Well, we just got our first post-tariff shipment from the factory today.
10% on all the stuff we brought in, but of course they had to screw something up. Two different products with the same HTS, one was hit for 10% and the other 15.3% Go figure.
We supply the pharma industry but do not sell final product.
We’re going to have to add those costs to the invoices. The problem is, in some cases we have contracts that make no provision for this. So we are at the mercy of the customers’ understanding. And if they play hardball, this could really harm the business. We have some pretty tight margins.
Can your customers actually go elsewhere? If the product comes from, for instance, China, won’t all American importers who supply this product have to pay the tariff? IOW there’s no way around the tariffs for any American company, is there? (Am I way off base?)
It doesn’t come from China. We have competitors who are all in the same boat as us, but some of our really large customers (Fortune 50 companies) have absolutely ruthless purchasing departments.
(I just meant China as an example.) I figured you and your competitors were in the same boat. I guess the “ruthless purchasing depts” expect suppliers to lose money on these products just to keep their business? How long can that go on?
Interesting article on CNN about the upcoming federal election in Canada. I regret that I didn’t vote in the advance polls and got it over with as I sometimes do, but I am absolutely for sure voting on election day. I think it will be a landslide victory for banker and economist Mark Carney, who’s already established a good relationship with Trump while being strong on Canada’s economic interests and sovereignty, while Conservative Pierre Poilievre is best known for being a fucking moron, who’s promised things like tax cuts that will be partially paid for by cutting funding to the CBC, our beloved national broadcaster. By promising to do all the wrong things, Poilievre is basically Trump Lite.
And from Slate - TL : DR - attorneys being involved in immigration cases, even nominally, are facing intimidation from unknown authorities. Among other things, they’re having their wi-fi disabled to turn off their Ring cameras if someone shows up.
They’re planning to go after the science journals next.
Based on who’s being targeted, my suspicion is that they want to silence criticism and pushback on the insanity that’s about to start pouring out of RFKjr’s health ministries.
Mr. Kennedy had been nursing grievances about scientific journals for years. Medical and science publishers have long rejected article submissions that purport to show a link between vaccines and autism. (Dozens of studies have failed to establish such a link.)
He said in a podcast interview last year that he would seek to prosecute medical journals under the federal anti-corruption statute.
“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science and stop retracting the real science and publishing the fake pharmaceutical science by these phony industry mercenaries.”
Been wondering how the journals can best handle this. I’d like to see the editors just ignore the letter and any follow-ups for as long as they possibly can. Right now, it’s a fishing expedition, and engaging with the goons in any way will just encourage them.
Isn’t this also true of Tesla Motors? Robyn M. Denholm, their chairman, is Australian. CEO Elon Musk owes allegiance to three countries, which means to me that he is at least 66 percent foreign national. And one of the three countries is a current U.S. adversary, Canada. Hiromichi Mizuno is not only purely Japanese, but is an official of the United Nations. MAGA folks should agree that you can’t get much more foreign than that.
P.S. I’m wrote this too much like a bad joke. If Trump totally turns on his biggest oligarch – as Putin did – maybe Elon will be charged with mixed loyalty
Is entering homes without warrants legal? I keep reading about EOs and memos from department heads stating that agents can do this or other parties must do that but aren’t there, ya know, laws about this kind of thing?If ICE agents show up at my door and say “Pam Bondi says I can enter, now move aside”, I think I’m within my rights to say “Pam Bondi’s babblings aren’t law and the law says you need a warrant so get lost.”
If warrants were optional, surely law enforcement would have jumped on that opportunity long ago and defense attorneys would have had no success in having evidence seized without a warrant excluded.
Of course not. But this is Trump we’re talking about, a convicted felon currently defying a direct order from the Supreme Court. So the practical question is, what are you gonna do about it?