Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything • Hacker News Board

Re: Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything

#701

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Sep 04, 2025, 11:50 PM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #692

nobody9999 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/08/politics/kamala-harr... https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/09/09/harris-policy-pl... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-harris-campaign-promises-... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/... All of the above were posted prior to the 2024 election.

The second paragraph of your first link: “ However, she has not provided many details on her plans” Edit: did you read these links? “ The American people lacked any concrete policy positions from the presumptive, and then official, Democratic presidential candidate for seven weeks following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. Despite the absence of clarity on key issues, Vice President K…

Then look at one or more of the hundreds of links that provide specificity.

Or continue on with your willful ignorance.

It's no skin off my nose either way.

Re: Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything

#702

Post by tbossanova » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 1:05 AM UTC

jibal wrote: post #442

tbossanova wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still not sure what the misuse is. “Literally” is now commonly used as an intensifier, like how “awesome “ used to mean inspiring awe, including if you were scared of something, and now is mostly an intensifier. Awesome, dude!

C'mon ... you know what "misuse" refers to , even if it's no longer considered to literally be a misuse. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Haha nice meta-usage of literally there

Re: Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything

#703

Post by DocTomoe » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:40 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #660

DocTomoe wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the Chinese seem to disagree, as they bring online new Coal-powered power plants every other week, with 94.5 GW of new capacity having started construction in the first half of 2024 and another 66.7 GW approved. And that's 'permanently available', not (p) = peak. "Solar is cheaper than fossil" does not look at the whole picture, it completely ignores that solar is not scalable quickly enough to meet risin…

Although it's somewhat obnoxious, I'll quote Rui Ma's summary in https://xcancel.com/ruima/status/1955372325970514161 : > Hey n00bs: the up‑and‑to‑the‑right charts people fling around about China’s coal tell you almost nothing you think they do. Here's what actually matters: > 1/ China’s electricity supply exploded over the last decade (versus stagnant for US) > 2/ new growth is now being met mostly by clean power, c…

Respectfully, and without the numerous number cherrypicking ad hominem and appeals to authority in your reply (which I have come to expect from the B90/Greens): I think you are missing the point.

Solar energy production is great - but the problem is not "we have too little solar", it is "we need to lower CO₂ emissions". If China keeps piling up coal power plant capacity, it is irrelevant for the main problem if they also install lots of solar.

Re: Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything

#704

Post by seadan83 » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 10:28 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #555

seadan83 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tariffs are protectionist, does not boost competitiveness. Tends to be the wrong tool, there are better. Tax breaks, grants, physical infrastructure, creation of entire markets - those are better tools. The issue with tariffs is non-competetive companies aren't required to become more competitive. I mean consider it, a tariff is a tax on those buying a specific competitors goods. Even if tariffs were done surgically,…

>The issue with tariffs is non-competetive companies aren't required to become more competitive. Yes they are. They are required to compete on a level playing field domestically and they still have to compete with marked up foreign goods.

> Yes they are. They are required to compete on a level playing field domestically and they still have to compete with marked up foreign goods.

Well, nu-uh! The "level" playing field concept is flawed here. Second, if everyone else becomes less competitive, that does not mean you are 'more competitive'. In a relative sense yes, but in an absolute sense no. A tariff is like a track meet where your competitors get whacked in the knees.

Now, I did say "tend" to be the wrong tool. If another country is actually flooding your market with cheap products (at a loss), in order to drive you out of business, tariffs make sense there. So, tariffs can be good against government subsidized industries. Tariffs countering other tariffs is simplistic, there are other countries in the world and global markets are large and well.. global.