←back to thread

462 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.256s | source
Show context
jameslk ◴[] No.45078256[source]
> Repricing, though, isn’t as easy as changing a tag—in part because suppliers and big-box stores are engaged in an epic tussle over who will pay what.

> Retailers, including Lowe’s and Home Depot, buy Thompson Traders’ wares and set the retail price themselves. And they have been reluctant to pay Thompson Traders more.

It seems like this sort of scenario would benefit from some kind of risk protection, like insurance, or a futures market

replies(4): >>45078316 #>>45078379 #>>45078501 #>>45080645 #
brutal_chaos_ ◴[] No.45078316[source]
So more middlemen to make the cunsumer pay even more, joy.
replies(1): >>45078359 #
jameslk ◴[] No.45078359[source]
Consumers will pay more regardless in this type of circumstance. But they will pay less if businesses don’t suddenly start going out of business, eliminating competition and jobs
replies(1): >>45078624 #
Braxton1980 ◴[] No.45078624[source]
Doesn't insurance normally work by protecting rare instances whose cost is amortized over the base?

This would be a claim by a large amount of insurance clients at once

replies(3): >>45078769 #>>45078899 #>>45079124 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45079124[source]
> would be a claim by a large amount of insurance clients at once

You’d insure against a specific product from a specific country being hit with a tariff. Tariffs are going up and down, sometimes in a way that may as well be random. (India not recommending Trump for a Nobel prize.) On its face, this doesn’t seem uninsurable.