"President Trump attacked Walmart on social media Saturday, after the retail giant became the biggest company so far to signal that tariff-related price increases are coming for American shoppers.
"Trump said Walmart shouldnât blame its price increases on tariffs.
"'Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year,' he wrote in a post Saturday on Truth Social. 'Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, âEAT THE TARIFFS,â and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. Iâll be watching, and so will your customers!!!'
"Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon last month was among a small group of retail CEOs who met with Trump and warned him that tariffs would result in higher prices for American consumers, according to people familiar with the meeting."
Have I misunderstood a basic precept of Republicanism? Or what Capitalism is all about?
"Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected."
Does that mean that there are limits on what companies should make? That once you've gone over a certain level, that you've achieved exceptional profits, you're really not allowed to make anymore? That at that point, you should just turn those extra profits over to shoppers? Or maybe (wait for it) the Internal Revenue Service? (Does the IRS even exist anymore?)
This is not what I thought was the definition of American Exceptionalism.
In its coverage, the Washington Post makes two salient points:
⢠"In the opening months of his second term, Trump has taken an unusually direct and high-profile role in attempting to manage the sprawling American economy â an approach that could bring him enormous benefits if it thrives or danger if it stumbles. Itâs a departure from decades of Republican orthodoxy and arguably from Trumpâs own history; during the 2024 campaign, he called Democrat Kamala Harris a communist and a Marxist because her vow to tackle price gouging could have led to price controls ⦠Few Republicans have challenged Trump on his highly personal style, despite its clear departure from traditional free-market economics. Nor have they taken issue with the overlaps between his personal interests and the nationâs."
⢠"Trumpâs view of his role was reflected in his recent comparison of the U.S. economy to a department store. 'Itâs a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there,' he told Time magazine last month. 'And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and Iâll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.'
"Conservative economists tend to frown on decision-making that is too centralized, let alone spearheaded by a single individual. Republicans have long railed against 'picking winners and losers'."
And yet...
Furthermore, I am confused. The suggestion in the social media posting is that Walmart should absorb the costs of tariffs so that customers won't have to. Which sort of goes against the argument being made by the administration that it would be foreign countries and foreign companies paying the tariffs.
In fact, the Associated Press reports that "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged Sunday that Walmart, the largest US retailer, may pass along some of the costs from President Trumpâs tariffs to its shoppers through higher prices."
I'm just confused.
I actually think this would be a good moment for Walmart to do what Amazon wouldn't do - delineate the costs of tariffs in every price. Do it online. Do it in the aisles.
Advocate for shoppers. Make it clear that in a free market economy, it is the consumer who picks winners and losers.
I'll accept this premise as stated by the President: Customers, indeed, will be watching.
The gap between what Americans earn and how much they need to bring in to achieve a basic standard of living is growing, according to a new report.
The analysis, from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP), looks beyond whether people can afford daily necessities like food and shelter to consider whether they have the means to pay for things like the technology tools necessary for work, higher education, and health and child care costs.
In tracking costs associated with what the group calls a "basket of American dream essentials," LISEP says its Minimal Quality of Life index provides a truer picture of how Americans are faring than standard economic data, such as the nation's gross domestic product and jobless rate. The index captures the annual change in the typical costs facing low- and moderate-income households who are looking to maintain a basic quality of life. (...)
Yeah, most of us have already starved to death and are living in cardboard boxes in the middle of the road in the mean time.
The gap between what Americans earn and how much they need to bring in to achieve a basic standard of living is growing, according to a new report.
The analysis, from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP), looks beyond whether people can afford daily necessities like food and shelter to consider whether they have the means to pay for things like the technology tools necessary for work, higher education, and health and child care costs.
In tracking costs associated with what the group calls a "basket of American dream essentials," LISEP says its Minimal Quality of Life index provides a truer picture of how Americans are faring than standard economic data, such as the nation's gross domestic product and jobless rate. The index captures the annual change in the typical costs facing low- and moderate-income households who are looking to maintain a basic quality of life. (...)
I'm putting this here because Buttigieg does a good job of discussing taxes, tariffs, and some of the idiocy of the current admin over the 2:45 of the interview.
I can see this as the conversation between Islander and Kurt... if Kurt were to ask slightly more direct and less incendiary questions.
The topics are indexed....so it's easy to get to things that interest you.
Yes
We need a weekly press conference for the opposite side; not immersed in infotainment News.
Like a layered cake between sports, weather and celebrity crisis stories that manage to make the current administration seem normal.
I'm putting this here because Buttigieg does a good job of discussing taxes, tariffs, and some of the idiocy of the current admin over the 2:45 of the interview.
I can see this as the conversation between Islander and Kurt... if Kurt were to ask slightly more direct and less incendiary questions.
The topics are indexed....so it's easy to get to things that interest you.
I do fine in the world. I have 'enough'. There are enough nickels to go around, I don't need them all. I'm also pretty sure that no one is plotting to gun me down in the street for being a greedy asshole.
We're aligned on fairness and feeling good about how you make a living.
I listened to the episode this morning, and it highlighted the tip of the iceberg on pricing, and "what people will pay".
+1 me too. I go for long-term trusting relationships, not profit skimming. Not because there is something wrong with profit, but because there is something fundamentally social about business. it is what holds our life together. Being fair and playing by the rules is good for business. And business is good for society. It's a win-win.
I do fine in the world. I have 'enough'. There are enough nickels to go around, I don't need them all. I'm also pretty sure that no one is plotting to gun me down in the street for being a greedy asshole.
One of our vendors occasionally releases a new product. They are popular, so there is always some clamor for them. We do some inside work for them, and we are tiny, so we always get a little of the first allocations to hit the shore. I could easily charge double for these units when we get them, but I won't. It's not the way I do business, and It's not the way I am. Some say I'm a chump, but our business has loyal customers and it's more important for me to have my integrity than it is to maximize every possible profit.
Planet Money had a recent episode that touched on a lot of this:
Basically, you want to sell your stuff to people who value it most, not those who can afford it most. Economics is about a lot more than "how much are you willing to pay".
+1 me too. I go for long-term trusting relationships, not profit skimming. Not because there is something wrong with profit, but because there is something fundamentally social about business. it is what holds our life together. Being fair and playing by the rules is good for business. And business is good for society. It's a win-win.
Yes: a failure to comprehend the simplest economic principle. It's far easier to blame the people who raise the price than the people who caused the prices to rise.
One of our vendors occasionally releases a new product. They are popular, so there is always some clamor for them. We do some inside work for them, and we are tiny, so we always get a little of the first allocations to hit the shore. I could easily charge double for these units when we get them, but I won't. It's not the way I do business, and It's not the way I am. Some say I'm a chump, but our business has loyal customers and it's more important for me to have my integrity than it is to maximize every possible profit.
Planet Money had a recent episode that touched on a lot of this:
Basically, you want to sell your stuff to people who value it most, not those who can afford it most. Economics is about a lot more than "how much are you willing to pay".
Price Gougers Are Exploiting Trumpâs Tariffs âPrice optimizationâ consultants are helping clients capitalize on Trumpâs chaotic tariff rollout by using surveillance pricing tools, while Republican FTC chair Andrew Ferguson is reversing efforts to keep them in check.
The day after President Donald Trump announced his sweeping âLiberation Dayâ tariffs, pricing guru Craig Zawada held an urgent summit for his clients. The global economy was roiling with anxiety and stocks were in a tailspin, but Zawada had a more hopeful message to impart: for the businesses deploying his companyâs âsmart pricingâ software, this was a rare opportunity.
âThere is perhaps more of a window to make changes to your pricing than there has been before,â Zawada said. Consumers, he explained, were bracing themselves for tariff sticker shock: âCustomers expect change.â
âNow,â he said, âis the time to take advantage.â
Zawada works for PROS Holdings, a company that provides software services helping companies price their products, tailored in particular to airlines. Heâs part of a cottage industry of âpricing optimizationâ consultants who, using lessons learned from pandemic price increases, are advising companies across industries on how to hike prices in response to tariffs or even just the threat of tariffs â and then keep them high.
Republican Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Andrew Ferguson, the nationâs top antitrust cop, has been warning companies that enforcers are prepared to take action against tariff profiteering. Yet he has effectively given the consultant class a âgreen light,â as one former FTC official told the Lever, by rolling back an inquiry scrutinizing their practices.
Last year, under the Biden administration, PROS and several other pricing companies were served orders to hand over documents to the FTC as part of an inquiry into such industrywide âsurveillance pricingâ practices, putting them on notice of a potential crackdown.
But one of the first actions taken by Ferguson when he took the helm of the agency in January was to turn off public comments for the staff report produced from documents the agency gathered, thereby shutting down the inquiry entirely. That came just weeks after a handful of large companies subject to the inquiry contributed millions to President Donald Trumpâs inauguration fund.
Previously as a commissioner, Ferguson had voted against releasing that staff report despite originally authorizing the study examining the pricing practices. (...)
Yes: a failure to comprehend the simplest economic principle. It's far easier to blame the people who raise the price than the people who caused the prices to rise.
Eggs are in short supply. Prices rise until people decide to either pay up or have something else for breakfast.
Prices rising in scarcity forces people to prioritize. The people who eggs are worth the most to pay for them, if they aren't worth it to you you skip it. It's a feature, not a bug.
Eggs are in short supply. Prices rise until people decide to either pay up or have something else for breakfast.
Prices rising in scarcity forces people to prioritize. The people who eggs are worth the most to pay for them, if they aren't worth it to you you skip it. It's a feature, not a bug.
Covid showed us why protecting the global supply chain was so important, and how disrupting that would lead to significant inflation (or worse).
Now, we have a president blowing up supply chains with unnecessary, self induced uncertainty.
The family of the founder announced a secondary offering yesterday. Instead of the avian flu destroying their business, it appears to have created an opportunity to at least partially exit at what the founders family feels is a high point.
to be clearer...revenue goes up from volume and price.
Volume was up 10%, and if prices were stable that would result in a similar sales increase...so prices clearly benefitted the producer.
If there costs had gone up in a similar fashion, the margin would have been more stable.
But...wholesale egg prices are usually contractual based on market prices for the commodity, not necessarily the price the producer itself sets for its product. Different than say an apparel manufacturer that mostly sets its own price (although commodities/markets also have an impact in terms of fabric costs).
I imagine though producers could have built in some type of discount for its retail customers. (i have no idea what type of margin impact the retailers got, up or down).
Yes, that's why I mentioned the first option. Maybe they were just horribly inefficient. they wasted 30% of the eggs instead of selling them. Maybe Jim on the line was a Klutz, it is a fragile product...
There are ways that the numbers could make sense without them being opportunistic assholes. They are unlikely ways, so it's far more likely they are just opportunistic assholes.
Most likely is that they just saw an opportunity and thought 'why not' as they jacked their prices.
The family of the founder announced a secondary offering yesterday. Instead of the avian flu destroying their business, it appears to have created an opportunity to at least partially exit at what the founders family feels is a high point.
Most likely is that they just saw an opportunity and thought 'why not' as they jacked their prices.
to be clearer...revenue goes up from volume and price.
Volume was up 10%, and if prices were stable that would result in a similar sales increase...so prices clearly benefitted the producer.
If there costs had gone up in a similar fashion, the margin would have been more stable.
But...wholesale egg prices are usually contractual based on market prices for the commodity, not necessarily the price the producer itself sets for its product. Different than say an apparel manufacturer that mostly sets its own price (although commodities/markets also have an impact in terms of fabric costs).
I imagine though producers could have built in some type of discount for its retail customers. (i have no idea what type of margin impact the retailers got, up or down).
all due respect, when your profit margin jumps from 23% to 45% on a 10% volume increase, that's because you either raised prices or completely eliminated any historical promotions.
probably a combination
Most likely is that they just saw an opportunity and thought 'why not' as they jacked their prices.
