariffs with South Korea 🤷).
In the US there’s already plenty of PCB manufacturing, CNC machining (case), ultra hard glass (screen) manufacturing, and it’s relatively easy to ramp up capacitor and resistor manufacturing. Things like USB C connectors would need some company to step up though.
Only TSMC can produce the SoC which is a huge problem. An US produced iPhone would be something quite different no matter the price.
It would be a TI-83 calculator with a built in walkie talkie. 2.7 ghz.
Throw a map application on there and I’d be interested.
Things like charge controllers need to be made too, and nobody makes those domestically. Same with simple chips like 555 timers. Nowhere in the US are these made.
Lack of education is the best way to control people.
Also messianic prophecies, but agree education is number 1
need people dumb to have the lack of critical thinking skills for the messianic bullshit to take root in.
This is the honest conversation that Fox News should have with its viewers before the election. It’s moot at this point.
Trump is simply proving that he is a Russian asset. He’s taxing American allies more than their rivals.
The 10% on China is in addition to the 25% of Can/Mex, so 35% for China.
I understood it to mean 70%. 60% of what he initially promised plus the 10. 35% doesn’t sound so bad now…. Heh
LOL, why would Faux start being realistic now?
It could hurt the Sacred Moneyline.
The good old "I’ll collaborate with fascists for higher profits and hey wait what are they doing?"
Network that spends all of its time pretending that claims that Donald will immediately reach favorable and equitable peace agreements in two international wars, get the price of eggs to go down, secure the southern border, deport all the criminals, and fix healthcare with “concepts of a plan” are totally reasonable: “Let’s be realistic”. 🤡
😆
You guys skewed reality so far that it has broken entirely for your viewers. How do you expect them to be realistic now?
It’s going to be fucking hilarious when these shitcunts get wrecked.
But they won’t.
The “solution” will be to just popping out a few more welfare babies. Thus continuing the downward spiral even faster.You don’t think social safety nets are first on the chopping block for these assholes? You think welfare queens are gonna be alright? They never existed.
The red states are full of welfare queens.
The red states ARE welfare queens. But of course I meant the Reagan welfare queen bullshit that has gone on and on despite having no basis in facts whatsoever. No individual is getting rich from welfare, no matter how many kids they have.
Man I hope that’s sarcasm
Here’s the thing. Even if the terrifs, somehow, didn’t directly cause inflation, the fact that we are taking about inflation means that companies can raise prices and gouge just like last time.
Man, I sure am worried about deflation.
Deflation is actually really bad. It essentially means that not spending money is the best option, which makes it so people stop buying as many things and the economy slows down dramatically. A small amount of inflation is ideal. It encourages spending but doesn’t do much harm either.
This sounds completely backwards, like if you are talking purely about investment.
If not it seems to completely ignore that high prices alone would discourage spending, particularly on non-essential things (even then, don’t think for a second that there aren’t people skipping healthcare or meals).
The only other way I could interpret would be that high prices force people to spend more money on just essentials (even if they’re buying less than they otherwise would), somehow painting living paycheck-to-paycheck as a good thing because it means more money in the economy.
It’s not about the price. Price is just a number. Prices today would look insane to someone 100 years ago. It’s about how price changes over time.
If your money becomes less valuable the longer you wait, it’s worse to wait. The longer it takes for you to spend it the less buying power it has.
If it becomes more valuable over time then it encourages hoarding your money because the longer you take to spend it the more buying more it has.
The average person likes stuff and wants their stuff now. The average person will buy shit on a credit card even though saving up to pay cash would make the cost much cheaper. Particularly disciplined people may put off purchases for a few months if they think the price will drop (maybe a few years for something really big like a house) but those folks are the exception rather than the rule. Are there real world examples of times when deflation triggered a mass consumer cash hoarding? Or is this something that only exists in economics books?
If you’re talking about investing and the behavior of companies, then maybe you’re right. Although I suspect it would also depend on interest rates and stock market performance.
That’s actually neoliberal propaganda and not true. “The economy” in the context of GDP turned out to really mean “rich people”.
In our current economic model, any deflation creates a perverse incentive to not spend. It is extremely bad for the economy, and all of us reliant on it. The rich are one of the few groups that come out ahead (relatively).
Like it or not, we are all stuck on that merry go round. Until we find a graceful way off, it’s in no-one’s interest to jam it up.
Our current economic model is a humanitarian and ecological disaster. We need to pump the brakes. Many more lives will be lost due to excessive consumption and inequality - we’re out of time for graceful.
There’s a difference between pumping the brakes and throwing a grenade into the fuel tank. A large scale economic collapse would be devastating. The world economy is so interdependent now that even minor disruptions cause problems.
I’m all for pumping the brakes, but we either need to stop gracefully, or have an alternative to jump to.
No, we absolutely do not. It’s too late to stop gracefully - I cannot overstate how much worse it’s going to get if we stop even now.
Consumption needs to go down, this will collapse the delicate house of cards we’ve built… and we have no other choice.
Can you not eat? There are some things you have to consume all days.
Just basic requirements for life and nothing extra will destroy any developed countries economy. If things aren’t sold they’ll stop sending them there, so as people just stop buying luxuries, they’ll stop even being an option. Less tax money means the government has issues more than normal, and if you aren’t buying anything who are they gonna tax? The companies won’t have money because they aren’t selling anything.
If you don’t buy luxuries but keep buying groceries, what do you think they will do? Just a hint: groceries also have taxes.
That’s actually neoliberal propaganda and not true.
“And I’ll prove this by just spouting empty propaganda!”
Sure, yeah. It’s especially sucks for rich people and business owners, but no it’s not just “neoliberal propaganda.” It’s really simple economics and logic. If your money becomes more valuable over time, it is on your benefit to save it. If it becomes less valuable over time, the opposite is true and you should spend it. And yeah, capitalism sucks, but we’re all tied to the health of the economy, which doesn’t mean the stock market like the media often links it to, but if businesses can’t afford to hire as much staff, all of us lose.
simple economics and logic. If your money becomes more valuable over time, it is on your benefit to save it. If it becomes less valuable over time, the opposite is true and you should spend it.
This is true, but it’s a bad thing. The economy would be better off if people had savings. We could afford to strike without going homeless. We would consume less and pollute less. Wages would be growing in proportion to the overall economy, not falling relative to the cost of living.
Us being forced to spend money on businesses is good for the businesses, but it hasn’t been good for us. Businesses being able to hire more people because we’re forced to invest in them is trickle-down economics.
Wages would not necessarily grow in proportion to the economy. In fact, they probably wouldn’t. It’s a nice idea, but it’s assuming a lot. As more people are laid off, there’d be more people competing for the same jobs, allowing businesses to pay less. They’d also be in the same situation as everyone else, where spending is disincentivized. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never know a business to pay more than they have to.
As long as inflation is low, it doesn’t force you to spend money. In fact, saving is still encouraged because you can normally get higher returns than inflation. It just encourages you to not sit on money that isn’t doing anything. Every dollar spent multiplies. When money changes hands a fraction of it is saved, but the rest is spent. The more that’s spent and less saved the more effective dollars there are, as the federal reserve requires a fraction of every dollar saved in a bank to be stored in with the Fed where it can’t be loaned out. This isn’t trickle-down economics. That is a totally different thing.
If you can find where a concensus of experts say deflation actually helps workers, I might believe you. It’s my understanding that they don’t think so.
Wages did in fact grow in proportion to the economy before Nixon.
Are we using the same pool of neoliberal economists who brought us here?
The shit is already piling up in front of the fan, which will remain off until Jan 2025.
Literally companies could start on-shoring, how foreign car makers all have plants in America now, but you know doom and gloom for outrage bait.
I mean let’s think this through. Say it costs many millions, billions even, to create new manufacturing plants for any of the major players. It will take probably years to complete and on top of that US workers have much stronger protections than most of the world with significantly higher costs labor to boot. consumers would immediately pay more because of the tariffs, and then even if the “protectionism” works, we’re still paying more, even if it’s to US workers and companies. This isn’t even to mention that the taxpayer is likely going to foot the bill for construction of new factories as they’ve done with Intel etc.
i’m struggling to see any merits to this idea. Can you elaborate?
I think making products in America is a wonderful idea. As you said, won’t stop the tariff price increases, but there’s merit in investing in manufacturing in countries more capable of increased automation like the United States, Japan, and Western Europe thanks to skilled engineering workforces. This is especially true because if you intend to do manufacturing ethically you’re better off competing somewhere where the minimums in worker treatment and environmental protection are higher.
Now if you need manual labor as cheap as possible, go to South Asia and South America, we can’t compete with them on that unless we’re imposing ludicrous tariffs.
Why are tariffs the tool? Why now? Why disrupt anything for the benefit of corporations and their… thousand(s?) of workers? Unemployment is quite low already, and as far as I know manufacturing has been largely leaving the US for what I assume are economic reasons that will persist longer than the tariffs.
Why not laws requiring ethical sourcing of materials and labor if ethics is your concern?
Full agree. I think I just had shit reading comprehension this morning. Tariffs are a terrible way to achieve this goal. Laudable goal, but demanding better conditions or subsidizing American manufacturing are far better means to achieve it.
The other big risk is that in 4 years, the tariffs could be removed with a change of government, or earlier when the GOP realises how bad their mistake is.
So these businesses have to decide do they want to invest billions in plants that could be redundant before they’re even completed.
Life is not Factorio, brah. You can’t just plop a factory down and start production. It will take a decade and cost billions. At which point a new administration will be here and will repeal the tariffs.
Auto parts generally aren’t made in the US, only assembled here.
Toyota is kind of a counter example here. I’m grateful to them for opening several factories in my home state.
It’s funny to me that you can buy a (partially) American made and assembled Toyota. Or be a real patriot and buy a Chinese made and Mexican assembled F-150.
You’ll be surprised how expensive everything is to build if you pay domestic wages instead of buying things dirt cheap from other countries where wages are low due to slave-like working conditions. This is probably what Trump wants to establish in the US, but when other factors like housing, food etc are already way more expensive than they are in those countries, this creates a poverty hellscape for y’all. The result will be that people can’t even afford to live at the standard of a chinese factory worker. Enjoy.
No, it’s not wages that would increase prices huge amounts. They’d increase the price of goods slightly (depending on the good) but for the most part the biggest cost factor that increases when you decide to make something in the US is regulations.
Ya know, rules that prevent companies from dumping their toxic waste wherever TF they want. It’s not just the regulations that apply to a specific company’s business but all the regulations in their supply chain.
Consider a PCB manufacturer: They need epoxies, fiberglass, copper, gold, tin, and silver to make PCBs along with a shitton of associated chemicals. All of those things ultimately come from heavily regulated industries (because we don’t want smelter waste full of things like lead, mercury, cobalt, and worse things winding up in our food and water). All that regulation costs money to deal with. Not just in actually complying with the regulations but also hiring people knowledgeable enough to make sure they’re complying (and doing so in the least expensive way possible).
In countries like China regulations are basically non-existent because even if they have them officials can easily and cheaply be bribed to get around them (e.g. poisoned baby formula). Furthermore, the people are vastly more ignorant of health and pollution than your average idiot in the US. If some dude sees a company dumping tires on the side of the road they’re likely to call the cops because that’s obviously illegal. I’m China that doesn’t happen because the people will be unlikely to understand the (environmental/downstream) consequences of that or will suspect the cops (and local officials) are in on it and reporting the illegal dumping could get them disappeared.
The most toxic industries are all overseas and we really do rely on them to keep supply chains going. Bringing them back onshore would drastically increase the cost of a shitton of goods just because there’s no cheap way to dispose of byproducts here and there’s way more requirements around handling such things.
So Trump guts all the regulations.
Problem solved /s
the biggest cost factor that increases when you decide to make something in the US is regulations.
I would love to see a source or some data backing this up.
You’re right that regard. I was simplyfing the matter by only using wages as the primary factor. Of course it is a combination of factors which drive production costs, many of which you just explained. However, the end result is the same: Building products on shore is expensive. Someone has to pay the price.
On shoring takes a long time and American labor is more expensive than Chinese and Mexican labor. I work in manufacturing and it takes years to build capacity when you already have a facility. Oh and think multimillion dollar investments with high risk.
I’m not saying they can’t onshore. I’m saying it’ll be slow and expensive and possibly more expensive than not, and because it’s slow the customers will eat the cost long enough that they won’t lower prices when they finish.
This is the first time they are hearing of this and easily half of them have now “cancelled” fox for being woke.
Well, they wanted to stay “sleep”, and got it.
Cable: “You dare try to cancel me?”
