Chinese Electronics Firm Anker Starts Raising Prices on Amazon (reuters.com) 184
An anonymous reader shares a report: China's Anker, one of Amazon's largest sellers offering products from power banks to phone cases, has raised prices on a fifth of its products on the U.S. platform since Thursday, in a sign that tariffs on Chinese goods are being passed on to U.S. shoppers.
Some 127 Anker products have seen an average increase of 18% since Thursday last week, with the majority of those occurring after Monday, April 7, when U.S. President Donald Trump added an extra 50% import duty on Chinese goods, according to data from e-commerce services provider SmartScout. U.S. import tariffs on Chinese products now stand at 145%. Beijing on Friday raised its tariff on U.S. goods to 125%, as a trade war between the world's top two economies intensifies.
Some 127 Anker products have seen an average increase of 18% since Thursday last week, with the majority of those occurring after Monday, April 7, when U.S. President Donald Trump added an extra 50% import duty on Chinese goods, according to data from e-commerce services provider SmartScout. U.S. import tariffs on Chinese products now stand at 145%. Beijing on Friday raised its tariff on U.S. goods to 125%, as a trade war between the world's top two economies intensifies.
Not a surprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple cut a deal with Trumps first administration. Apple move mgf of some small device from china, not iPhones. It's speculated that this time they may offer up Air Pods or some similar product, Trump will proclaim victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple cut a deal with Trumps first administration. Apple move mgf of some small device from china, not iPhones. It's speculated that this time they may offer up Air Pods or some similar product, Trump will proclaim victory.
More likely iPods, not AirPods.
Good, less junk in landfills (Score:2)
Re:Good, less junk in landfills (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno if I'd term Anker products as 'Junk' that ends up on landfills.
From my experience they are some of the best portable batteries and cables I've bought....they seem to perform well for me and are long lasting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anker is generally known for high quality product among Chinese companies. If you're landfilling these you're doing something very very wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
So Republicans are now in favor of a centrally planned economy? Because what you're describing is a centrally planned economy, and that sounds a hell of a lot like Communism.
Re: Good, less junk in landfills (Score:3)
And not the cool kind of Communism. The kind where idiots are installed for their loyalty and dissents are deported to a remote gulag without trial. And not just regular harmless idiots either, the kind that kill millions with famine by promoting easily disprove theories on agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing the public to stop buying junk that ends up in landfills; Poor get less poor too saving their cash or not blowing up their debt
You are calling Anker "junk that ends up in landfills"? You are out of your f***ing mind.
waters (Score:5, Interesting)
This is Anker testing the waters. The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs. If competitors don't follow suit, they will cut back on the price increases.
Re: (Score:3)
The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs.
The stuff you're currently shipping from Amazon is already in the country and not subject to tariffs. Tariffs are paid on import, not on sale. There's a reason it arrives overnight. When that stock is up, you're going to have a bad time. The only thing Anker is testing here is if they can eat the cut in profits from the actual tax.
Competitors will definitely follow suit. These aren't fancy iPhones with insane profit margins. Virtually everyone is currently investigating just how much they can raise prices t
Re: (Score:2)
Ehhh I may have misread your post. But my point about competitors stands.
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs.
The stuff you're currently shipping from Amazon is already in the country and not subject to tariffs.
There are a couple of ways to price a product you are selling. The cost you originally purchased it at, or the cost to replace it in stock. Both methods are generally considered acceptable (as long as you are somewhat consistent). When product costs are relatively stable the two methods are essentially equivalent, but not so much when costs change rapidly or when the stock may sit on the shelf for long periods of time. A number of vendors run a very lean stock/warehouse supply, so they may need to adjus
Re: (Score:2)
It's value-based pricing, not cost-based. They anticipate everybody will rise prices so they want to reap some extra cash riding on public's panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying they aren't testing the waters, but raising the prices immediately gives them some time to buffer profit until they have to raise them the full amount to cover the tariff costs. It lets them ease into bad a bit slower so people don't scream as much - frog in warming water and all that.
Anker has larger issues than price. (Score:2, Informative)
If Anker thinks they only have price to now worry about, they’re wrong.
Used to be a pretty big fan of their cables since they provided more options. I’ve never had so many cables go bad so quickly within the last 2 years. Cable ends coming apart after 3 uses. Cables simply failing that are still in perfect condition. And now the lifetime warranty replacement process has turned into an interrogation with them, with Anker assuming my charging cable laying on a nighstand must have been stressed
Re: (Score:2)
Horseshit. Not only do their cables still work fine when you don't use them to lasso a bull, but having just gone through their warranty process it was one of the easiest and most trivial I have ever experienced. They didn't even ask for any proof that my thing was broken, they just said "have you tried this"? Sent me a list of 3 obvious "turn it off and on again" kind of things, and when I said yeah they just blindly sent another one.
Re: Anker has larger issues than price. (Score:2)
Slashdot was not meant to be packed full of shit either, so fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't acknowledge the attention seeking arseholes. They'll eventually get bored and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the next three words. Jesus H. Christ on a crutch.
Re: (Score:2)
...do you "turn on/off" a cable? Do you even computer, bro?
It's almost like I said "kind of things". How do you do a kind of thing like turn on/off a cable? Try unplugging it. Do you even good like English read bro?
Re: (Score:2)
Not calling you a liar, but it's pretty hard to imagine. Anker has been one of the few Chinese brands that I haven't been burned by.
Can confirm (Score:2)
Some 127 Anker products have seen an average increase of 18% since Thursday last week
Can confirm. An Anker charger I bought around five weeks ago now costs 30% more.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems low (Score:2)
Shouldn't the prices be doubled?
Hmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goods you're buying now are already in the country. Wait until the next shipment arrives and then start tracking prices. Are we still not calling this a tax?
Finally! (Score:2)
Perhaps this will achieve what Amazon has been unable to control and end the proliferation of cheezy low quality Chinese knock-offs of almost every category of product sold on Amazon.com.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a roughly $5 trillion tax increase on the public.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Funny)
There are 3 common date formats. The American/Canadian way, the ISO way, and what most people actually use (the exact opposite of the ISO way)
I use seconds since the epoch, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Matches the tax cuts for the uberwealthy pretty well, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. If you're not part of the 1%, you're a nobody. Look at what the Russian asset did the other day. Brought in people in the 1% and bragged about how much money [yahoo.com] they made in one day [newrepublic.com] when he manipulated the markets.
And this was on top of his friends and family who were tipped off prior to him making a public announcement. And guess what, the SEC, which right now has ONLY 3 Republicans, is working to kill off a trade-tracking system which
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a roughly $5 trillion tax increase on the public.
As a reminder, that $5T "tax increase" will cycle right around and get deposited in the gov't accounts as tariff income.
Oh, if only there was a way to avoid tariffs on imported Chinese goods!?!? Like, I don't know, not buy Chinese goods?
(I suspect China will cave before the US, as a consuming nation we can explore other sources for goods, China, as a producer nation needs buyers, and losing the American market hurt China quickly.)
Re: (Score:2)
Demand will drop through the floor, so the amount collected will also drop like a rock.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has stated numerous times that we don't pay tariffs but the other country does.
According to https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/r... [ustr.gov]
I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%.
According to the banner on that website, this is straight from the executive office of the president, so this is what Trump's people put in writing.
From that same website:
And the Trum
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it say how you stop the foreign supplier from raising their price to cover that 75%?
No, the 25% is an assumption made by Trump's team and published in writing on that website of how much of the tariff the foreign supplier will pass through to the customer. I don't know which orifice they pulled that assumption out of, but if you read the information they published, it's a critical parameter in the equation they used to calculate the percentages that they're inaccurately calling "reciprocal tariffs".
The supplier could raise their prices by anywhere from 0% to 100% (or I suppose even more or
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they did, when they mentioned price elasticity. They were saying if the price goes up too much people will do without rather than buy.
I think that's probably pretty correct. Which is going to be bad for all the vendors, whether in this country or not. But the ones outside can find other markets. The one's inside will have to lump it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are you sure? (Score:2)
Carve one from wood? There is a dude on YouTube who does all that with just a Swiss army knife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carve one from wood? There is a dude on YouTube who does all that with just a Swiss army knife.
Chuck Norris does it with just his fingernails and teeth, then finishes it off with a stern glance.
Re: (Score:2)
However, OP's description of that as: "I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%." is beyond misleading- it's just wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not what that means.
The elasticity in that formula refers to consumer behaviour. The elasticity of 4 is an assumption that, in the face of tariffs, consumers will either redirect 75% of their purchases to American suppliers or do without.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Informative)
Which, of course, assumes there actually ARE domestic suppliers for that good.
In many cases, there are not. This is where the whole insane pile of garbage tips over and splashes noxious wet garbage all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, of course, assumes there actually ARE domestic suppliers for that good.
In many cases, there are not.
Easy examples in the U.S. of there are not: coffee, vanilla, bananas, iPhones :-)
(At least not in nearly sufficient quantities, like Kona coffee from Hawaii.)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)
> I'd go with what they put in writing.
Which is a shame 'cause what they're putting in writing is wrong. So wrong that even a conservative think tank felt compelled to write at least two articles explaining why it's not only wrong but stupid;
https://www.aei.org/economics/... [aei.org]
https://www.aei.org/economics/... [aei.org]
And there's a pile of other independent explainers/analysis that all basically point to the same errors. Turns out it's just a bunch of nonsense they threw together and doesn't actually mean anything, is not based on anything, and they still fucked up their own calculations. The best people...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
According to https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/r... [ustr.gov]
I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%.
According to the banner on that website, this is straight from the executive office of the president, so this is what Trump's people put in writing.
And that's just wish-casting from the White House. Most economists say that phi is pretty much equal to 1. So, the "Liberation Day" tariffs were four times as high as they would have been with a correct value of phi. And that's not even addressing the other parts of the equation shown in the page you linked.
Folks, the White House is trying to bribe us with our own money. We are the ones paying the tariffs, not the foreign exporters.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't quote a single number for every product that is imported.
It depends how important the customer thinks the product is to them, and what alternatives or substitutes are available.
Also whether the seller has alternative markets they can sell into.
Also, if all the other alternatives are subject to the same tariff, that changes the dynamics somewhat.
There is also the simple fact that 75% of a 145% tariff on Chinese goods is 108.75%, and no Chinese manufacturer is going to pay you to take goods off their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same team who applied tariffs to uninhibited islands? And has nearly the identical numbers as ChatGPT?
Re: (Score:2)
The foreign supplier does not pay a penny.
The estimated *impact* on teh foreign supplier is higher, due to the elasticity of the price caused by the tariff.
Very, very, different. Particularly if you care about the impact on the importer, which is they simply lose business since the elasticity goes both directions.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)
The unconditional, irrational, reality-denying, almost religious devotion of some people to Trump may seem inexplicable to most, but remember: A drowning man will desperatly latch on to anything, even a boat anchor.
A large proportion of the US population is made of disillusioned people who feel that they have nothing left to loose (boy, they have no idea just how much more they have left to lose). So they cling desperatly to anyone that represents even a chance, no matter how slim, of improving their condition.
Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom. Trump voters are the problem. They are the product of 250 years of a "meritocracy" based on social darwinism that, yes, at some point, produced the richest, most powerfull, and most culturally dominant nation in the world, but at the price of leaving behind more and more of its population, of creating more and more inequalities, more and more desparate people who are left with no future, no hope, until they finaly became the majority. And then, through the magic of Democracy, we got progressively worse leaders, culminating with Trump.
This is what must be addressed. Because, when Trump is gone, people are just going to vote for the next psychopath in line.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
who feel that they have nothing left to loose
And this is one of the biggest problems. Put aside the comical insult that is implied this is literally "a first world problem". Most of the USA has a *LOT* to loose, and they are simply privileged and sheltered enough to not comprehend this fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing they don't have anything to lose. Who knows what they have to loose!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are you sure? (Score:2)
"Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom."
There are a number of cases where the symptoms can kill.
Trump will only kill you is not a compelling statement in his defense, nor a compelling argument that we should focus elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom.
Yes.
Trump voters are the problem.
No. Or maybe yes, but this is an impractical attitude. Democrats have tried running the "Vote for the non-Trump option" and this did not work. So even if true, this statement is a losing strategy on its own.
through the magic of Democracy, we got progressively worse leaders, culminating with Trump.
You say that like we only had one candidate in the last election. There were two (major) candidates on the ballot, both of whom got there through the magic of Democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The unconditional, irrational, reality-denying, almost religious devotion of some people to Trump.
Things like "unconditional, irrational, reality-denying" almost always go with things like "religious devotion" ...
A drowning man will desperately latch on to anything, even a boat anchor.
[Insert graphic of Trump, his tariffs, and the stock/bond markets] :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Liberal globalists are the reason we sent all factories to China and now we are paying 56 billion per day in interest from national debt. We dont need these cheap junk products if they put us further in debt and China uses the money to buy our farms and send all the food back home. Trump is absolutely not the issue and the issue would be much worse if we allowed uncontrolled globalization to continue. We aid every country in the world while people here cannot afford anything anymore
Wow, I haven't seen such pure crap on here in a while. Corporations, for whom low-cost foreign labor means higher profits, are why the factories are overseas. Thank Milton Friedman and his doctrine of "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits" for that.
Re: Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Learn your history. Going back into the 1960s and 70s, companies were already starting to have manufacturing done in China. Republicans were all in on that approach. The only thing you could blame Democrats for would be NAFTA, which had nothing to do with China and was more, "let products be built in Mexico and Canada, our neighbors, and let free trade between us improve the economy for all". The idea of factories in Mexico would improve the economy there, so, fewer immigrants to the USA if business improves in Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Trump changed it to UCMSA and renegotiated in his first term. Which makes his complaints about tariffs very sad, because he agreed to those tariffs that are in effect now.
Then he complained about this agreement, apparently forgetting he signed it.
Donald Trump Accidentally Insults Himself: ‘Who Would Ever Sign A Thing Like This?’ [huffpost.com]
President Donald Trump is outraged that Americans are footing an unfair financial burden, citing a 2020 trade deal called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that he signed.
Trump praised the USMCA in 2020 as the “best agreement we’ve ever made” and lauded it for replacing the “nightmare” North American Free Trade Agreement ratified under former President Bill Clinton, calling it the “worst trade deal ever made.”
The article notes that the USMCA is actually just "an improvement at the margins" over NAFTA and "there will almost surely be no notable difference in trade flows" and "far from perfect and not nearly as different as Trump claims".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
George Bush Sr. signed NAFTA in the third year of his term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush signed the original agreement, but left office before it could be sent to the Senate.
Clinton's administration made some small changes in the agreement and sent it to the Senate for ratification.
So it'd be accurate to say that HW negotiated the meat of the agreement (particularly the free trade part), but it was left to Clinton to make it law- particularly the addition of the NAALC and NAAEC (protections for American workers, retraining money, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you could blame Democrats for would be NAFTA, which had nothing to do with China and was more, "let products be built in Mexico and Canada, our neighbors, and let free trade between us improve the economy for all". The idea of factories in Mexico would improve the economy there, so, fewer immigrants to the USA if business improves in Mexico.
It also make more sense, and reduces costs, to simply ship products just across the borders, especially for multiple rounds like with vehicles, than across the oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean people like Nixon and Reagan? Because they were the ones who set this up.
Re: (Score:3)
So "liberal globalists" like Richard M. Nixon who opened China to allow all of this to begin with. And all the Republicans in Congress who voted for free trade agreements that sent those factories overseas. And all the Republican CEOs who executed the plans to send those factories overseas.
Tell us you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, without telling us that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since golf balls are probably being made in other countries, can't we say that Trump is hitting himself in the balls with these stupid tariffs?
Re: (Score:2)
He probably created an exemption for Titleist specifically so he wouldn't be affected.
Re: Are you sure? (Score:2)
He has a guy that smuggles them in. Then instead of paying, he just deports the guy. It's a perfect system.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the tariffs are high enough to essential cut off trade. The questions are:
1) Will he keep them?
2) What are the loopholes?
3) How badly will the dollar collapse?
Point 3 may be bad enough that the tariffs will soon become irrelevant. It depends on whether we just get a bad recession, or whether we get a full-scale depression, and how bad of one. I can't imaging any foreign investors being committed enough to make a serious investment in the US, and in fact I suspect most multi-nationals are plannin
Re: (Score:2)
A weaker dollar would actually help exports, so there's that. Not that I'm fond of it as a strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if there aren't tariffs making the exports too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
And also US produced goods with imported components or raw materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has stated numerous times that we don’t pay tariffs but the other country does. ... That or they’re simply that dumb and skipped high school history and civics.
The question is whether people will continue to buy the products at the higher price, or if they will have to lower the prices to continue to make sales. And it's not one way or the other, but a more complicated function. That determines whether the consumer or the producer pays the cost of the tariffs.
Not high school civics, but certainly college econ-101.
Re: (Score:2)
You left our "the producer finds another market that's more profitable".
Re: (Score:2)
Serfs for America supports Donald Trump (Score:2, Troll)
It's a scheme to tax the poor and feed the rich. It's working and people on both ends of the deal seem thrilled.
Re: (Score:2)
They will not, because state media will tell them It's Biden's fault.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This article is overflowing with MAGA buyers' remorse [yahoo.com].
Ah, the sweet smell of Tregret in the air...
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't. In the early 1950's many of the Republicans were quite sensible. Eisenhower was generally a pretty good president, outside of John Foster Dulles.
Re: (Score:2)
https://cdsun.library.cornell.... [cornell.edu]
Even Eisenhower had to play footsie with isolationists in his day. Things are not so cut and dry. Also would you say the same things about him after reading about Operation: Wetback?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's perfect. Certainly Eisenhower must have known about Nixon's faults when he was his vice president. But I can point out to lots of bad things about every president that I've studied sufficiently.
Re: Good News? (Score:2)
"Anker goes up, then maybe we'll get our stuff from someplace that doesn't have to ride a boat in order to reach us, say, Texas Instruments or Hewlett Packard. Or Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc'
That's a list of defense contractors plus HP which is probably the single most enshittified American corporation of all time, virtually all of whose products are made overseas you fucking idiot. How many thousands of dollars do you want to pay for a milspec cable that is actually inferior to what you've been gettin
Re: (Score:2)
They do have manufacturing in China, but they also have it in the US, Mexico, and Europe.
Calling them a defense contractor is misleading.
As for the rest- agreed. Particularly on HP being probably the most enshittified US company there is.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Raytheon and General Dynamics are getting into the USB cable and power bank business.
Holy shit you people are fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
I always find this argument quite fascinating. It assumes that Chinese companies are ripping us off. But chinese companies are only meeting American consumers' demands. And this is proven over and over again when consumers choose and demand the low-quality rubbish over the much-more-expensive, high-quality good. Also it's a fallacy to think that domestic production will always be high quality. I was involved in some mass production in a particular market and it was interesting to see how the desire to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a few years from now.
Re: Good News? (Score:2)