• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      0·
      11 days ago

      ???

      Not only do tariffs decrease demand by increasing cost, I think you’ll find that people have, in fact, considered that idea before.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 days ago

    Rabbit hole time.

    Apparently, caffeine in soft drinks is synthetic. I thought they just used caffeine that is extracted from decaffeinating coffee beans - not so. Also it’s barely produced in the US (anymore), and we mostly import it from China.

    Neat part is: it doesn’t look all that complicated to synthesize and requires some common-ish organic compounds and solvents to make. As a bonus, the “the raw synthetic caffeine often glows - a bluish phosphorence”. If anyone is on his Patreon, please give NileRed a nudge to give this a shot; I think it would be right up his alley.

    So we can get by without coffee, but short of running your own chemistry lab, it’s going to be a bit before industry can ramp up production of the synthetic stuff. Meanwhile, caffeinated beverages across the board would be more expensive were synthetic caffeine a part of any tariff scheme.

    More here:

    https://www.decadentdecaf.com/blogs/decadent-decaf-coffee-co/174589383-ever-wondered-where-the-caffeine-comes-from-in-soda-or-energy-drinks-answer-synthetic-caffeine

  • BadlyTimedLuck@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    All this insecurity about tariffs has me hoping he have a Boston Tea Party situation. If I recall the story correctly, they threw the expensive British Tea overboard to protest the tax.

    Similarly, I also recall a sugar tax, and either an ink or paper one: basically, I hope I can see something similar to see there’s still a small piece of American values from our ancestors (not the twisted Conservative heaven MAGA wants, but on the American dream of freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL.)

    No Taxation Without Representation!

      • Turret3857@infosec.pubEnglish
        0·
        3 days ago

        I’m confused by the Wikipedia article and how it relates to what you said, I want to believe that youre right but I’m stupid and need an ELI5 version

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 day ago

          It isn’t something I had ever heard until I attended a lecture by the National Security Decision Making Game folks - they are intense on history. (And I genuinely have a bachelors degree in history - with an American focus)

          Essentially, the French and Indian war fucking sucked for the Crown and Kingdom. It was mega expensive and difficult and ya know, the Indians live there. Who knows how many of them there are, if we keep pissing them off it’s going to keep costing us money. Soldiers cost money. Sending soldiers across the ocean costs a lot of money.

          The French had a lot more native allies. The Americans were constantly being mega dicks, the French weren’t awesome but they were relatively chill.

          Anyway, they finally win this expensive ass war and get some land. Indians live on it. Americans want land now - the Crown wants to not start another war and would in fact like a nice buffer state. At the very least, it’s a good idea to take some time to lick some wounds and figure out what We want to do. (I suspect if George could have foreseen the French Revolution, maybe they would be more agrees - something to try if you play NSDM lol)

          The Americans are not happy. And they keep pushing into native lands, making illegal and shady treaties, all the while having a fucking meltdown about having to pay taxes for all these fucking soldiers that are protecting them when people get mad about having their land stolen. The Crown is having to say things like “hey no you can’t buy Kentucky from like one guy.”

          It’s one thing to be pissed off about paying taxes - it’s another to have the promise of land. In a way, we were built similarly to Rome.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        0·
        9 days ago

        They were definitely just going to protect the natives, that’s the lovable British empire that I know

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          0·
          9 days ago

          For sure, this wasn’t out of benevolence. The Brits mostly wanted to avoid more war. Remember why those all those taxes were raised? Sending soldiers over to fight Frenchmen and Indians is expensive. If those backwards colonists keep fucking with them, the Indians are going to cooperate more with the French.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      I feel like most people I have heard talking about them while supporting Trump seem to know that tariffs are taxes, but have no concept of how they play out in a real economic situation. Most fall into one or both of two camps:

      A) Tariffs are taxes, but they’re taxes for companies not individuals, and they’re only applied to importing, so they won’t affect me.

      B) Tariffs are taxes for foreign companies, to level the playing field and keep American business competitive. Since the companies that have to pay it are foreign, it won’t affect me.

      Spoiler alert, guys: no matter where the tax is levied in the system, the consumer is the only person who ever pays for it, since they’re the only ones that can’t pass that cost on to anyone else.

      Also, while this can make domestic competitors more competitive, it’s important to remember two things: first, if it works, it’s only working by making things more expensive for consumers, and second, this assumes that the domestic competitors want more business, have the ability and posture to increase their production to meet the new greater demand, and will operate in good faith. Much more likely is that they simply also increase their prices in reaction to the tariffs, so they’re not producing or selling any more volume and aren’t creating any jobs… they’re just padding their profit margins at the corporate/shareholder level while doing nothing for their employees, all while having the average consumer foot the bill.

      That’s exactly what happened with the steel tariffs in the first Trump term and that’s exactly what will happen now…the only difference is that this time it seems like there will be significantly fewer economic buffers between the tariff and the consumer, so more people will more directly feel the sting here…and presumably the mental gymnastics from the MAGAts will be even sadder in their attempts to somehow make it not a criticism of their orange leader’s incompetence.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        0·
        10 days ago

        Tariffs are taxes, but they’re taxes for companies not individuals, and they’re only applied to importing, so they won’t affect me.

        Typical Magoo (literally my dad in 2016): “you can’t tax business owners, they’re going to just make everything more expensive for us! They pass on the burden to us!”

        Also Magoo: “Yay tarrifs! They are a tax on business but that won’t get passed on to me!”

        The Magoo motto: Whatever words I need to use to suit my purpose I will use, to hell with reality.

      • ericbomb@lemmy.world
        0·
        9 days ago

        “Surely the company that sells a product for $100 will keep selling the product for that price once tariffs mean that it costs a $125 to produce and import!” - crazy people.

    • Eiri@lemmy.ca
      0·
      11 days ago

      I wanted some foreign goods to get more expensive. To end slavery, not to escalate a trade war!

      I should have checked my vicinity for any stray monkey’s paws when I made that wish.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        “Fair Trade” is what you’re looking for. I don’t know how legit all instances are or whether they make a real difference, but its an attempt

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          This may sound pedantic, but you’re looking for Fairtrade (one word) for the organization with the strictest vetting standards. Fair Trade (two words) isn’t regulated and just means they follow some sort of ethical code. It’s not necessarily bad, but it warrants more product specific research.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      11 days ago

      everything you’re wearing right now

      Much of that is cotton. I believe that in the “good” ol’ days the US grew that themselves. Start that industry up again, and you don’t need mass deportations across the border.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        0·
        11 days ago

        Cotton takes a LOT of water to grow. And takes up farmland that could grow food.

        Most of your clothes are artificial fabrics these days. Or blended

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        0·
        11 days ago

        Ah, yes…

        All we need to keep that industry running like the good ol’ days is a massive industry of government subsidized illegal immigration of easily identified persons

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        The US still makes massive amounts of cotton. That all gets exported to other countries before getting turned into garments and things.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        0·
        11 days ago

        You could even run the farms the same way as in the olden days, if you criminalize and incarcarate enough black people.

        • MrVilliam@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          Well boy howdy, it turns out we already been done doin that there part about criminalizing and incarcerating them black people just out of sheer racism. You’re telling me that there could’ve been a profit motive to it this whole time too?

          jk, private contracted prisons were already profiting deeply off of that.

  • CForsyth@lemmy.ca
    0·
    11 days ago

    Most competent governments think like this goose because their believe in rules based order and systems. Trump doesn’t ascribe to that view and I think he will make a sweeping change and will personally govern exceptions until it suits himself and his base. Hopefully that mangment consumes his time enough to make him less effective.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    I’d bet they exempt it. The corporate grinder doesn’t really work without stimulants for the workers to purchase so they can work (and consume) more and sleep less.

  • shastaxc@lemm.ee
    0·
    10 days ago

    As a non-drinker of coffee, I am fully onboard with raising the price of coffee. Everyone is far too addicted to it and drink excessively to an unhealthy amount. Less coffee would be better for general health. Same for chocolate, as I saw someone else mention.

    Too bad Trump doesn’t care about that and doesn’t actually have any plan in mind for this kind of economic policy for the welfare of the people.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      As a non-drinker of coffee

      the rest of your opinion is moot. you have no say in this because you don’t understand the concepts behind coffee.

      I had to stop drinking coffee for health reasons. it was fucking awful. drank a cup a day for decades. I couldn’t function properly even six months later.

      eventually I started drinking decaf, it helped.

      you know why? the routine. the caffeine content is abysmally low but it comforts me first thing in the morning. It’s probably the same for many coffee drinkers.

      so really, do you want to inhabit a world where at least HALF of the people you know start their day out on the wrong side?

    • namarupa@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      Maybe the improved focus from a nice cup of joe would have made you realize how foolish this sounds before posting.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    Not sure if nafta is still active but I don’t think we can tariff Mexico. Mexico has some good coffee options

    And I’m not defending trump at all but I don’t think he has any plans on putting tariffs for South America. I thought it was like only a China thing.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    Chocolate also. Lol I hope you fucking like corn syrup and candy corn you little shits.

    • ntma@lemm.ee
      0·
      10 days ago

      I prefer buying my coffee and chocolate directly from the child slave labour. None of that free trade shit. It makes me feel connected to a past I never lived in.

      • udon@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 days ago

        I usually fly in to buy it locally. Important these days to know your farmers

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          0·
          9 days ago

          I like to talk to the grain harvesting robot every once in a while, really lets me feel like I’m part of a community

  • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 days ago

    Chocolate, cinnamon, vanilla, pepper, tea, bananas, and a fuckload of other things that are completely integrated into our regular diets are almost exclusively imported.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      0·
      11 days ago

      A lot of fruit/veg is grown in places they can get away with slave wages and then shipped here because that’s how little labor costs. Less than our already super low paid fruit/veg pickers that are primarily the people who escaped the countries and situations that put them in those even lower slave wage places.

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      11 days ago

      Sugar too. That ain’t healthy and is kinda fancy but… Can you see them losing their shit over sugar prices? I do.

      Tomatoes imports were 2.5B in 2023.

      Apparently the us imports 15% of it’s food supply.

      • RidderSport@feddit.org
        0·
        11 days ago

        Sugar is fancy now? Man my grandpa would be thrilled were he alive. There’s a colloquial term for the farm-houses of sugar beat farmers in Northern Germany, “beat castles”, as they quickly made a lot of money growing the beats in the late 19th century. When sugar became more accessible due to the processing of the beats to refined sugar. The wealth is long gone now, similarly to how salt used to be a luxury good.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        That can’t be right. Corn can’t be only 85% of our food.

        But seriously, there’s so much goddamn corn. Our meat is fed corn. Our processed foods and drinks are pumped full of corn. Even our fucking cars eat corn. We’re up to our fucking ears in ears of corn.

        • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
          0·
          11 days ago

          I understand your perspective but I want to ask a question, not to you, but for you to think about it. What motivation causes the imports?

          If corn syrup is a replacement for whatever they are doing, why are they importing raw sugar? If raw sugar is cheaper than you would expect them to already use sugar for everything and not corn syrup, and switching to corn syrup would be an increase in cost . If raw sugar costs the same, import is additional paperwork, why import? Raw sugar is more expensive, why would they pay more?

          Raw sugar can’t be replaced easily in their use case? Now that makes sense.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            0·
            11 days ago

            Sugar tastes better than HFCS. Ask anyone who drinks Mexican Coke. “Tastes better” doesn’t matter when there’s no other option.

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            Fact is, HFCS is cheaper. I haven’t checked the entirety of it’s supply chain to figure out why, but it is cheaper.

            If sugar was the same cost, they wouldn’t have switched to HFCS in the first place (why mess with your successful product for no gain?). Fact of the matter is that HFCS is saving them money. It might be pennies per bottle, but when you’re moving 10M bottles of soda, those pennies turn into dividends, literally.

  • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 days ago

    Who are we kidding? Trump’s going to enforce it selectively to nefarious ends and enrich himself off exemptions that he’s hand picked to be subservient. Free market my ass.