Sometimes the online newspapers will resort to the most extreme measures to make one click on a link:
But we’re not fooled… are we?
Ahem…
…a.k.a. incel-bait / Old Fart Trolling. Pass.
And then there’s this. WTF????
Sometimes the online newspapers will resort to the most extreme measures to make one click on a link:
But we’re not fooled… are we?
Ahem…
…a.k.a. incel-bait / Old Fart Trolling. Pass.
And then there’s this. WTF????
We always talk about “preparing for the worst”, but there’s an equally-compelling reason to prepare for the opposite. Here’s a good example of this.
I see that POTUS has increased the logging quota on federal lands by 25%, to the consternation of the Usual Idiots. Ignoring their wails (which is good advice anyway), his reasoning is sound:
The new order serves two purposes. One is to control fires. President Donald Trump said in January that the Los Angeles wildfires were partly caused by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal to clear brush and dead trees.
The other purpose, though unstated, is likely to increase the supply of lumber and head off potential price increases due to tariffs on Canadian lumber, which could have a cascading effect on the American construction industry.
The second reason is actually the better one. Of course we should not allow ourselves to be held hostage by the Canucks over timber — and in any event, the more self-sufficient a nation is, the better — but the very last sentence is equally telling.
You see, with Treasury yields falling (meaning that U.S. debt is being bought out — a Good Thing), what will follow the drop in yields is a drop in interest rates, which means that housing will become more affordable. And the construction industry cannot afford to be choked of its timber supply if building costs are to be contained.
As it is, construction companies face potentially higher labor costs because all the cheap (illegal, lest we forget) laborers are being deported — meaning more citizens working ergo more taxes being paid as opposed to untaxed dollars just being sent south of the border — so if the builders get cheaper and more-plentiful timber supplies, everyone wins.
I don’t see too many downsides to this — it’s a “two (actually three) birds with one stone” scenario — but this is after all a fairly superficial overview because I don’t claim too much expertise in this area to dig more. Am I missing something?
Ignoring any sensationalism from the Daily Mail (like ignoring rapaciousness from the IRS), I see that Britishland faces a 10% tariff hike.
Which, using Kim’s patented Law Of Ten Method, means nothing. (The corollary to said law, when applied to budgeting, says that you can always take 10% off anything without much or indeed any problem. This is true of a household or corporate budget.) Remember too that tariffs are not applied to the retail sale price — i.e. what you pay for them — but to the cost of goods in the home country. Even so, I expect that U.S. retailers will eat some of any wholesale price increases, so the retail cost of goods to the consumer will not be that onerous. Especially after we’ve just gone through Bidenflation. [25,000-word rant on that topic deleted]
I see this, with amusement:
The UK currently exports around £60billion worth of goods to the US.
Almost all of these goods will now be taxed 10% to send them to the US, making it more expensive.
Within this £60billion, British cars make up just over £6billion of the exports. Trump last night announced a 25% tariff on all imported cars, again making it more expensive, and less attractive, to buy UK-made motors.
So those Rolls Royces, Bentleys and NuJaguar Duracell cars are going to cost more (not the full 25%, as I expect that the manufacturers thereof will eat at least part if not most of the tariff). Somehow, I’m pretty sure that the Murkin buyers (plutocrat scum) of said luxury items will not be driven away by what is not a significant price increase.
Doubtless, my post-lottery Eagle E-type will cost more:
…but I’m pretty sure the lottery winnings would absorb the hit with little notice. [/snark]
As for companies like AstraZeneca (the Covid guys) with their ~5,000% profit margins, my heart bleeds custard, the chiseling scum.
The Euros (20%), on the other hand, may have a harder time of it, and the Chinese (34%) harder still. Whatever. Peruse the table below, and feel free to comment about any of the countries that you may know about.
The Balkans are not listed, but I’ll be curious to see what if anything happens to the price of, say, Prvi Partizan ammo.
Finally, just remember that the United States is the world’s largest market for just about everything made in that world, so if prices rise too high, Americans will just stop buying that imported shit. Which suits me just fine. I’d like to see a whole bunch of textile mills, for example, re-open in places like Mississippi, who could sure use the jobs that they lost to the cheaper sweatshops in Asia in not-so-long-ago times, when the Finance assholes moved their operations abroad.
Interesting times.
…from a guy who’s had many years’ experience in the field:
“The tariffs are only in the cost of goods. They’re not on the retail price. So you put a tariff on the cost of the goods of 20%, it doesn’t mean the retail price goes up by 20%, not unless you can buy everything at a cost somewhere. Additionally, when they put tariffs on toys back in the first Trump administration, studies show 87% of the increase was borne by the Chinese manufacturers. China has a huge toy industry and they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by keeping the sale rather than have it moved to America, like a lot of it will do. Additionally, there are substitute products, you know, products that you can sell that are made in the U.S. instead of differences, promote those. And then, of course, there will be transfers, some sales to the U.S.”
“I think people are hysterical. It’s not nearly the magnitude of what they’re talking about.”
Yeah, of course. Internet economists, mostly relying on journalists’ “expertise” for their prognoses… what could possibly go wrong?
Listen to the guys with experience. Nine times out of ten, that experience will beat academic theory like an old carpet.
It began, as these things so often do, with the banks. “Bank tellers cost money”, they realized, so they looked at the data: which showed that something like 95% of a teller’s job involved handing cash to customers.
So: ATMs. And instead of talking to a human when collecting your money, you had to rely on remembering a personal identification number and hoping that the mechanized teller wouldn’t screw up the money count. Of course, there was a “benefit” to the customer: 24-hour banking (provided there was a working ATM where you needed it). So one more little dent in human interaction, because who doesn’t want convenience?
Supermarkets did the same thing, eventually, when scanning systems became good enough to work more or less unsupervised — well, one supervisor to oversee eight checkout terminals was cheaper than paying eight checkout clerks, after all.
Here, the benefit was not customer convenience, because it takes the average customer much longer to process their own transaction than it does a trained cashier. But screw the customer’s time and inconvenience, as long as we don’t have to pay for it, went the retailers’ thinking. (I know this, because I was there when the self-checkout systems were first tested.)
But what about the long waits in line we had to put up with before self-checkouts? Well yes, there is that; except that the long lines were caused by supermarkets not having all the registers manned in the first place — the first of such cost-cutting measures, you see.
In both cases, fewer human employees meant lowered expenses and higher profits. (It may have been sorta-kinda-excusable for retail supermarkets, who run on impossibly-tight profit margins — but far less so for banks, who have no problem charging usurious rates on credit card balances, for instance, in an industry which has never had to deal with tight profit margins (remember: pay 5% on customer investments, charge 12-19% for loans and 27% for credit card balances — and those are just the most obvious ones).
Anyway, some folks in Britishland, of all places, have decided that enough is enough:
Campaign by senior citizens to boycott automated tills aims to protect local jobs and fight isolation in the community.
Myself, I use cashiers most of the time, provided that I won’t have to wait for too long in line.
But what really gets up my nose is when there’s a waiting line in both automated and cashier points. That is when I go all Old Phartish and find a manager to yell at. And I mean yell, because frankly, it’s past the time for politeness and it’s what they respond best to.
My line: “I was in the supermarket business for over thirty years, from stock clerk to cashier to store manager to senior executive in Head Office. I know how supermarkets run, and you’re running this one really badly. Now are you going to open another register or must I get in touch with your district manager or Area VP?”
And if he whines that there just isn’t another cashier available, I yell: “Then YOU open the till and run it until one does become available.”
Sometimes I just identify as a woman. Named Karen. And it doesn’t feel too bad.
Finally, from the above linked article:
The backlash appears to be even bigger in the US. Under new laws proposed in February, supermarkets would have to comply with rules that would limit self-checkout use to when a regular manned lane is open. Major supermarkets including Walmart, Target and Costco have begun limiting or banning self-checkouts.
That has not been my experience locally, but I wish it was. I’d better end this post before I get really cranky.
I love capitalism. Why? No sooner had the ink dried on the fraudulent-but-ultimately pointless counterfeit ballots in Pennsylvania. Michigan etc. when (courtesy of Reader Mike L.) I learned that the Smart Marketing Guys got going:
US cruise company offering four-year escape during Trump presidency
A Florida-based cruise company is offering disgruntled US voters the chance to escape by traveling the world during Donald Trump’s upcoming four years in office.
Villa Vie Residences has capitalized on the election results by offering Americans a four-year escape – the length of a presidential term – starting at around $160,000 per person, taking guests to more than 425 ports in 140 countries. [more details at the link]
My only requirement is that the trip is non-refundable after the ship has left port — in other words, if the travelers are suddenly overcome with buyer’s regret or whatever, they don’t get any money back, and they have to make their own way home from whatever country they happen to be in.
And if the poor regretful souls, having spent all their savings on this 4-year escape, are unable to afford the cost of a flight back to the U.S., I’m sure some private transport company will be only too willing to step up to the plate and help them get out of wherever they are for the return trip…
…if you see what I mean.