Grizzly Prices

DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>
>It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)

I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.

'The CPI measures costs in these areas, according to the BLS:
Food and Beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken,
wine, full service meals, snacks) Housing (rent of primary
residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
Clothes (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)'

'Sound extreme? Consider this, then: The largest component of CPI
is gathered by asking homeowners how much rent they'd charge if
they were to rent their homes today.'

Drumpf has carefully selected his tariff targets to affect items that
are not part of the CPI.

Note that the tariffs have already cost Ford over a billion dollars
and Ford buys most of its metals from US producers. You can be sure that
will show up in new car prices (and potentially reduced dividends to shareholders);
neither of which show up in the CPI.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> >> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> >> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> >> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> >> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> >> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> >> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> >> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> >> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> >> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
> >> >
> >> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
> >> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
> >> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
> >
> >I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
> >
> >(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>
> Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
> humor they were born with.

What does handedness have to do with this?

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:51:23 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 9/25/2018 9:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:46:02 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/25/18 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>>>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>>>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>>>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>>>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>>>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>>>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>>>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>>>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>>>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>>>
>>>> I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...
>>>>
>>>> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
>>>> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
>>>> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
>>>> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
>>>> local gas station's tanks.
>>>>
>>>> I heard an interview of the owner of a company that makes specialty
>>>> waterproof lighting (scuba lights, lights for TV stations so they can
>>>> film the reporter out in the storm, etc.) He buys his parts from China
>>>> and assembles the lights in the US. It's the parts that will impacted
>>>> by the tariffs. Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
>>>> from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
>>>> countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
>>>> no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US. The owner
>>>> said that he will not be able to compete with those companies unless he
>>>> moves his assembly operations overseas.
>>>>
>>>> The interview did not include the question "How many American jobs
>>>> will be lost?"
>>>>
>>>> My concern is that even if the tariff scheme is a negotiating tactic being
>>>> employed just to bring the Chinese to the table, companies such as this
>>>> lighting company have to do what they have to do to stay in business *today*.
>>>> They can't wait for the ploy to play out. Once they set the wheels in motion
>>>> to send the jobs overseas, it probably won't get undone even if the tariffs
>>>> are removed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are also companies that are adding jobs because of the tariffs.
>>> We have to wait it out, we have no choice.
>>> We've been on an un-level playing field with China for too long and
>>> something needed to be done about it. These tariffs are a step to
>>> turning the tide. China doesn't want to lose its biggest market. Is it
>>> a Chess match? Yes. But at least we're finally at table.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Do we have the stomach to stay at the table?
>>
>
>We have been since Carter took office. IMHO it is high time that we do
>unto others as they have done unto us.

Huh? We've capitulated to every two-bit dictator around the world.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:54:02 AM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 9/26/18 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Markem <[email protected]> writes:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
> >>> existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.
> >>
> >> But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
> >> tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.
> >
> > Well, it is his fault after all.
> >
> > Gotta pay for those foolish tax cuts somehow, after all. Might as
> > well soak the consumer so we don't have to tax the rich.
> >
>
> Those same consumers who's confidence is at a near record high?
> Like I said, it had to be done. The Chinese were and still are playing
> the game at a huge (yuuuuge) unfair advantage.
> But American consumers don't care as long as they can buy their $7.99
> lawn chairs and other crap that would be impossible to manufacture that
> cheap without near-slave wages absolutely no environmental regulations.
> In the big picture, you see European nations starting to drop their
> tariffs on our exports.
> If it's allowed to be played out, it will be much, much better for our
> economy and workers in the long run.
>
>

Unless we are experiencing a feedback loop where bull markets feed
consumer confidence which keeps the bull running which increases consumer
confidence which keeps the bull running, etc. etc.

Shiller's "Irrational Exuberance" phrase comes to mind. Former Fed Chair
Greenspan used it in a speech to describe the dot com bubble in 1996, a few
years before the bubble burst.

Earnings spiked with the tax cuts early this year, so P/E's aren't out of
line - yet. Let's hope this tariff game plays out before the market is
so overvalued that it all comes crashing down.

On 9/26/2018 9:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:51:23 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2018 9:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:46:02 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/18 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>>>>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>>>>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>>>>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>>>>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>>>>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>>>>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>>>>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>>>>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>>>>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).


[snip]

>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Do we have the stomach to stay at the table?
>>>
>>
>> We have been since Carter took office. IMHO it is high time that we do
>> unto others as they have done unto us.
>
> Huh? We've capitulated to every two-bit dictator around the world.
>

That's true enough, but there's a new sheriff in town as we've noticed.
Could be that this time somebody else's feet are going to be held to the
fire until they can no longer walk.

Just have to wait and see.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
> >
> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>
> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.

I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.

(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)


>
> 'The CPI measures costs in these areas, according to the BLS:
> Food and Beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken,
> wine, full service meals, snacks) Housing (rent of primary
> residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
> Clothes (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)'
>
> 'Sound extreme? Consider this, then: The largest component of CPI
> is gathered by asking homeowners how much rent they'd charge if
> they were to rent their homes today.'
>
> Drumpf has carefully selected his tariff targets to affect items that
> are not part of the CPI.
>
> Note that the tariffs have already cost Ford over a billion dollars
> and Ford buys most of its metals from US producers. You can be sure that
> will show up in new car prices (and potentially reduced dividends to shareholders);
> neither of which show up in the CPI.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:39:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>
>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>
>>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>>> does make payments every month.
>>>
>>> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.
>>
>> That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
>> tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
>> consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...
>
> No, it's not a silly statement at all. You only pay the tariff if you
> actually *bought* a car during the time the tariff was levied. Think
> about it.
>

I'm not an accountant, so I can't quote GAAP, but how could you
properly depreciate the total cost of newly purchased car except
over time and/or mileage. I really don't think you are going to
separate the cost of the tariff from the rest of the cost, except
perhaps taxes. How say you?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 6:39:51 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>=20
> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging=
=20
> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at=
=20
> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the=
=20
> local gas station's tanks.
>=20

The retailer is simply charging replacement cost on the inventory he alread=
y has. When the retailer sells the current inventory that does not have th=
e tariff, he has to replace it in the future with inventory that will have =
the tariff. To do that and maintain profit margin, he has to sell the unta=
riff inventory at the tariff price.

Think about real estate. You buy a house for $100,000. You decide you wan=
t a new house, in the same neighborhood. But the new houses sell for $200,=
000. Do you sell your old house at $100,000, because that is what you paid=
for it? Or do you sell it for $200,000 to allow you to buy a replacement.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:13:57 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:14:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:17:43 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>>> >> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>>>> >> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>>>> >> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>>>> >> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>>>> >> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>>>> >> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>>>> >> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>>>> >> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>>>> >> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>>>> >> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>>>>> >> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>>>>> >> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>>>>>
>>>>> Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
>>>>> humor they were born with.
>>>>
>>>>What does handedness have to do with this?
>>>
>>>Given it is meant as rhetoric, rhetoric was about changing minds now
>>>it is just an insult to intelligence of all sides.
>>
>>No, it's a statement of fact.
>
>Okay, but it is your "fact" alone!

Now you're just lying. Typical.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>...
>>
>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>
>>By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>
>New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
><https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>
>Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>does make payments every month.

But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>
>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>
> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>
> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
> does make payments every month.

If you think about it, you may agree that the real cost to the
consumer during the year, is the difference between the value of
the car at the beginning of the year, and the value of the car at
the end of the year. Should the value of the car somehow increase
in value, which is possible for a variety of reasons, the seller
may perhaps be obligated to pay a capital gains tax when they
sell it! %-)

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:07:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:19:05 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:16:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>> >...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>>>>
>>>>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>>>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>>>>
>>>>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>>>>response was 100% appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>>>>profits.
>>>
>>>Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.
>>
>>No tax is voluntary, now as away to pay for the tax cuts is more
>>accurate description.
>
>Of course, you're wrong. Lefties always are.

Let see not a lefty at all. Try again, but your contempt for those who
see things differenty only makes you a miserable jerk.

Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> writes:
>On 9/25/2018 2:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>
>On the face of it (figures lie and liars figure) the profit margin has
>not changed but there is an extra two dollars coming out of the
>consumers pocket on those two items and going right into the Grizzly's
>pocket.

On the other hand, most of these importers work on a Just-in-Time delivery
model, so there won't generally be much stock to which the pre-tariff
cost structure applies.

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).

It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:25:53 PM UTC-4, Markem wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> >> >...
> >>
> >> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
> >> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
> >>
> >> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
> >> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
> >> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
> >> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
> >
> >"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
> >reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
> >
> >The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
> >response was 100% appropriate.
>
> The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
> profits.

Color me skeptical. Somehow I get the feeling that consumers will help
relieve some of that pain.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:14:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:17:43 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>> >> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>>> >> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>>> >> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>>> >> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>>> >> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>>> >> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>>> >> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>>> >> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>>> >> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>>> >> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>>>> >> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>>>> >> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>>>> >
>>>> >(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>>>>
>>>> Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
>>>> humor they were born with.
>>>
>>>What does handedness have to do with this?
>>
>>Given it is meant as rhetoric, rhetoric was about changing minds now
>>it is just an insult to intelligence of all sides.
>
>No, it's a statement of fact.

Okay, but it is your "fact" alone!

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 3:40:57 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wr=
ote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 6:39:51 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >=20
> > First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging=
=20
> > by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on th=
e
> > shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up =
at=20
> > the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in th=
e=20
> > local gas station's tanks.
> >=20
>=20
> The retailer is simply charging replacement cost on the inventory he alre=
ady has. When the retailer sells the current inventory that does not have =
the tariff, he has to replace it in the future with inventory that will hav=
e the tariff. To do that and maintain profit margin, he has to sell the un=
tariff inventory at the tariff price.

If it's only about replacement cost, then you're saying that he'll lower th=
e=20
price on his last "tariffed inventory" as soon as he hears that his *next*=
=20
shipment won't be tariffed.

If he doesn't then he sold at least one "inventory cycle" at an elevated pr=
ice.

>=20
> Think about real estate. You buy a house for $100,000. You decide you w=
ant a new house, in the same neighborhood. But the new houses sell for $20=
0,000. Do you sell your old house at $100,000, because that is what you pa=
id for it? Or do you sell it for $200,000 to allow you to buy a replacemen=
t.

I sell my house for the highest price I can get regardless of what the next=
=20
house is going to cost me. Just because the new houses are selling for $200=
K=20
doesn't mean my old house will sell for $200K. Could be more, could be less=
.=20
Bad analogy.

On 9/25/2018 2:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 6:39:51 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
>> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
>> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
>> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
>> local gas station's tanks.
>>
>
> The retailer is simply charging replacement cost on the inventory he already has. When the retailer sells the current inventory that does not have the tariff, he has to replace it in the future with inventory that will have the tariff. To do that and maintain profit margin, he has to sell the untariff inventory at the tariff price.
>
> Think about real estate. You buy a house for $100,000. You decide you want a new house, in the same neighborhood. But the new houses sell for $200,000. Do you sell your old house at $100,000, because that is what you paid for it? Or do you sell it for $200,000 to allow you to buy a replacement.
>

The retailer IS NOT charging replacement cost on the inventory he
already has.

You are mixing up inventory cost controls and sales.

On 9/25/2018 9:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:46:02 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/18 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>>
>>> I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...
>>>
>>> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
>>> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
>>> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
>>> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
>>> local gas station's tanks.
>>>
>>> I heard an interview of the owner of a company that makes specialty
>>> waterproof lighting (scuba lights, lights for TV stations so they can
>>> film the reporter out in the storm, etc.) He buys his parts from China
>>> and assembles the lights in the US. It's the parts that will impacted
>>> by the tariffs. Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
>>> from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
>>> countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
>>> no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US. The owner
>>> said that he will not be able to compete with those companies unless he
>>> moves his assembly operations overseas.
>>>
>>> The interview did not include the question "How many American jobs
>>> will be lost?"
>>>
>>> My concern is that even if the tariff scheme is a negotiating tactic being
>>> employed just to bring the Chinese to the table, companies such as this
>>> lighting company have to do what they have to do to stay in business *today*.
>>> They can't wait for the ploy to play out. Once they set the wheels in motion
>>> to send the jobs overseas, it probably won't get undone even if the tariffs
>>> are removed.
>>>
>>
>> There are also companies that are adding jobs because of the tariffs.
>> We have to wait it out, we have no choice.
>> We've been on an un-level playing field with China for too long and
>> something needed to be done about it. These tariffs are a step to
>> turning the tide. China doesn't want to lose its biggest market. Is it
>> a Chess match? Yes. But at least we're finally at table.
>
> +1
>
> Do we have the stomach to stay at the table?
>

We have been since Carter took office. IMHO it is high time that we do
unto others as they have done unto us.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:55:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>
>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>
>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>
>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>> does make payments every month.
>>
>> If you think about it, you may agree that the real cost to the
>> consumer during the year, is the difference between the value of
>> the car at the beginning of the year, and the value of the car at
>> the end of the year. Should the value of the car somehow increase
>> in value, which is possible for a variety of reasons, the seller
>> may perhaps be obligated to pay a capital gains tax when they
>> sell it! %-)
>
> That is one cost. Fuel, maintenance, etc are others. However leaving
> aside vintage Ferraris and the like, few buy a car as an investment.

You appear to be assuming that one actually *drives* the car...
This adds a variable cost which, for some, may be 0. %-)

On 9/25/2018 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>
> I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...
>
> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
> local gas station's tanks.

It is a long standing way of inventory cost control. Some businesses
change the value of all of their inventory when cost changes go into
effect vs. selling on hand inventory at the old cost and changing prices
on the replacement inventory. Each method has it's advantages and
disadvantages.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

> It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
> seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
> you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>

When I first heard about tariffs (and I admittedly haven't been
following much news lately), they were based on "steel". So that
may have alot to do with which prices are increasing. Grizzly
sells a lot of "steel"! ; )

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:55:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>
>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>
>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>
>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>> does make payments every month.
>
>If you think about it, you may agree that the real cost to the
>consumer during the year, is the difference between the value of
>the car at the beginning of the year, and the value of the car at
>the end of the year. Should the value of the car somehow increase
>in value, which is possible for a variety of reasons, the seller
>may perhaps be obligated to pay a capital gains tax when they
>sell it! %-)

That is one cost. Fuel, maintenance, etc are others. However leaving
aside vintage Ferraris and the like, few buy a car as an investment.
>

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).

I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...

First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
local gas station's tanks.

I heard an interview of the owner of a company that makes specialty
waterproof lighting (scuba lights, lights for TV stations so they can
film the reporter out in the storm, etc.) He buys his parts from China
and assembles the lights in the US. It's the parts that will impacted
by the tariffs. Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US. The owner
said that he will not be able to compete with those companies unless he
moves his assembly operations overseas.

The interview did not include the question "How many American jobs
will be lost?"

My concern is that even if the tariff scheme is a negotiating tactic being
employed just to bring the Chinese to the table, companies such as this
lighting company have to do what they have to do to stay in business *today*.
They can't wait for the ploy to play out. Once they set the wheels in motion
to send the jobs overseas, it probably won't get undone even if the tariffs
are removed.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:44:40 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:25:53 PM UTC-4, Markem wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>> >> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> >> >...
>> >>
>> >> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>> >> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>> >>
>> >> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>> >> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>> >> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>> >> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> >The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>> >
>> >"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>> >reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>> >
>> >The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>> >response was 100% appropriate.
>>
>> The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>> profits.
>
>Color me skeptical. Somehow I get the feeling that consumers will help
>relieve some of that pain.

I believe skeptical attitude is on point. But I ordered a 2019 Ranger
on the 13th of August and have a set price. Hopefully there will be no
tariff surcharges.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 02:42:03 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:39:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>
>>>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>>>> does make payments every month.
>>>>
>>>> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.
>>>
>>> That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
>>> tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
>>> consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...
>>
>> No, it's not a silly statement at all. You only pay the tariff if you
>> actually *bought* a car during the time the tariff was levied. Think
>> about it.
>>
>
>I'm not an accountant, so I can't quote GAAP, but how could you
>properly depreciate the total cost of newly purchased car except
>over time and/or mileage. I really don't think you are going to
>separate the cost of the tariff from the rest of the cost, except
>perhaps taxes. How say you?

So don't buy a car, fool!

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:49:32 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
> > >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> > >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> > >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> > >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> > >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> > >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> > >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> > >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> > >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> > >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> > >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
> > >
> > >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
> > >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
> > >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
> >
> > I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>
> I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>
> (P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>

But I wasn't joking when I said that Powell said he wasn't seeing any
increases in consumer prices. The question asked at today's Interest Rate
Hike press conference (we all watched that, right?) was - more or less -
as follows. (not quotes)

Reporter: Walmart and other companies have said that the tariffs will
cause them to increase prices. What effect do you think that will have
on your estimates for economic growth and future interest rate increases?

Powell: At this point I have not seen anything that indicates that the
tariffs have had any impact on consumer prices. I can not speculate on
any future impact the tariffs may have.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:37:33 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:07:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:19:05 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:16:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>> >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>>>>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>>>>>response was 100% appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>>>>>profits.
>>>>
>>>>Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.
>>>
>>>No tax is voluntary, now as away to pay for the tax cuts is more
>>>accurate description.
>>
>>Of course, you're wrong. Lefties always are.
>
>Let see not a lefty at all. Try again, but your contempt for those who
>see things differenty only makes you a miserable jerk.

This is a pointless argument that doesn't really have anything to do
with "lefty" or "righty". However it is a case of "you keep using
this word, I think it does not mean what you think it means".
<https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/anti-tax-law-evasion-schemes-law-and-arguments-section-i>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:39:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>
>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>
>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>
>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>> does make payments every month.
>>
>> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.
>
>That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
>tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
>consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...

No, it's not a silly statement at all. You only pay the tariff if you
actually *bought* a car during the time the tariff was levied. Think
about it.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> >> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>> >> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>> >> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>> >> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>> >> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>> >> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>> >> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>> >> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>> >> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>> >> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>> >> >
>> >> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>> >> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>> >> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>> >
>> >I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>> >
>> >(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>>
>> Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
>> humor they were born with.
>
>What does handedness have to do with this?

Given it is meant as rhetoric, rhetoric was about changing minds now
it is just an insult to intelligence of all sides.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> >...
>>
>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>
>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>
>> --
>
>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>
>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>
>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>response was 100% appropriate.

The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
profits.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
...Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
> from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
> countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
> no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US.

Interesting to note, where there is a "loophole" with a financial
incentive to find it, people find it! And as you noted, the
consequences can be huge...

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:54:02 AM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 9/26/18 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> > Markem <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
>> >>> existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.
>> >>
>> >> But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
>> >> tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.
>> >
>> > Well, it is his fault after all.
>> >
>> > Gotta pay for those foolish tax cuts somehow, after all. Might as
>> > well soak the consumer so we don't have to tax the rich.
>> >
>>
>> Those same consumers who's confidence is at a near record high?
>> Like I said, it had to be done. The Chinese were and still are playing
>> the game at a huge (yuuuuge) unfair advantage.
>> But American consumers don't care as long as they can buy their $7.99
>> lawn chairs and other crap that would be impossible to manufacture that
>> cheap without near-slave wages absolutely no environmental regulations.
>> In the big picture, you see European nations starting to drop their
>> tariffs on our exports.
>> If it's allowed to be played out, it will be much, much better for our
>> economy and workers in the long run.
>>
>>
>
>Unless we are experiencing a feedback loop where bull markets feed
>consumer confidence which keeps the bull running which increases consumer
>confidence which keeps the bull running, etc. etc.

Yes, positive feedback always has its risks.
>
>Shiller's "Irrational Exuberance" phrase comes to mind. Former Fed Chair
>Greenspan used it in a speech to describe the dot com bubble in 1996, a few
>years before the bubble burst.

...and so did GWB, before the housing collapse, in fact. It didn't
take a genius to see what was coming. People buying houses they have
no business buying and using their houses as ATMs can't end well.

>Earnings spiked with the tax cuts early this year, so P/E's aren't out of
>line - yet. Let's hope this tariff game plays out before the market is
>so overvalued that it all comes crashing down.

OTOH, perhaps tariffs will be a better brake on the economy than the
Fed could dream of being. ...to long-term gain, as well.

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> >...
>
> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>
> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>
> --

The "component of" comment was made in response to this:

"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."

The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
response was 100% appropriate.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
>existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.

But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:19:05 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:16:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>> >...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>
>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>>>
>>>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>>>
>>>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>>>response was 100% appropriate.
>>>
>>>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>>>profits.
>>
>>Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.
>
>No tax is voluntary, now as away to pay for the tax cuts is more
>accurate description.

Of course, you're wrong. Lefties always are.

On 9/25/2018 7:58 PM, Markem wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
>> existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.
>
> But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
> tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.
>

That's ok, but the tariff is 25% so adding 20% is gouging. Maybe 12% or
so ends up on the retail price.

Markem <[email protected]> writes:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
>>existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.
>
>But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
>tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.

Well, it is his fault after all.

Gotta pay for those foolish tax cuts somehow, after all. Might as
well soak the consumer so we don't have to tax the rich.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:16:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>> >...
>>>>
>>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>
>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>>
>>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>>
>>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>>response was 100% appropriate.
>>
>>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>>profits.
>
>Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.

No tax is voluntary, now as away to pay for the tax cuts is more
accurate description.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
> >
> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>
> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.

Apparently you're not aware of a LOT of components of the CPI.

> 'The CPI measures costs in these areas, according to the BLS:
> Food and Beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken,
> wine, full service meals, snacks) Housing (rent of primary
> residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
> Clothes (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)'
>

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/changes-in-the-cost-of-living/
https://www.bls.gov/bls/faqs.htm

The Eight Major Categories in the Consumer Price Index

Food and beverages (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full-service meals, and snacks)
Housing (renter’s cost of housing, homeowner’s cost of housing, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
Apparel (men’s shirts and sweaters, women’s dresses, jewelry)
Transportation (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
Medical care (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians’ services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
Recreation (televisions, cable television, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions)
Education and communication (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories)
Other goods and services (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses)

> 'Sound extreme? Consider this, then: The largest component of CPI
> is gathered by asking homeowners how much rent they'd charge if
> they were to rent their homes today.'
>
> Drumpf has carefully selected his tariff targets to affect items that
> are not part of the CPI.
>
> Note that the tariffs have already cost Ford over a billion dollars
> and Ford buys most of its metals from US producers. You can be sure that
> will show up in new car prices (and potentially reduced dividends to shareholders);
> neither of which show up in the CPI.

Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
"TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>> >...
>>>
>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>
>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>
>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>
>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>response was 100% appropriate.
>
>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>profits.

Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.

On 9/25/18 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>
> I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...
>
> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
> local gas station's tanks.
>
> I heard an interview of the owner of a company that makes specialty
> waterproof lighting (scuba lights, lights for TV stations so they can
> film the reporter out in the storm, etc.) He buys his parts from China
> and assembles the lights in the US. It's the parts that will impacted
> by the tariffs. Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
> from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
> countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
> no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US. The owner
> said that he will not be able to compete with those companies unless he
> moves his assembly operations overseas.
>
> The interview did not include the question "How many American jobs
> will be lost?"
>
> My concern is that even if the tariff scheme is a negotiating tactic being
> employed just to bring the Chinese to the table, companies such as this
> lighting company have to do what they have to do to stay in business *today*.
> They can't wait for the ploy to play out. Once they set the wheels in motion
> to send the jobs overseas, it probably won't get undone even if the tariffs
> are removed.
>

There are also companies that are adding jobs because of the tariffs.
We have to wait it out, we have no choice.
We've been on an un-level playing field with China for too long and
something needed to be done about it. These tariffs are a step to
turning the tide. China doesn't want to lose its biggest market. Is it
a Chess match? Yes. But at least we're finally at table.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 9/26/18 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Markem <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:45:10 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
>>> existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.
>>
>> But by letting the customer know the price increase is due to Trump's
>> tariffs, they pass the buck to the customer and the blame on Trump.
>
> Well, it is his fault after all.
>
> Gotta pay for those foolish tax cuts somehow, after all. Might as
> well soak the consumer so we don't have to tax the rich.
>

Those same consumers who's confidence is at a near record high?
Like I said, it had to be done. The Chinese were and still are playing
the game at a huge (yuuuuge) unfair advantage.
But American consumers don't care as long as they can buy their $7.99
lawn chairs and other crap that would be impossible to manufacture that
cheap without near-slave wages absolutely no environmental regulations.
In the big picture, you see European nations starting to drop their
tariffs on our exports.
If it's allowed to be played out, it will be much, much better for our
economy and workers in the long run.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>...

> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"

By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.

--

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>...
>
>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>
>By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.

New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
<https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>

Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
does make payments every month.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:46:02 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 9/25/18 6:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>
>> I can't speak to the exact amount of the tariffs, but...
>>
>> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
>> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
>> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
>> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
>> local gas station's tanks.
>>
>> I heard an interview of the owner of a company that makes specialty
>> waterproof lighting (scuba lights, lights for TV stations so they can
>> film the reporter out in the storm, etc.) He buys his parts from China
>> and assembles the lights in the US. It's the parts that will impacted
>> by the tariffs. Meanwhile, some of his competitors also buy their parts
>> from China, but they have the equipment assembled in "most favored nation"
>> countries. No tariffs on the Chinese parts going into those countries and
>> no tariffs on the fully assembled product coming into the US. The owner
>> said that he will not be able to compete with those companies unless he
>> moves his assembly operations overseas.
>>
>> The interview did not include the question "How many American jobs
>> will be lost?"
>>
>> My concern is that even if the tariff scheme is a negotiating tactic being
>> employed just to bring the Chinese to the table, companies such as this
>> lighting company have to do what they have to do to stay in business *today*.
>> They can't wait for the ploy to play out. Once they set the wheels in motion
>> to send the jobs overseas, it probably won't get undone even if the tariffs
>> are removed.
>>
>
>There are also companies that are adding jobs because of the tariffs.
>We have to wait it out, we have no choice.
>We've been on an un-level playing field with China for too long and
>something needed to be done about it. These tariffs are a step to
>turning the tide. China doesn't want to lose its biggest market. Is it
>a Chess match? Yes. But at least we're finally at table.

+1

Do we have the stomach to stay at the table?

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>> >
>> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>>
>> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>
>I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>
>(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)

Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
humor they were born with.

On 9/25/2018 2:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 6:39:51 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>> First, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some amount of price gouging
>> by companies that raise their prices on products that are already on the
>> shelf and not impacted by the tariffs. Just like when gas prices go up at
>> the first mention of a hurricane, even on the gas that is already in the
>> local gas station's tanks.
>>
>
> The retailer is simply charging replacement cost on the inventory he already has. When the retailer sells the current inventory that does not have the tariff, he has to replace it in the future with inventory that will have the tariff. To do that and maintain profit margin, he has to sell the untariff inventory at the tariff price.
>
> Think about real estate. You buy a house for $100,000. You decide you want a new house, in the same neighborhood. But the new houses sell for $200,000. Do you sell your old house at $100,000, because that is what you paid for it? Or do you sell it for $200,000 to allow you to buy a replacement.
>

Not the best example. Yours makes sense in the sense that when you sell
a home to either upsize or downsize you want to minimize your out of
pocket or increase the money you take off the table at sale.

If Grizzly only wanted to maintain their status quo they would sell
existing stock at cost plus markup % and leave the tariff out of it.

Let's say that they have a 9% gross margin percent over cost of goods sold.

A machine in stock BEFORE tariff cost them $100 and they sold it at
$110. That's a 10% markup and a gross margin percent of 9% or $10 gross
margin.

Now if they take existing stock and raise its cost by the amount of the
tariff, let's say the tariff is $20. Now their 10% markup is $12.00 and
they have to sell it for $132 to maintain their 9% gross margin which
now becomes $12 gross margin dollars.

If they sell one unit from stock without the tariff added in and one
additional ordered in and paying the tariff, WITH the price bump as
above, they will have paid a total of $220 and received $22 gross margin
dollars.

If they bump the price of the in stock, upon which they have not paid
the tariff, but are pricing it as if they had, they end up with $24.00
gross margin dollars or the same gross margin of 9%.

On the face of it (figures lie and liars figure) the profit margin has
not changed but there is an extra two dollars coming out of the
consumers pocket on those two items and going right into the Grizzly's
pocket.

Simple example, small amounts. Who cares? Well, increase the cost,
markup % and sales volume and you or I would be quite happy to accept it
as a bonus. As additional out of pocket expense for us? Not so much.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 02:42:03 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:39:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>
>>>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>>>> does make payments every month.
>>>>
>>>> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.
>>>
>>> That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
>>> tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
>>> consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...
>>
>> No, it's not a silly statement at all. You only pay the tariff if you
>> actually *bought* a car during the time the tariff was levied. Think
>> about it.
>>
>
>I'm not an accountant, so I can't quote GAAP, but how could you
>properly depreciate the total cost of newly purchased car except
>over time and/or mileage. I really don't think you are going to
>separate the cost of the tariff from the rest of the cost, except
>perhaps taxes. How say you?

A private citizen doesn't normally depreciate the cost of a car.
Depreciation generally applies to capital assets in a business.

However, regardless of how one pays for the car, if one is buying a
new one the price is higher after the tariffs than before.

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).

FWIW there's a HF '30 day price change' URL (accuracy unknown).
Firefox counted: 93 DOWN and 68 UP. [*]

http://www.hfqpdb.com/price_changes

[*] DOWN = Price dropped, UP = Price rose

... YMMV

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:37:33 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:07:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:19:05 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:16:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:25:53 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:15:46 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>> >...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>>> > "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "component of" comment was made in response to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"You can be sure that will show up in new car prices (and potentially
>>>>>>reduced dividends to shareholders); neither of which show up in the CPI."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The value of the component might be as small as .0001% of the CPI but the
>>>>>>response was 100% appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Ford chairman recently said the tariffs will cost a billion in
>>>>>profits.
>>>>
>>>>Look at it as a voluntary tax. You should like that.
>>>
>>>No tax is voluntary, now as away to pay for the tax cuts is more
>>>accurate description.
>>
>>Of course, you're wrong. Lefties always are.
>
>Let see not a lefty at all. Try again, but your contempt for those who
>see things differenty only makes you a miserable jerk.

Contempt for the contemptible. You bet. *THEY'VE* given me no
choice.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:17:43 -0500, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:39:53 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:50:22 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:02:26 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>> >> >> I went browsing at Grizzly and noticed many of the prices now
>>> >> >> featured an added "tariff fee" of about 20%. Maybe it has been
>>> >> >> this way for while and I just noticed? When I searched online, I
>>> >> >> found out that even people who already had orders in place were
>>> >> >> informed that a 20% fee would be added. Just out of curiosity,
>>> >> >> what is the actual amount of the tariff? Are they already
>>> >> >> charging it at the border? It must be more difficult to sell
>>> >> >> Grizzly tools after an instant 20% markup... I read that Harbor
>>> >> >> Freight is following suit (I don't know if that's true or not,
>>> >> >> but have little doubt that higher costs lead to higher prices..).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >It must be price gouging. Fed Chair Powell just said that they are not
>>> >> >seeing any increases in consumer prices due to the tariffs. Maybe
>>> >> >you should email a Grizzly product link to him. ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> I wasn't aware that woodworking machinery was a component of the CPI.
>>> >
>>> >I'm missing your point. I didn't mention CPI.
>>> >
>>> >(P.S. I was joking about sending Powell an email)
>>>
>>> Lefties can't understand jokes. They've completely lost any sense of
>>> humor they were born with.
>>
>>What does handedness have to do with this?
>
>Given it is meant as rhetoric, rhetoric was about changing minds now
>it is just an insult to intelligence of all sides.

No, it's a statement of fact.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>
>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>
>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>
>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>> does make payments every month.
>
> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.

That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 02:42:03 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:39:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:53:02 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:15:34 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/27/2018 10:45 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit, the price of 'new vehicles' _is_ a component of the CPI.
>>>>>>>> "TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By what percentage influence is the new vehicle component, however? The
>>>>>>> average consumer isn't buying a new vehicle even annually, what more
>>>>>>> monthly or weekly...so while there may be a component, it'll be so tiny
>>>>>>> as to be pretty-much noise unless the increase is huge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New vehicle is about 3.5%. For a lot of gory details see
>>>>>> <https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpi-20180214.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your average consumer doesn't purchase a new vehicle every year but
>>>>>> does make payments every month.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the tariffs aren't on monthly payments.
>>>>
>>>> That's a silly comment. What do you care if the cost of the
>>>> tariff (via the purchasers payment schedule) is amortized by the
>>>> consumer over 1 month, 3 years or 6 years...
>>>
>>> No, it's not a silly statement at all. You only pay the tariff if you
>>> actually *bought* a car during the time the tariff was levied. Think
>>> about it.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not an accountant, so I can't quote GAAP, but how could you
>> properly depreciate the total cost of newly purchased car except
>> over time and/or mileage. I really don't think you are going to
>> separate the cost of the tariff from the rest of the cost, except
>> perhaps taxes. How say you?
>
> So don't buy a car, fool!
>

Can't stand someone pointing out a shortcoming in your thinking,
huh? I've thought a little more about the appropriate reflection
or impact on the CPI, but I can see that there is no point in
sharing it with you.