Right now, as we all know, the media is in a tizzy. At one time, they owned the airwaves, and everyone had to report whatever it was that the letter agencies (ABC, NBC, AP, etc) found out at the White House press room. All the “little people” were forced to get their news from the NEWS agencies. That’s not the case, these days. Leavitt has opened the press room to other media platforms, and routinely makes certain that people other than the letter agencies get to ask their questions. This makes Big Media very angry.

We can speculate about who owns Big Media, but it seems fairly obvious to most of us, I believe. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who owns them; what matters is that the “standard” news is being used to wage war. For those who’ve known this for a long time, you  may not realize just how difficult that is to swallow, especially if you’re generally a thinking person.

I grew up with news being the place to turn to for up to date, factual information. I could look at news on the television at 6pm, or I could look in one of the newspapers local to me. Sure, there were some less than savory newspapers, but we all knew they were only good for their page two girlie of the week. It was easy to know what was good news and what wasn’t. It was obvious for a number of reasons, and there wasn’t any confusion over it.

I consider myself a thinking person. I am not traditionally educated, but I have put a lot of effort into keeping myself educated. I’ve attended classes, both formal and informal, I’ve gotten certificates, I’ve always achieved good grades. I can think my way through most problems, even if I do still struggle with the math**. When Chris started telling me that the media was lying to me, I was disbelieving. Sure, Weekly World News was all made up, but ABC nightly news? That was just the facts. How did I know this? Because all of the news agencies reported the same thing. Statistically speaking, it is quite silly to think that the entirety of every news agency out there would be lying, and lying in much the same (or sometimes exactly the same) way. That would be a statistical anomaly the size of New Jersey.

It’s a hard mouthful to chew, the idea that ALL of the news agencies are telling whoppers every day. The problem, of course, is that anything they say could be true, or might not be. There must be a balance of actual facts thrown in there. It allows newscasters and stations to say, “Hey, look, we covered that thing at the library, all that was factual. What makes you think the rest of it isn’t?” Plausible deniability, I think it’s called. Regardless, it’s been quite the eye opener realizing that basically none of the news stations I’d counted on (even ones like AP) were accurate or to be trusted.

This brings me to the concept of capturing minds.

Read More

There is a battle of procedure that takes place in our courts. That is getting to a final result.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump in December 2028, it would not matter that he won. We would have lost.

That would be four years of waiting for a final result.

We watched and are watching this play out in the Second Amendment community. Duncan v. Bonta has been around for almost a decade at this point. It has been through the district court twice, the Ninth Circuit court multiple times, and the Supreme Court at least once.

The case has won at the District and Supreme Court, yet the relief sought by the plaintiff is still out of reach. In March 2025, the Ninth Circuit decided to twist the words of the Supreme Court to find that magazines are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The State of California doesn’t care how long this case takes or how much money it costs to litigate. The district court enjoined the law back in 2017-2018. The Ninth stayed the injunction. That stay has remained in effect even now as the case has been remanded to the district court, ordering the district court to rule for the state.

As long as the status of the case leans towards the infringers, they are happy to delay.

To show how real this is, a district judge in New York issued a TRO enjoining the SAFE act (Bruen tantrum law). The state had that appealed within hours, even though a TRO is not appealable. The Second Circuit Stayed the injunction.

It took over a year before the Second Circuit finally ruled against The People and The Constitution, sending it back to the District Court for more litigation before the case can start up the chain to the Supreme Court, again.

Because that stay is in place, most of New York state is a gun free zone.

The left is using the same methods to stop the Trump administration. They do not care if they win or if they lose, as long as it doesn’t happen now.

They go court shopping until they find a court willing to issue a universal injunction, stopping the Article II executive branch.

Once the injunction is in place, they start slow walking things.

The Circuit courts are just as rogue in these locations as the District Courts. They are using the interlocutory state to excuse not staying the injunctions. “Just let it play out in court.”

The leftest Justices on the Supreme Court echo those words, “just let it work its way here through the normal process. There is no reason to rush this.”

This go around, the Trump administration has been ready and has been moving hard and fast. Multiple cases have made it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has issued opinions favorable to the Trump administration each time.

How are they favorable? In most of the cases, the Justices have ruled to allow the Trump administration to continue as they had intended, while the case works its way through the courts.

This means that the left is on the wrong side of that snail. They are the ones attempting to get the cases through as fast as they can. And it isn’t working for them.

In the few cases where the Justices have not issued a stay, they have chastised the lower courts or scheduled oral hearings quickly.

The case at hand.

A group of people suffering from gender dysphoria have been given medical release from the military. They sued in federal district court, asking for an injunction, which was granted.

This means that the military does not have the power to determine which service members are medical disqualified from serving.

The Supreme Court issued a stay against that injunction for the duration. The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court denies cert OR issues a final opinion.

We are winning, the courts are moving at breakneck speed, and it keeps looking good.

The other thing which is happening, is that the lanuguage of the Court is changing, they are getting less and less polite and more and more pointed in their correcting of the inferior courts.

There are so many versions of this song. The ending changes sometimes.

Each summer, I spend an inordinate amount of time dressed up as a medieval kitchen drudge, cooking feast foods over an open fire in a cow field. Beside me, knights and dames fight with sword, pole arm, axe, and shield to display their prowess to huge crowds. I’m not much noticed during the fights, but before and after I always have a bevy of fair patrons coming by to ask questions and see what I’m up to. They’re always amazed to see the foods I produce, from pies to salads to stews and soups.

Last summer, it was beastly hot, and I didn’t want to do much cooking at one particular event. The heat was too oppressive to think of spending hours kneeling by the flames, tending to whatever morsel I felt like making. Instead, I retreated to the shade of the kitchen tent, and put together a cold meal for our fair knights and gentle ladies. This dish is deceptively simple, but incredibly tasty and pretty to boot.

Based on A Sallet for Fish Daies, aka a cold shrimp salad:

Ingredients:

• 1 lb carrots, minced or shredded
• 2 cups small shrimp, cleaned, cooked, & cooled
• 1/2 cup finely minced red onion or green onion
• 1 cup white wine vinegar
• 1 cup olive oil
• salt to taste

Mince your carrots with a knife or food processor, or do what I did and cheat: purchase the finely shredded carrots in a bag. In a bowl, combine the oil, vinegar, and salt, and whisk until thoroughly mixed. Drizzle the carrots with just enough of the dressing to lightly coat them, and then use a mold to shape the carrots. This could be a circle biscuit cutter, a fancy and large cookie cutter, or whatever you have on hand.

If you want a heavier onion flavor, use the red onion. Otherwise, use the green onion (whites and greens together). Mix together the onion and shrimp, then toss with just enough of the dressing to lightly coat them, and arrange them gently on top of the carrots. Serve chilled.

Notes:

Traditionally, this was made in the shape of a fleur de lys using a gelatin or pudding mold, but I skipped that entirely and just tossed everything together. The first time I made it, I used red onion, and the second time I used green onion. I liked both, but my taste testers (the various knights and dames) preferred the green onion one. I found it definitely looked more “fancy”, for what it’s worth. I also sprinkled some minced parsley over the top of the sallet, and garnished it with a carrot coin carved to look like a Tudor rose and a few sprigs of parsley. It was well received, and I could have made a lot more of it and it would have disappeared.

As we were outdoors (in the aforementioned cow field) with no modern cooling equipment, I made the salad in a metal bowl, and set that into a wooden bowl filled with ice. This kept it lovely and chill for most of the day. It was cool, refreshing, tasty, and the perfect foil for the sliced sausage, cheese, and bread that I served it with.

When dealing with people of the left, a failed program with horrible outcomes is almost always excused with, “it was done with good intentions.”

Obamacare was intended to give health care to every one. Instead, it cost people their insurance, their doctors, and made everything more expensive. But the intentions were good, so just forgive and forget the bad outcomes.

“Do I believe that this language is meant to harm or confuse students?” is not relevant. “Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity”. That is where I lived for many, many, many years. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three time is enemy fire.

“More inclusive?” No, it is designed to allow people, teachers, administrators, parents, and students to get participation awards for failing.

I took my oldest daughter to the range, back when I didn’t know enough, and tried to teach her how to shoot. She did a miserable job. In the end, she managed to get all 8 rounds from the 1911 on paper. Not even in the target, just on paper.

I was so proud of her improvement, I praised her, “That’s perfect, brat!”.

She came home, excited about range day. She showed her final target to the rest of the family, telling everybody she had done perfectly.

Today, If there is more than a MOA in my pattern, I have to do better. No, I don’t get MOA most of the time. There is lots of room for improvement.

Telling somebody they are a “learner”, when they are not, is malicious. It might not be meant in a malicious way, that doesn’t mean it isn’t.

A learner is somebody with a learning mind set. Someone who is open to learning something new, or improving on something they already know. I’ve known many learners over the years.

Some people are not natural learners. They will “turn off their brains” after a hard day at the office. They do mindless things. They only have enough energy to learn when it is required.

I know people who have 4.0 grade point averages that were not learners. They were great students, they learned while in class, but they might not ever apply that to anything in the future.

I want to highlight the entire quote, but there are three sections.

“Done with positive intentions.” I do not know that it was done with positive intentions. Nobody has presented any evidence to me that it was done with positive intentions. The intentions are not relevant.

I believe the most of the people who are currently using the term haven’t really thought about it. Instead, they fall into the patterns of their bosses. They are slowly herded into standard group think.

Most of these people never thought about the misuse of the word “learner”, they didn’t think at all. They were sheep.

The second part is the definition. Yes, that is a reasonable definition of a learner.

“It reflects a belief…” is not part of the definition. It is wishful thinking. Not every person can grow, discover and take ownership of their learning.

This type of thinking is certainly reflective of left think. If we label something, then that something will become the label.

This is a pile of dung. Calling it pizza will not make it pizza. “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” — Act II, Scene II, Romeo and Juliet

We don’t call somebody a “winner” because of their potential to win. We call them a winner when they do win.

We don’t give out Medal of Honor to soldiers because of their potential to earn the medial, but because they did earn it.

… I still believe all students can become learners… Exactly! A student can become a learner. And when they do, they are learners. Until that, they can still be students.

I am a computer scientist by education. I’m good at it. I was hanging with my friends, all of them scientists as well. We were working on a difficult problem, making slow headway on it. One of them spoke up, “Come on, it’s not that hard. It isn’t rocket science.”

Everybody got very silent and stared at her. She worked for NASA. The problem we were working was rocket science.

We all laughed, and I remember it to this day.

When I have to deal with somebody with an associates degree in information technology claiming the mantel of “Scientist”, I become irritated.

The sales jerk that expressed his opinion, incorrectly quoting MSM telling me I couldn’t have an opinion because I wasn’t a “Scientist”, made me walk to the other end of the building to confront him in person. The words I had to say weren’t for the rest of the team to hear.

We need to stop giving out participation awards

I remember coming up on a tee-ball game.

“What’s the score?”

Player’s dad: “We don’t keep score, everyone is a winner.”

Player: 4 to 1, they won’t use the scoreboard, so we have to keep track ourselves.

…or to become curious, independent learners?

Personally, I want them to become curious, independent learners, with a lifelong learning mindset. To that end I will reward them with the well-earned title of “learner” when it happens. Until then, they are, at best, students.

After reading Chris’s article on the so-called “abuse” of language in the education industry, I felt he may have taken the argument a bit too far. I do agree that education is full of jargon and constantly shifting acronyms. But do I believe this language is meant to harm or confuse students? No. In most cases, these changes seem intended to be more inclusive or politically correct, not malicious.

Chris and I actually discussed this during a car ride to Fort at Number 4 yesterday. I’ve since had time to reflect more on what he said. One of our points of disagreement was the shift from the word “student” to “learner.” My own school district made this change just before COVID, and while it took a few years for me to adjust, I now use “learner” regularly.

I believe this change was made with positive intentions. To me, “learner” suggests someone who is actively engaged, not just passively sitting in a chair. It reflects a belief in the potential of every child to grow, discover, and take ownership of their learning. I don’t believe the shift was done with ill will.

Chris argued that not all students are learners—that some are disruptive and show no interest in learning. I understand his point. But I still believe all students can become learners, even if they don’t show it yet. Will every child become a lifelong learner like Chris or me? Maybe not, but we can still hope and work toward that goal.

The ever-evolving language of education doesn’t bother me much. After 38 years of teaching, I’ve learned to go with the flow. I’ve seen many changes in terminology. Chris is passionate about precision in language, and while I agree that language matters, I just don’t get as worked up about it.

When our children were in elementary school, they were in the Talented and Gifted program. Later, it was renamed the “Infinity” program. I questioned the change at first, but ultimately, nothing really changed—the same kids were in the program, and they all knew they were high achievers. It was just a new label.

Similarly, the language used around learning disabilities has changed many times. These shifts often aim to reduce stigma and promote first-person language that emphasizes the individual, not the disability. As our understanding grows, so does our vocabulary.

Chris also criticized the use of the word “friend” in classrooms, something many teachers began using in the early 2000s to refer to all students. He argued that calling every classmate a “friend” confuses children, especially when some of those classmates are bullies. I agree with him on this point. The term may have been used too broadly, but again, I don’t think it was intended to cause harm.

Ultimately, words like “student” and “learner” carry different connotations. A student is typically someone who studies within a formal structure, while a learner is more self-directed and intrinsically motivated.

So, what do we want for our children? To simply complete assigned tasks, or to become curious, independent learners? Will changing our language help us reach that goal? I’m not sure, but I don’t believe these language shifts are malicious. Most are simply well-intentioned efforts to reflect evolving values in education.

This weekend is opening weekend at the Fort at No 4. This is the first time The Fort has been open to the general public this year.

I believe this is the first opening weekend I’ve attended. It was fun, it was outstanding, it was hard work.

The first time I arrived, it felt like I was arriving at “House of Cash” from “Hurt”. “Closed to the Public”.

It felt like it was in disrepair, dying from neglect and lack of public love.

That’s not what it feels like today.

Ally had to stay home, she has been under the weather and is recovering. She has a hard deadline of two weeks to have her dress ready. Something special is happening for her.

My lady and I went up instead. When we pulled into the parking lot, the lot was more than half filled. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it that full before, outside major events.

We had two of our blacksmiths working the forge. Richard Write and Sam. Richard has forgotten more about smithing than I expect to ever know. Sam is an expert in blade smithing. We discussed how to make a reproduction tool that would be period.

It is a bit of work, but I can make it happen.

We had visitors arrive. I learned that 4th and 5th graders have a sorry grasp on the history of this countries founding.

Still, it was good.

From there I headed over to the workshop, I had given two of my mallets to the Fort for use in the workshop.

Having had the winter to do research, I got to work with wood planes. It was adjusted perfectly. Watching the rough-cut lumber turning into finished product was a type of zen. The sound of a well tuned plane is something I don’t get in my modern shop.

I didn’t need to plane this wood down. It would have been fine like it was, I wanted to learn.

The Fort likes to have programs. These are times when an interpreter does something that visitors can watch, or sometimes, participate in.

Normally, I do plaining at the back side of the big table, this time I moved to the front and setup there, so people could see what was happening. Sure enough, there were soon visitors there.

My favorite type of visitor is a family with 3rd to 8th graders. Children that are still interested in the world and what came before, but not grumping about being off their phones.

We had at least two families like that.

The twins came in and were interested in the augers. They got to touch and teach me how it worked, then we looked around the shop to locate examples of holes with pegs. Mostly we found holes for legs and several chairs that holes in them for runners and whatever the back spindles are called.

They picked a plain, they got to see how it would work, then the boy got to use the plain. In other words, he was working to smooth the piece of lumber I needed to be smoothed. If we trick them into doing the work, is it really child labor?

Molding plains, shave horses, draw knives, yarn counter and others. They were bouncing and happy when the left. I’m hoping they will remember this day long into the future.

That’s it. I’m tired and sore. But it is good.

For those of you that are within the distance, I am really looking forward to seeing you at The Fort.

Before I got to high school, the term was “illegal alien”. This was the technically, legally correct term.

According to the INA, The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States — 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)

The term “illegal alien” is not used, but no term is defined within the INA for illegal aliens.

Now the term “illegal alien” was used to create faux outrage, “Nobody is Illegal!” was the scream.

They then became “aliens”, then “undocumented migrants”, and then “undocumented works” and finally, “migrants”.

All of these language changes were done with purpose and evil in the hearts of the manipulators.

Who wants an “illegal alien” living with them? How worries about an undocumented migrant living with them. One sounds much more “criminal” than the other.

This worked so well, that today, and every day, I hear leftists scream about “she was just a Maryland mother, she had committed no crimes.”

She committed the crime of entering this country illegally. That is a crime.

In the Second Amendment community, we’ve seen the infringers pivot to “assault weapons” to “gun safety” to “prevent gun violence”. The words are designed to hide the actual intentions.

The Education Industry

There is a community that I’ve labeled the Education Industry. This includes teacher’s unions, school boards, school administrators, the Department of Education at all levels, and the vendors selling into these groups.

One of the worst things about the EI, is that it isn’t interested in good results, it is interested in looking like they are providing good results.

I’ve had many people within the EI tell me that it is impossible to use objective standards to “grade” teachers. Then proceeded to prove it by informing me that judging teachers by how well their students do, doesn’t work.

These same people have then told me which teachers in the school are good or bad. They know what makes a good teacher, they know what makes a bad teacher. They are not willing to turn those into written, objective, criteria.

When my children were younger, there was an incident in the classroom. I was brought in to hear about how my son had misbehaved.

“Your son hit one of his friends.”

“He hit Jimmy? I’ll have to speak with Jimmy’s parents to find out what happened and make sure they can patch it up.”

“No, it wasn’t Jimmy.”

Turns out that the “friend” that he hit was the classroom bully and had no friends.

She was my son’s “friend” because everybody in the room was a “friend.”

The research strongly suggested that students with good social interactions and with a strong support base of friends performed better.

This meant that schools that wanted to have students perform well, they needed friends.

Since you can’t force people to be friends, they just redefined all classmates as “friends”. Instant solution. Everybody has friends now. They will all do better.

Nope, of course not. This is just industrial-sized cheating.

Nothing more than the marathon runner who trotted off the starting line, ran a mile, got on the subway and then to the ending line.

They waited “long enough” then rejoined the other runners for the last mile, mile and a half.

They caught her because her time put her in world-class times.

She wasn’t “cheating” in her mind, she “didn’t want to disappoint her daughter.” So she cheated.

The EI cheats all the time.

“No Child Left Behind”. The EI turned to malicious compliance and malicious misunderstandings to create a disaster.

If you read the bill, if you read the statements made around it, you quickly realize that the goal was to make sure that no child was shorted the opportunity to succeed.

If you were a little slow, more resources would be provided, to help you reach classroom standards. It was also supposed to help the gifted children, making sure they also received extra resources.

Instead, it became BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). No child left behind meant that schools couldn’t hold students back.

Their Learners

One of the latest pushes was “the learning mindset” where the EI would create “lifetime learners”.

I’m a learner, I’m always attempting to learn something new. I don’t always succeed, but I darn well try. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve read about the things I attempt to learn.

People that have a learning mindset naturally do better at learning things.

We want learners in our schools. We want to encourage learners.

Knowing how important having a lifetime learning mindset is, the schools have ditched the term “student” and replaced it with “learner”.

Now everybody is a learner. It says so right on the label.

My teacher explained to me that calling them “learners” was encouraging them to have that learning mindset.

I reached over and picked up something on the table. “This is the medal of honor. It is awarded to those that do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before their own. I’m giving this to you to encourage you to do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before your own.”

I was lucky, she got it and I didn’t get slapped.

You can call it day when it’s night, you can call it good when it’s bad, that doesn’t make it so.

Tariffs

I work with people that are dealing with tariffs. I needed to update a custom web application which handles purchase orders, inventory control, warehousing, sales orders and a bunch of other things.

The owner explained to me how tariffs were going to affect them. I gave some of that in the Thursday’s post.

What does it come down to?

American goods are becoming competitive in other countries. As more than one person has pointed out, there are no American-made cars on the road in Japan. The cost of the tariffs into Japan are high enough to alter consumer choices.

As other countries lower their tariffs, they are lowering the prices of American-made goods, this in turn increases demand for American-made goods.

The price you pay for goods is based on what the market will bear, not on the cost of production. Every leftist will tell you that when they talk about pharmaceuticals. “It only cost them $15 to make this, and they are charging over $1000!!!!”

When they are talking about tariffs, they are talking about tariffs on the $15, not on the $1000.

Pricing Goods and Services

The boss calls in his best salesman and yells at him costing the company money. He is selling widgets for less than it costs to make them. How the heck does he expect the company to make any money!

The salesman beams, leans in and says softly, “I’ll make it up in volume.”

In a different situation, I once listened to the CEO of Cray Research give a speech. He was telling a humorous story about how he was out selling a super computer to Apple that was designed on Apple computers.

He and Cook got a chuckle out of it. They were then discussing their income streams. Cook mentioned a number and our CEO was happy to respond with “That’s just about what we made last year.”

Cook looks him in the eye, “I’m talking about per quarter.”

Cray sold million dollar computers, Apple sold thousand dollar computers. They sold so many more that they were making more than Cray.

Every businessman attempts to set their prices to get as much as the market and their conscience can bear.

That elementary equation is Price*volume. My profit on a sale is price-cost. If my profit is $1000 per unit and I sell 10 units, I make $10,000. If my profit per unit is $100 per unit and I sell 1000, I make $100,000.

The price you see is always profit + cost. In most resale stops, the profit is multiples of cost.

It costs $0.50 to make a glass of lemonade. You don’t sell it for $0.75, you sell it for $5.00. If your costs double, to $1.00 per glass, you can still keep your price at $5.00 and advertise your sacrifice selling more.

So here is the dirty secret, spelled out, again. If I am assembling a computer with parts bought in China, my price will be multiples of what I paid for those parts, and the tariffs only apply to my cost of getting the parts.

Typescript vs. JavaScript

The power of a scripted language is that you can see the results of your changes instantly. In 1976, I was writing code on an PolySci 8080 computer. I think I got that name right.

The language was BASIC. As I typed each line, the computer told me if the syntax was correct. Instant feedback.

I moved to assembly language. That was done in an instant assembler on the Apple II. Again, instant feedback on syntax errors.

As I moved forward, I learned different languages, PASCAL, FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN V, COBOL, Compass, C and some other assembly languages.

These separated the process of creating a working executable into: Edit, Compile, and Link. You could then execute (run) the resulting “binary”.

Compile times for even small programs took a noticeable time. I wasn’t aware of how long it took until I wrote my first test program on the Cray X/MP.

Same edit process. Then I ran the compile and link process.

The time it took was so short that I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what I had done wrong.

The power of most of the languages above, outside the Assembly languages, was strong typing and good structures.

It was worth it to have slower test cycle times to have those features.

Then came some more modern languages, JavaScript, Python, Perl, PHP, and others. These do not have strict typing. JavaScript being one of the worst.

Consider the following, what is 10 + 100? The answer is logically 110. What is 10 + “100”? Logical, 110 is the answer. Except that in JavaScript the answer is “10100”.

What we want or expect is for the language to convert the string “100” to the value integer value 100. Then we are adding the integer 10 to the integer 100, resulting in 110. But JavaScript says that adding the integer 10 to the string 100 requires converting integer 10 to the string “10” then concatenating “10” with “100” resulting in “10100”.

TypeScript is simply adding strong typing to JavaScript. Then a TypeScript transpiler/compiler writes the code out as pure JavaScript. The original C++ did a similar thing. The C++ “compiler” translated C++ to pure C. Then it used the C compiler to create assembly code which was linked to create an executable.

The process is going relatively smoothly. Unfortunately, JavaScript is not my favorite language, see “no typing and weird implicit type conversions” above.

This means that I’m having to learn a new workflow. I’m getting there.

Question of The Week

What is the most outrageous lie you’ve heard from a leftist political leader, this week?

Update

The world is ending because the United States is imposing tariffs on other countries. This will cause the economy to crash.

Amazon was going to put up a “this product cost you $x in tariffs” to drive home just how evil tariffs are.

That is not what happens.

Let’s consider a tool I purchased recently. It cost me $45, it was made in China.

According to Amazon, since there is a 145% tariff on China, that means that $18.37 of that price is me paying a tariff.

This is garbage. Not true. There is no way to know what I am paying in tariffs because that is decided by the vendor.

To understand tariffs, we need to understand the difference between cost and price.

Let’s assume I’m buying lots of widgets from a vendor in Canada. According to the US government, there is a 145% tariff on those goods coming into the US.

Using the Amazon system, if we would see this particular item on Amazon for around $0.99 with $0.59 of that being “tariffs”.

This particular widget cost $0.58 cents. This is the amount the Chinese seller gets per unit. It costs $0.01 to get it shipped over to Canada.

This puts the total cost to the vendor at $0.59. This includes any tariffs imposed by Canada or export costs imposed by China.

The customer is buying these widgets from the vendor for $0.80/unit.

Using the Amazon model, this would mean that the tariffs would be $0.47/unit. If this were the case, the vendor would make negative $0.12 per unit. This is not viable. Something else must be happening.

There is something else happening. That is, that the vendor first sells the widget at cost to himself in the United States.

This means that he is paying a tariff on his cost of the item. Which is $0.58 with a tariff of $0.85. This makes the breakeven point on this product $1.44

The vendor and the customer have negotiated how much each will pay of the tariff. They agree to split the tariff 50/50.

This means that the breakeven point is now $1.02, meaning that the vendor loses $0.22/unit. The cost to the customer is now $0.80 + $0.43 = $1.23.

The customer will lose $0.24 per unit sold on Amazon instead of the $0.19 he was making before the tariffs.

The reality is that this widget is listed on Amazon. The price is $2.83/unit.

The Canadian vendor is not going to eat any of the tariff costs, that will be passed on to the customer.

The customer’s cost will go from $0.80 to $1.66.

Your price will go from $2.83 to what?

It will likely stay at $2.83. Why?

Because if they could sell the product at $3.83 they would already be selling it at $3.83. It is that simple.

Will it go up a little? Maybe. What if it went up enough to cover the entire cost of the tariffs? That would take it to $3.69/unit. That is still a much smaller percentage than what Amazon and the media would have you believe.

Which brings us to reality, once again. The price of this item will probably go to $3.33 per unit. A cost increase of $0.50/unit.

This is the complexity of tariffs, much of the pricing calculations are done well outside the view of the final user.

At every stage, the price of the good is set at the maximum that the market will tolerate. If that means that profits go down, profits will go down. If profits go down too much, then that seller will go out of business.