If things are only defined by penumbra - you have to suss them out by finding what’s required, but not stated, in the document - inferring missing assumptions, and that method of writing was done purposefully, then whether “confusing” is the most apt word to describe that or not, versus “obfuscated”, “camouflaged”, or whatever isn’t really the metric on whether the goal was to punk some people.
I can choose a word that’s not your preferred word to describe the act, and it’s still a description of an attempt to create wrong or incomplete understandings of the Act.
I didn’t say, “in a hurry”, I said, “before people figured out what it meant”.
The Voynich manuscript has been floating around for a few centuries now and still hasn’t been deciphered. Maybe it could have been cracked in a couple of months, probably it never will. Many authors have tried to make encrypted, encoded, or imaginary texts and had their work decrypted or readily proved a hoax. Failure to do as well as the Voynich author doesn’t mean that they didn’t have the intent that they had, it just means that they weren’t as good as they needed to be.
The question isn’t whether 6 months is long enough for any particular level of crypticality in a text, it’s whether there was intent to make it cryptic enough to survive the Congressional process. As it happens, probably it was cryptic enough for 6 months, since it did pass. But even if it had failed, the intent would still have been there.
The Fed’s analysis on the lack of inflation, to-date:
It says that sellers are afraid to raise prices if negotiations will bring down the tariff rates.
To me, that doesn’t make sense. The baseline rise that’s we’ve already been given during the negotiation period is already a given (e.g. the post-negotiation deals with Japan, Vietnam, and the UK all caused the tariff rate to go up, not reset). So really you’re just asking whether you should raise prices gradually, in response to market forces, or run at unsustainable prices just to have to suddenly shock the customers all at once and force them all to go into panic / not buying anything mode all at once.
For most consumers of imported goods, the 10% price rise on stuff probably isn’t too significant given how lopsided the prices are of American labor, American warehousing, American floor rent, etc. Passing that through to the consumer shouldn’t have a big impact on sales, but it spares you from running on fumes, leading up to a bigger crisis.
We’ll see if there’s another extension but I think that business owners are going to look up in August and realize that they misunderstood what the negotiations were. Trump wasn’t negotiating to get America even better deals, he was negotiating the size of the self-inflicted wound. “Hey Japan, how much should I cut myself? No no, you have to drink at least some of it. If you don’t promise to stab me a little and drink the blood, I kill us both. We’re both dead then, Japan, I’ll rape your skull. C’mon Japan, where you want to cut? Let’s get this done.”
Negotiation technique of masters; the threat of inclusion in the suicide.
GM said it could take steps to mitigate at least 30% of that impact.
This is really the textbook definition of a zero sum game, or the shell game con. Trump inflicted needless global pain. The only real decision to be made in response is who eats how much of it, and when.
Corporate earnings and shareholders, in GM’s case, apparently.
I doubt – despite Trump’s textbook Socialist admonition against companies raising prices in response to his tariffs – they’ll be willing to take this kind of ($)hit for very long.
The inflationary effects of his tariffs carry a lot of inherent pain. These kinds of losses, however, focus that pain on the cohort that can get Trump on the phone rather readily.
A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money.
That is straight from a narcissitic diagnostic manual: it is bad for me, it is worse for you, so it is good.
There is also a pinch of masochism overridden by a hefty dose of sadism there. Sick tanTrump.
Retailers are also waiting to see what their competitors do. No one wants to be the first to raise prices because everybody else will then raise their prices just slightly south of that price. Right now it’s a game of chicken. It won’t last long.
I don’t have a cite, but I did read somewhere that Walmart only makes about 3-5 % profit (I assume that is what is left after all costs, wages, supplies, utitilies, etc. are considered. I am not an MBA, so correct me if I am mistaken). They seem like wealthy companies, and they are, but I am supposing they are not as wealthy as other corporations. As you said, it won’t last long, since they don’t want to pare back to only 1% profit. They may be trying to drag it out until past Christmas, but I cannot see how they can do this. Then again, as a person nearing 70, I have seen much change in the economy since I entered to work force, and nothing would surprise me, honestly.
In the fiscal year ending January 1st 2025, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon’s compensation package was $27.4 million. They could probably increase the profit margin a bit if they trimmed his compensation package.
Yes. Once the choice is clearly ‘increase prices’ or ‘trim the millionaire’s salaries’, then that choice is very obvious.
No one needs 27mil a year, so true. I think maybe half a mil plenty of money. You can have a nice lifestyle at that salary, but probably not a yacht and all that nonsense.
Only anecdotal, but I have been hearing much grumbling about Walmart, and how their prices have already increased. They are all from people who are living close to the bone. I wonder if I should tell them it will get worse…
Not really. I mean, yeah, he makes a shit-ton of money, and American CEOs are generally way overpaid, but cutting his compensation to 0 would be a rounding error to their profits.
Walmart had net sales of $642.6 billion last year, and an operating income of $27 billion. That gave them a margin to net sales of 4.2%. McMillon’s salary is equal to 0.1% of the company’s operating income. If the CEO made $0 last year, their margin would still be 4.2%.
A company that has 2.1 million employees pays one thousandth of their profit to one single person. The profit per employee is $8,961, so it takes the profit generated by 3,057 employees to generate the president’s salary. Capitalism is like that.
Now tell me how much he pays in taxes.
Compare to what the average employee pays in taxes if you can even calculate that.
ETA: BTW, a pofit margin of 4.2% is very good for a retailer.
“In 2024, Walmart was the leading retailer for SNAP redemptions, capturing approximately 25% of all SNAP sales in the US, totaling around $30 billion annually.”
Socialism for me but not for thee?
Most of those sales being to Walmart’s own employees.
(I’m guessing. Maybe a bit less than “most.”)
Everyone except Donald. He still gets corporations and countries, big and small, coming to him hat in hand, full of flattery and bribes (so he’ll grant them a tariff exception).
He’s the happiest he’s ever been in his life, probably. Well, except for this Epstein thing.
Do you have to drag Epstein into everything?!? This thread is about King Donald’s wonderful effects on the US economy, not some ol rando no-one’s worried about.
)
)