Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    His businesses (pre-Twitter) are or have been entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent. He just bought a company that has only occasionally turned a profit in the last 9 years based on a whim driven by his need to shitpost.

    Even charlatans can make money.

    This is so indicative of the attitudes of many like yourself.  Maybe Musk is a horrible person.  I dont know him.  But your post is so stupid.  First, he founded his first company (Zip2) with his brother and another guy in 1995 at 24 years old.  They used angel funding of around $200K or so and 4 years later they sold the company and Musk personally made around $25M.  More money than 99% of people will earn in their lifetime.  Not even remotely  "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent".  From there he founded X.com with a few others which eventually morphed into Paypal and he sold out in 2002 and personally pocketed around $160M.  31 years old and a hundred plus millionaire, again, without even a shred of "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent".  

    He very well may be a horrible person with no morality, but to suggest he wasn't extremely successful and a wildly successful businessman is just you being a petty, jealous fool.

    As for SpaceX and Tesla, he absolutely utilized govt money.  But he didn't steal it.  He asked for it and they gave it.  Many, many if not most successful businesses started with some type of direct govt funding or SBA loans.  I once advocated to short Tesla stock as I thought the numbers were fishy and I thought Musk was fishy.  I did not think there was any way it would be successful long term.  Yet, their latest reporting showed around $12B in operating profit and free cash flow of almost $7B (almost equal to the entirety of their current debt).  It is actually remarkable.  It could still fail as competition increases and margins fall but, by any business measure, Tesla is a resounding success.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  2. On 8/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Tex-19 said:

    Does anyone else think it's kinda crazy how high the national expectations are for Ewers this soon? As others have said, he's basically a true freshman. I didn't hear a peep when Bryce Young redshirted (granted, Mac Jones was very good). No one expects Weigman or Klubnik to start at any point this season. Yet for some reason, it's a huge failure if Ewers isn't ready week 1? 

    In fact, I can't even name a single true freshman QB who started week 1. Not Lawrence, not Fields, not Rattler, not Caleb, etc.

    I know, I know, Ewers isn't technically a true freshman. But just like all true freshman, he's played 4 seasons of football since he entered high school and like them, he's learning a new system this year. Being a redshirt typically means you had a year to learn the playbook. It also typically means you had a Senior season as a starter in HS. Not the case here.

    Anyway, thanks for attending my ted talk. 

    This is a fair point, but my thinking is that Ewers had a redshiort season in a great system with loads of talent.  The issue is that we all saw what Card has to offer.  If Ewers isn't noticably better right now than Card then we will likely have issues.

  3. One of my favorites from him.  He said his daughter was arguing with him about something and said things were not fair.  His response- you were born in the USA, white, smart and well off. You better pray things never start getting fair.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Drool 1

    High

    While I appreciate all of the technical stuff on this thread, I really like the stoned posts better.  I am feeling fan fucking tastic right now!!!!!!!!

    • Hook 'Em 3
  4. 3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    i'm responding to both of your posts, so i apologize if this gets a bit jumbled.

    japan wanted our carriers. i think they thought our carriers would be at pearl. i think we led them to believe that.

    i get a bit tin foil hat conspiracy-ish after that, if not even before.

    japan would have been smart to wait a little while longer. we were destined to go to war with germany, and i guess, italy. but they wanted to take the world by the balls. and again, when you look at it in that context, it's bold as fuck and very much in their national character. there's nothing wrong with sneak attacks if you get it right. just look at overlord. 

    I can certainly see the perspective of your posts.  Especially in hindsight.  But, IMO, the "FDR knew the attack was coming and let it happen to galvanize the country" withers under scrutiny.  We could debate this for 100 pages as historians have done for years but the following points are what seal it for me:

    1) Carriers- At the time of the invasion, carriers were considered secondary to battleships for naval warfare.  They were used much more for transport than active warring at the time.  Obviously in hindsight, they were critical.  Most of the conspiracy ideas come down to the carriers and radio intercepts (next point).  As mentioned above, the carriers were not coincidentally missing from Pearl.  They were all out on missions that had been in planning for a while and one (there were only 3 in the Pacific at the time) was in repairs and had been for months.

    Also, as recent intel has shown, Japan had a spy at Pearl giving them regular updates.  Yamamoto knew on 12/5 that there were no carriers at Pearl.  The spy gave them direct intel.  He decided to attack anyway because they still figured that they could cripple the US fleet long enough to get strongholds around their supply lines.

    2) Radio Intercepts- Contrary to current thinking, we really did not have word for word ability on Jap codes.  But, most importantly, the Japs (just like us and every other military) would routinely send out  false messages to try and fool us.  The attack on Pearl could  very easily have been an elaborate ruse designed to get us to pull back our defenses so that the Japs could take over the fuel routes that they desperately needed.  We sort of knew where their ships were but not really and they could move around without detection.  One of the reasons that our carriers were not at Pearl was because they were reinforcing bases that we thought were more likely to be attacked.

    3) Audacity- Using carriers as attackers was relatively new in 1941 (interestingly neither Germany or Italy had a single carrier at the beginning of the war).  Attacks from carriers were mostly short ranged and involved 6-10 aircraft.  When the Japs used 6 carriers in a combined long range strike it was the first time in the history of war that it had been done.  Trying to convince FDR and the military that Japan was going to do something so bold that had never even been contemplated before was a tough, tough sell and rightfully so.  Japan used something like 350 aircraft in the strikes on pearl.  No one in the world had ever seen anything like that before so it is not surprising that we did not plan for it.  

    At the end of the day, we knew there were Jap ships near us and that an attack somewhere was likely and that war was likely inevitable.  We also had the foolish (certainly foolish in hindsight) belief that Japan would make a declaration of war (as was customary at the time) and give us some time to prepare.  FDR made mistakes and we got very, very lucky.  But I will never ever believe that a US President would knowingly allow an attack on our troops and fleet.  Ultimately the overwhelming industrial might of the US and our spirit were going to win any war but it probably should have been a lot harder and taken a lot longer to beat back the Japanese. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  5. On 12/7/2021 at 10:15 AM, Harrison Bergeron said:

    For the first time in my life I worry that the current generation would not be able to respond to a similar call. I hope that I am wrong.

    Bob Dole's passing was another great reminder of the sacrifices our forefathers made for our country.

    I hear this a lot but just completely disagree.  On 12/6/41 and before, there was deep disagreement about the war.  Even after Pearl there was still opposition to the war.  The opposition post Pearl was much smaller but it existed.  There were near constant marches and protests in DC at the time, but no one really heard about them nationally.  The difference is that in 1941 the crazies did not have a voice.  The media, as it existed at the time, would rarely, if ever, give anti american voices a platform.  But there were just as many extremists on each side of the political spectrum then as there are now. 

    Perspective is really hard at times.  We all saw mass protests and looting/burning etc in Portland.  Seemed like the whole city was taken over.  At its absolute peak there were about 1000 people involved.  That represented .15% of the population of Portland.  Crazies like Antifa, Proud Boys etc garner an oversized and undeserved percentage of news coverage in today's world but represent an almost statistically insignificant number of people.  Obviously small groups can do great damage but they do not represent the actual morals and values of 99% of the country.

    If the US was directly attacked in some fashion where the actual fate of the country was at stake I firmly believe there would be millions of citizens lining up to fight.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  6. 3 hours ago, Codaxx said:

    What do you think the coaches are selling recruits? This is literally the same pitch. This statement is for recruiting. It serves no other purpose. If you dont believe that, why dont you tell me why he put out the letter. 

    I actually think that if this statement was put out specifically for recruiting then it is an even dumber thing to do.  Who are we kidding?  Recruits are 17.  They know the Head Coach and the coach specifically recruiting them.  95% have no idea who the AD is.  You think they know the AD at OU, A&M, Alabama etc.  No chance.

    The negative recruiting with this is also really easy.  Any outside coach/recruiter will ask a current recruit why they would want to go to a program where the admin has to make excuses for the poor performance on the field.  They will ask a recruit why so many highly rated and talented players that signed with Texas are no longer on the team.  Other coaches will rightly call it a train wreck and that Sark will get fired soon enough just like their last few coaches.  The elite and confident players needed to win  already expect to get playing time wherever they go.  They want to be developed.  

    CDC is getting barraged with calls/texts/emails/tweets etc on what is wrong with Texas and what Is wrong with Sark.  He is tired of answering the same question over and over and over.  He put out a letter so people will stop contacting him.  He will just refer them to the letter.  

  7. 1 hour ago, Codaxx said:

    I love the anger towards CDC comments. His comments were not directed to the fans or boosters. To save you guys the anger he should have just opened it up with

     

    Dear Devon Campbell, Evan Stewart, Harold Perkins, Denver Harris, Kelvin Banks, etc.., 

    Lol. So recruits watch the games and know the talent is lacking. The coaches tell the recruits directly almost daily that there are all kinds of opportunities to get meaningful playing time immediately but a nuanced letter from the AD that likely none of the recruits will ever see from a guy most of them have never even heard of is going to be the clincher for them signing.  Shit maybe he is a genius.  

  8. 1 hour ago, Lobo said:

    Though he only peripherally fraternized with the Officers, considering the shitshow they diffused—-there’s a decent chance our Fathers mingled at the same watering hole when that near-disaster had finished.  

    Quite possible.  My dad said the very best port/duty or whatever it is called was Cuba.  

  9. 8 hours ago, Lobo said:

    I thank each and every one of you.  I am trying to make it a point today to send each of the 15 or so veterans (and a handful still on active duty) in my mom's and father's sides of the family some well wishes and pictures of our oldest at her school's veteran's day celebration.  

    But I gotta drop a thread derail here.  My daughter's elementary school asked for photos of close relatives who've served with a little description for a video tribute.  So I gave her a cool pic and rundown of my dad's Naval service.  Between his frigate and destroyer service, he was Morocco, Cuba, and Vietnam.  And the poor lady at the school was just overwhelmed.  Maybe she got bad raw data.  The video was super sweet with great music broken down by branch.  But her data entry was all over the place.  She had guys serving in Korea in 1943.  Grandads in the Air Force in 1938.  Commissioned Officer rates next to photos of folks in enlisted uniforms.  Even had a great-grandpa attending the USNA from 1936-1956 (Super Senior, maybe).  But it was very well intentioned and made my daughter and I swell up with pride.  Then my dad's pops up, gets NCO and years right and most theaters. 

    Then, "Cuban Navel Blockade."  I cried laughing, my wife and daughters having no idea why.  My father is dead laughing in his grave.  I'm just picturing his carrier group trying to keep the mid-riffs of saucy Cubana ladies from barring too much skin on those humid Havana nights.  /csb

    Thanks for everything fellas.  Wouldn't be here without you.

    Interestingly, my dad was an officer on a ship (I think it was the Blandy) during the Cuban missile crisis.  13 Days was a pretty good movie about the crisis for those interested.  It is almost impossible to explain what happened in those days to my kids today.  They just can not imagine a world where no one knows anything about what the other side is doing.

    • Like 1
  10. 5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

    the ceremony was over and the remains had been driven off. 

    this is just lazy fucking effort.  troll better.

    Back to the surly we love.  Calling out a poster for trolling and being lazy by trolling and being lazy.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/usa-today-correction-fact-check-biden-watch

    ""Corrections & Clarifications: This story was updated Sept. 2 to note that Biden checked his watch multiple times at the dignified transfer event, including during the ceremony itself," the correction read at the top of the report on Thursday"

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Fuck You 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

    i'm totally sure there aren't any laws against straw purchases of firearms and/or handing a minor a rifle unsupervised and/or driving him to a riot and letting him run around by himself, nevermind the rifle. 

    Can't believe I am going to type this but you actually make a good point.  There seems to be a little grey area on whether or not he could legally own the gun but I agree that if the straw purchase was illegal then that guy should be prosecuted.  I also actually agree on the mom.  Kids do stupid shit all the time.  IF, she knew he was going to get a gun when she drove him to the riot, I think she could be prosecuted as well.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 14 hours ago, Bevo said:

    I'm at a loss here. Vote? Let the city burn like Seattle? I'm still hoping that the law finds an answer to riots. I don't think the guys who were shot are an answer to any of our problems in America.

    There were people there "helping" (rendering aid, boarding up buildings, cleaning graffiti etc) that were not armed.  None of them got brutally attacked.  KR most certainly injected himself into the mayhem, which he had the legal right to do, but, IMO, the potential for a bad outcome due to people bringing weapons to the scene was greater then the help they could realistically provide.  Just my opinion.

    I am not saying he did anything wrong legally and I understand the argument that some people at the scene felt the need to be armed.

    The reality is that Rosenbaum was hell bent on attacking/killing some individual that night who was there to help dispel the rioting and looting and arson.  I think KR just happened to be the first one that passed by Rosenbaum when he was laying in wait.  Could have been any of the armed folks.  

    It was still a bad idea to be there with an AR.  Obviously the police/national guard/whoever should have been out in full force to handle the situation but they were not for whatever reason.  Better to let a business burn than risk dying.  

    • Like 1
  13. 42 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

    So again, the crux of the case is whether loses his right to claim self-defense because he intended to provoke an attack against himself by unlawfully carrying the weapon with the intent of then using that attack as an excuse to use deadly force against his attackers.

    Based on the facts I have seen, that's a stretch for any jury given the kid looks and acts like an incel, has a shitty parent/s, and has loser dead-end friends. He doesn't appear bright, he presents as lost, and his friends look like an anchor.

    Frankly this looks like LARPing or Cosplay gone amuck. 

     

    Just my opinion but I do not think KR went to the riots with the intent on shooting anyone.  He is a kid.  Him popping off on the video is pretty typical macho talk- heck people in the CR threaten to kill someone or wish death on someone daily.  

    I certainly agree that him actually going to the riots with a gun was a stupid thing to do and certainly makes his comments look worse in hindsight.  He should not be heralded for his actions.  I hope his case is an example for those like him of what not to do.  There were many ways he could have helped that didn't require him bringing an AR.  I genuinely think he went there to help and was certainly a bit naive as to what might happen but nothing presented as evidence makes him look like some sociopath on a hunt to kill people.   As mentioned, there is not a single bit of evidence shown in the trial that he was being confrontational or acting crazed in any way.  

    As to washpark's comments above, It seems people continue to gloss over pretty important aspects of the law here.  The self defense statutes have been posted a few times.  Even in a best case scenario for the prosecution that somehow KR gave up his defense of self defense by the simple fact of showing up with an AR, the next part of the statute says (paraphrasing) the self defense protection is immediately reinstated if the person attempts to remove themselves from the situation.  It is on video and acknowledged by one of the detectives that when Rosenbaum hid and then confronted KR that KR ran away while loudly proclaiming "friendly, friendly".  He absolutely tried to remove himself from the situation.  So his self defense claims were absolutely valid legally.

    The disturbing thing to me is that the prosecution obviously knew before the trial as did the judge and the defense attorneys.  The case should never have been brought.  I hope this does not give rise to more KR types that put themselves in bad situations.  

    I will also add that there is a LOT of criticism of those that are acting like KR is to be commended.  Yet, especially in the CR, no one has any criticism whatsoever for all of the national pundits (including actual members of congress on up to POTUS) that mischaracterized the case from the beginning.  It is hard for folks not to push back.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. 45 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    im behind on the stream

     

    Scene: KR... who had a fire extinguisher...who testified and was video'd running around with a fire extinguisher.

    Questioning:

    DA: "So you decided you needed to run [towards the Duramax] because of the fire on the Duramax?"

    KR: "Yes"

    DA: "Why? what was so urgent""

    KR: "because.... it was on fire??"

     

     

    This has to be a bit right?

  15. 31 minutes ago, Blotto said:

    Or you could just simply admit you were wrong, and you don't know how to interpret the chart you used to "prove" that prices for laundry equipment had fallen since trump's tariffs. I don't have to fall back on a lame excuse of "I don't know why the charts change.  Their methodology is weird.  I tried to understand it.  I think it is mixing different things." The reason I don't have to do that is because I simply interpret the chart by what it claims to show " 3 month % change" and then all the charts  make sense. In that context, this chart also makes sense

    image.png.aa965149cad7efefd80467227adb9839.png

    Laundry equipment costs more, not less as you claimed . That was also the finding of this article which you completely ignore as cherry picked data . The basis of that article was a paper published in the  American Economic Review, which also provides their data set (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190611). But you would rather use a poorly interperted chart with discrepencies you can't explain "I don't know why the charts change.... but heres some random pricing I found on google"   

    You're full of shit. We know it. You know it. But like all loyal trumptards, you believe if you simply never admit that you're wrong, you won't ever actually be wrong. 

    I was really hoping you were different.  But you appear to be just as stupid as the rest.

    Did you even read the paper you linked to?  I am strongly guessing that you did not.  I did.  The methodology that they used to determine the cost of the tariffs was based on sales analysis between 2013 and 2018.  Exclusively.  They did not use any data from 2019 or 2020.   They say that right in the paper.  That paper is completely worthless in this discussion.  

    All of this is in the paper you so proudly linked to.  The paper relied on data from a group called GAP Intelligence and they send in people to retail stores in 22 different markets to get weekly pricing on washing machines.  They found a spike in pricing in mid July 2018 and they stopped reporting in late 2018.  Interestingly, they talk about the tariff on steel that went into effect in March of 2018 as contributing to the price increase.  This corresponds exactly with the data I provided (that you and everyone else ignored) on steel prices that went up initially for about 6 months in 2018 and then went way down in 2019.  So they have exactly zero data on washing machine prices from late 2018 going forward.  Zero.

    As I said from the beginning, there was a small spike in prices immediately after the tariffs went into effect.  This is noted in the paper you linked.  I never argued any differently.  What I agued is that prices went down after the initial spike to levels that were below the prices at the time of the tariffs.  And they did.  

    Here is a BLS/CPI graph from 2017 to 2018 and then from 2018 to 2019 for laundry equipment.  This is a different graph from before and is not a 3 month/6 month/12 month graph but appears to be straight pricing.

    Graph of CUSR0000SS30021

    It tracks exactly as the paper you provided said it would.  Prices started to go up in March of 2018 in exact accordance with the tariffs on washing machines and steel.

    Graph of CUSR0000SS30021

    Now here is that exact same graph from 2018 to 2019.  As you can see, the prices started dropping at almost the exact same time as steel prices started dropping and by the end of 2019 the cost was below the cost at the beginning of 2018.  Just exactly as I said.

    Now I was WRONG in one respect.  The prices started going back up again when Covid came along in mid 2020.  I am not sure how I can google prices for these machines in 2021 and get the same price as they were selling for in 2018 but I am done with it.  But there is absolutely no debate that prices for washing machines declined for 2 straight years after the initial spike in July of 2018 until July of 2020 and that the price in July of 2020 was lower than the prices just before the tariffs.

     

  16. 1 hour ago, immamac said:

    I'm saying if you take a loan out on an asset that has an unrealized gain, the money that is leveraged by that unrealized gain should be taxed as ordinary income upon the funding of that loan.

    borrowing all the way up to 100% of your cost basis should not be taxed at all, regardless of that was a loan to begin with or not. (Cash out refi to your cost basis on a house should be allowed without tax implications, tax out refi above tapping into equity built without paying cash down should be)

    Same thing with Stocks/financial instruments.

    If you own stock, or are granted stock you should be able to leverage (margin trade, or collateralize) up to your cost basis without having tax implications. If you have an unrealized gain and use that gain for leverage/collateralized lending/margin you should pay those taxes upon funding of that instrument. 

    Stock options when executed immediately become unrealized gain (usually, thats why people execute them for their "lower" strike price). If you turn around and get a loan against your millions in stock now you should absolutely pay taxes against that instead of just interest. 

    RSU or Stock Grants already have a taxable event when they are issued. A lot of people instead of selling stock to pay the taxes that are due collateralize the stock and just pay interest so they can realize gains to pay their original taxes on the cost basis. It's completely fucking bonkers. 

    1031 exchanges should also have a maximium deferral period or maximum multiplier for deferring original cost basis (10/20/30 years or death) 

     

    Interesting.  I think I understand your point.  I buy 1M shares of Apple at $100/share.  I have bought the stock with income that has already been taxed and my basis is $100M.  Apple goes to $150/share so the value of my holding is now $150M.  So I can borrow up to $100M with no tax implication.  But if I borrow $120M I will have to pay ordinary income taxes (obviously at the top rate of 37%) on the $20M that is above my basis or $7.4M in income taxes.  Pretty sure that would stop the practice.  

    This may make some sense as a tool to tax the super wealthy but for everyday people this would have serious implications. And, as I mentioned above, this tactic is really just delaying taxation not evading it.  I could make a pretty good argument that borrowing against those stocks and then that money going back into the economy is much better than an amount 37% lower going to the govt.  

    So If I bought a house in Austin in 2010 for $150K with a $100K mortgage and I have made some improvements to it and there has been a lot of appreciation and now that house is worth $500K.  I decide I want to refinance and get some cash out so I do a loan for $300K.  This happens every single day.  Under your plan I have a new mortgage for $300K and I have to pay income taxes on $150K  (the amount of my new loan over my basis) which would be in the range of $45K.  So I would now have $200K more in long term debt and I get $155K in new cash.  Before the transaction I had $400K in net worth and after the transaction I would have $355K in net worth.  Who would ever do this?  Its a plan I suppose but it would absolutely kill the home mortgage industry and stall the economy.  

    I start a new business venture with little or no start up money.  5 years in I have a decent little company but need cash to really grow.  I go to the bank for a business loan.  This happens every single day.  Under this approach, I have to pay income taxes on the amount of my loan as my basis in the business is zero.  So a 30% up front cost to borrow money (income taxes on the loan) plus the interest to grow my business.  No one would ever do this.

    "Stock options when executed immediately become unrealized gain (usually, thats why people execute them for their "lower" strike price). If you turn around and get a loan against your millions in stock now you should absolutely pay taxes against that instead of just interest. "

    I don't follow.  If Musk has an option to buy 1000 shares in Tesla at $50/ share that is his strike price.  So if the stock is currently trading at $100/share when he exercises his options he pays ordinary income tax on $50,000, the spread between $50 and $100, even though he received no cash and his basis remains at $50/share for capital gains purposes.  So when he does eventually sell the shares he will get hit with another 20% tax on those same shares at whatever the value of the stock is over $50/share.  Why does it matter if he sells stock or borrows against it?  The govt is still getting the income tax from the exercised option.  The govt misses out on capital gains taxes from selling his shares if he went that option but they are going to get it eventually and, in the meantime, some banker made some money which goes back into the economy.

     

     

     

     

  17. 1 hour ago, Blotto said:

    So its your contention that after annual price inflation of what appears to be roughly +6.5% , -2.5%, + 2.5%, +19% that prices are over all lower?  I still think your chart shows exactly what I stated, its only relative to the price 3 months before. Otherwise how could changing the duration parameter to 6 or 12 months lead to these results:

    image.thumb.png.2c58826d2a644cbe062dd1f68689d033.png

    absolute prices are either lower than in 2017 or they are not. the trend should be "negative" (below 0) in all 3 cases, no? On the other hand, if you just assume that what is being plotted is the price relative to the variable time frame defined in the data query (3 months, 6 months or 12 months), it all makes sense and would be consistent with the overall CPS inflation chart I posted twice earlier. please explain why 6 month and 12 month charts show diff results, I'm here to learn.

    I appreciate the normal response.   I don't know why the charts change.  Their methodology is weird.  I tried to understand it.  I think it is mixing different things.  Prices jump around a lot.  

    As you correctly said, the proof should be in the actual prices.

    It is really hard to find data to show this but here goes.

    https://www.reviewed.com/laundry/content/electrolux-efls617siw-washing-machine-review

    This is a link to a review from November 2018 for an Electrolux washing machine.  The MSRP was $1,099 and they talk of a "sale" price of $900.

    https://www.homedepot.com/p/Electrolux-4-3-cu-ft-High-Efficiency-Front-Load-Washer-in-White-ENERGY-STAR-EFLW317TIW/301611901?mtc=Shopping-VF-F_D29A-B-D29A-029_008_LAUNDRY-Multi-NA-Feed-PLA-2153902-WF-MajorAppl&cm_mmc=Shopping-VF-F_D29A-B-D29A-029_008_LAUNDRY-Multi-NA-Feed-PLA-2153902-WF-MajorAppl-71700000034368214-58700003951482541-92700032005039943&msclkid=02dd80a54d0817a9b4f2e124d0532fb9&gclid=02dd80a54d0817a9b4f2e124d0532fb9&gclsrc=3p.ds#product-section-overview

    This is essentially the exact same machine.  Same size and all of the bells and whistles on the one reviewed from 2018 but they change model numbers every year or so.  Cost is $809.  

    https://www.reviewed.com/laundry/content/samsung-wv60m9900aw-flexwash-washing-machine-review

    This is a Samsung from October 2018 for $1,799 sales price from Best Buy.

    https://www.abt.com/Samsung-6-Cu.-Ft.-Brushed-Black-Smart-Dial-Washer-With-FlexWash-And-Super-Speed-Wash-WV60A9900AVA5/p/165284.html

    Same washer priced today for $1,709.  This is after 3 years of consistent 40%-50% tariffs.

    Those above are more top of the line so I checked the more basic models.  I was also curious if domestic manufacturers increased their prices as a result of the tariffs.

    https://www.reviewed.com/home-outdoors/news/the-best-memorial-day-sales-of-2018-are-on-home-appliances

    Kenmore 25132 from May of 2018 $569.

    https://www.americanfreight.com/br/pdp/kenmore-25132-4-3-cu-ft-top-load-washer-w-triple-action-impeller-white/136723

    Kenmore 25132 from today $529

    I don't know what to tell you.  I have no angle here.  I just looked at the charts and then did some actual intel.  Bottom line is that when looking at washing machines from 2018, the prices in all categories (china manufactured/US manufactured/high end/low end) are lower today.

    Steel prices reacted similarly.  The steel tariffs started in March 2018 at 25% and were extended to Europe in June 2018.

    https://www.unarcorack.com/steel-average/

    The price for US steel in March of 2018 was $43 and in June of 2018 was $45.  By all accounts, the price of US steel should have gone up immediately and stayed up.  However, the results were different.  1 year later in June of 2019 the price was $26.  Prices stayed low.  The last price for 2019 was $29.  In June of 2020, a full 2 years after the tariffs were imposed, the price for steel was $25.  The point is that the tariffs were not "passed on" to US consumers after the tariffs.  Prices went down considerably.

    Steel prices are surging now all over the world due to covid forcing factories to shut down but that doesn't have anything to do with US tariffs.

     

     

     

  18. 15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    LMFAO.

    a) how do you know it wasn't related to the tariffs?

    b) a "spike" implies a near-instantaneous jump in price.  In fact, your chart shows price climbing steadily from the implementation tariffs to mid-2018.  It's far more likely to be related to tariffs than some coincidence.

    c) the farther we move in time from the economic event (tariffs), the less likely subsequent price swings are due to the event.

    Negged.

    https://www.connerindustries.com/2018-perfect-storm-high-lumber-prices/

    I hate responding to idiots.  You couldn't be more wrong or more uninformed on the industry.  

    Plus, when the tariffs were imposed on lumber why didn't the price of lumber go up immediately?  Based on your logic, the price for lumber should have jumped 20% in the months after the tariffs were put in place.  They didn't.  In fact, for the next 5 months prices actually dropped.  Apparently the Canadian and Mexican lumber companies do not know how to raise prices.  Further, how is it possible that if tariffs always increase prices and that cost always gets passed onto the consumer that the price for lumber 18 months after the tariffs were put in place was over 30% lower than the price was before the tariffs?  

    Maybe, like I keep saying, the long term effects of tariffs are hard to quantify and, in many cases as I have shown, the net result is actually lower prices for US consumers.  I know that is hard for you to understand but the numbers don't lie.

     

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...