this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
1034 points (97.8% liked)

memes

22240 readers
2923 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

IDK, but it does make sense?

The total income of the business is P x C, where P is the number of sold items and C is the cost. Under some model of P(S), businesses try to maximize this product. The tariffs caused an imbalance in this product, but they still were able to maximize it. Only the maximum value of this product was reduced.

Also, the businesses were paying tariffs, so obviously tariffs increased expenses.

Then the government decided to do the reimbursement for the expenses, but not for the difference in maximum incomes.

Thus, on average

  • businesses lost some income

  • government spends all its tariff income on reimbursement

  • customers payed more

  • chineese manufactureres lost some income too

  • GOP and Trump will be reelected because fuck China I guess

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

IDK, but it does make sense?

For business that were in on the grift, and/or just gouging customers "because tariffs", it absolutely made sense.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

This kinda works for essential commodities and not for luxury