Best Buy and Target CEOs say prices are about to go up because of tariffs
Retail giants like Best Buy and Target warn they will raise prices in response to new U.S. tariffs on imports, highlighting how such policies are quickly passed on to consumers rather than absorbed by manufacturers. Commenters debate whether broad, volatile tariffs can ever achieve goals like reshoring production or reducing dependence on China, noting evidence that past measures mostly raised prices and fueled uncertainty without driving major new investment. The exchange also touches on wider implications for inflation, trade relations with allies such as Canada and Mexico, and the potential for tariffs to become a regressive de facto tax that benefits politically connected firms.
Political framing and supporter justifications
- Many expect tariff-driven price hikes to be rationalized by Trump supporters as “tough negotiating,” “patriotic sacrifice,” or later blamed on opponents (e.g., Biden, the Fed).
- Several comments describe the dynamic as cult-like: any outcome is retrofitted into a positive narrative, with little concern for consistency or expert consensus.
- Others argue some right-leaning media and voters are more ambivalent, acknowledging tariffs will raise prices, especially on staples like eggs.
Who actually pays tariffs
- Long subthread on tax incidence: in theory, burden depends on supply and demand elasticities.
- Multiple commenters stress that in practice manufacturers rarely “eat” 20–25% tariffs given thin margins; costs are overwhelmingly passed to consumers, especially short-term.
- Others note that tariffs are regressive: they function like a consumption tax that hits lower-income households hardest.
Price effects, inflation, and corporate behavior
- Many point out retailers already used COVID and supply-chain shocks to raise prices and keep them high after costs eased; tariffs are seen as fresh cover to hike prices and margins.
- Examples cited (washing machines, dryers) where both foreign and domestic prices rose under prior tariffs, with large “cost per job created.”
- Concern that tariffs will push up both imported and domestic goods, stoke inflation, and contribute to further rate pressure.
Supply chains, Canada/Mexico, and retaliation
- Commenters emphasize deeply integrated North American supply chains: components cross borders multiple times, so tariffs stack and propagate.
- Expected impacts: higher car prices, costlier groceries (especially winter produce from Mexico), and harm to U.S. exporters via counter-tariffs.
- Several Canadian voices describe widespread anger, boycotts of U.S. goods, and long-term damage to U.S.–Canada relations.
Market volatility and potential manipulation
- Repeated pattern noted: dramatic tariff announcements followed by talk of quick walk-backs, which move markets sharply.
- Some suspect insiders and politically connected actors can profit from this volatility; others frame it as “governing by chaos” that businesses hate regardless of motive.
Industrial policy vs. chaotic protectionism
- A minority argue tariffs can work if: narrow, predictable, long-term, and tied to strategic sectors or cost-adjustment (environment, labor, human rights).
- Most think blanket, high, rapidly shifting tariffs won’t cause serious onshoring: policy risk is too high and global labor-cost gaps too large.
- Debate over whether the U.S. should even try to “re-manufacture” broadly instead of focusing on higher-margin services, with some emphasizing “good jobs for non-elite workers.”
China, “cheap junk,” and quality
- Some welcome anything that reduces dependence on low-quality Chinese imports.
- Others respond that without deeper changes in corporate incentives, production moving home or to other countries will just yield “more expensive low-quality junk.”
Consumer and citizen power
- A few wish for coordinated consumer boycotts to force corporations to absorb more costs rather than passing them on.
- Others argue the more realistic target would be coordinated political pressure to reverse tariffs, but note U.S. voters are fragmented, demotivated, or structurally disenfranchised.