Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
How prices changed at a Walmart in a year (npr.org)
115 points by ilamont 28 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 86 comments



> At the same time, higher prices of garlic — they soared 53% — actually illustrate tariffs working as intended.

> China had been the biggest exporter of garlic to the U.S. and domestic garlic growers have long argued they were being undercut by cheaper Chinese competition. Now that Chinese garlic faces higher tariffs, domestic companies can charge higher prices.

Domestic companies being able to charge higher prices was not the goal of tariffs. Labor is cheaper in other Asian countries, and that also results in their being able to undercut America producers. However, the trade war is against China and not low labor cost countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.


What is 55% higher though - from $0.50 to $0.76 per bulb? Garlic doesn't seem like an elastic enough good where $0.25 would make a difference. It's a staple food in almost every American household.

With that being said it's sad to hear that so many people purchase Chinese produce.


One company I worked at imported broccoli from China to their factory on the eastern side of Canada, for products intended for distribution across all of Canada, Mexico, and the US.

Even with constant quality issues and recalls[1], there just weren't many other options out there. For sufficiently large orders, it's hard to secure consistent sourcing more locally. China constitutes half of the world's product, India a majority of the rest, and every other country rolls up to a very minority stake[2]. I was working on raw materials supply chain optimization, and broccoli in particular (and produce in general) was the bane of my work.

I don't know much about the wider produce supply chain, but it was really unexpected when I started just how much fresh produce we imported from China, and how it wasn't even necessarily a cost-driven factor.

[1] These consisted virtually entirely of supplier-side recalls that before production or shortly after, and at least during my tenure did not result in any customer-facing recalls. But our production/distribution process did account for enough capacity padding to allow for that, and an incredible amount of production waste.

[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-growing-the-mo...


Maybe we should reallocate some of the corn, wheat, and soybean subsidies to domestic vegetable production.


I'd be happy to see soya, wheat and corn subsidies die altogether.


Why is it sad?


It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't compete on a serious level without specialty importers in the USA. That's the sad part.

The bad part, environmentally, think of all the excess CO2 produced in transport that in reality, doesn't truly need to happen.


Just because the tomato is coming from the Dominican Republic doesn’t mean more CO2 was produced.

Farmer Jack driving a few hundred pounds of tomatoes to the farmer’s market might be spewing more CO2 per tomato than the hundreds of tons coming by ship from the Dominican Republic. Scale of efficiency definitely applies to transportation.


No way the potentially higher CO2 emissions per km/kg is higher than the 1000x factor from having tomatoes come from the US instead of locally.


Similarly my parents live in a rural community and practically everyone grows garlic, but farm-stands have trouble competing with grocery store (read: Chinese) garlic.


Florida has a fuckton of strawberry fields. I'm about 1-3 counties away from the major producers. In major grocery chains around me, it's all California and Mexico strawberries. You have no idea how angry that makes me.


Who eats the Floridian strawberries?


Nobody knows...

Just kidding. To my knowledge a lot go to processing, not consumer consumption. Typically these are also labeled as "ugly" because they're not always your traditional strawberry shape. Similar, Florida oranges were mostly juicing oranges, not consumption. Though greenery has really fucked up that market sector.

I just don't appreciate the whole "look" based market we have in the states. I think it's as stupid as stupid gets. A majority of food prices are due to people not wanting their food to "look" a certain way. Even though that look has zero correlation to taste. Which, typically, the ugly ones have more flavor. Like, the best beefsteak tomato looks like a hideous tumor. God as my witness, they have a great taste. It's good enough to just slice and eat by itself. But then the pretty beefsteak tomatoes are a watery disaster of sadness.

Just me ranting away about the terrible disconnect a majority of the population has to their food. It's really sad. There's really no cure to it unless the fed mandates Victory Gardens. Which, I'm totally for. The only big government action I'll approve is the fed saying "If you have a yard, you must cultivate 25% of it minimum as a Victory Garden or face penalty of death." A day worth celebrating.


People are averse to defective products. Because people can pick and choose, they will select the best product.

If we all agree to purchase slightly damaged food and only remove the damaged part, it would be fine.

There is still the issue that people do not know how the food was damaged, which is a different supply chain issue.


No no, I'm not talking about damaged.

I'm talking about "ugly". The strawberries and tomatoes at the store are perfect shaped. The breeds that pump out these typically lack the same intensity of flavor as heirloom varieties, that if you are not use to them, would barely recognize them.

Watch some homesteading harvest videos on youtube. Especially if they do carrots. They wont look like store bought ones.


The people who "select the best product" basically only have visuals to go on, therefore they actually select for the prettiest product, not the best tasting product.


Look has a correlation to perceived taste. People perceive things to be tastier when they look good.


Until you live on a farm and realize the ugly ones taste better by far measure and the pretty ones should just be fed to the chickens.

Most people these days never get that experience. So they think what they're looking at is a pretty strawberry. In reality, it's only real use is compost.


Most fresh fruit isn't beautiful but is still perfectly edible, so it goes into processed foods.


I definitely have seen Florida strawberries in Georgia. (Georgia also grows strawberries, although not that many.)


That's because you lot focus on peaches. Which, I mean, yea... Only good reason to risk getting a bs speeding ticket in Georgia is for a peach run.


North Carolinian here. SC peaches are superior to GA peaches.


They might be. I don't see SC peaches in Georgia, and I haven't been there, so I haven't tried them. I assume the South Carolinians are hoarding their peaches for themselves.

(If I have a dog in this fight, it's actually New Jersey, where I grew up.)


I agree, but that sounds like a case for a carbon tax, not for tariffs.


That is why the argument is made for freedom of movement of labour. If you could have cheaper labour in America, you would have the best of both worlds. But of course you’d have people complaining their jobs are being stolen.

We can’t have our cake and eat it too.


I don't know, I think that's only partially the problem. But just so we're clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there are other factors. Mostly, I think it's the way distributors and retailers form their contract deals, which spills to the farmers. I've never done food, but I know some of the deals work similarly to what I experienced in security. Camera manufacturers for example, give you a discounted price when you buy a certain amount every year. The more you sell, the better your discount. Typically 3 tiers, some did 4. This is both good and bad. It protects the loyal and well experienced integrators from the fly by night folks from making quick turn and burn dollars. Fly by night folks get lower margins compared to the bigger guys. But at the same time, it makes it a serious pain in the ass to get a foot in the door when starting out. On top of that, if you're a middle of the field player, you don't take too much risk in a new or alternative brand because it'll hurt your yearly number, thus hurt your discount, thus hurt your margins, thus hurt your overall profit. I assume big box grocery stores have a similar instance with distributors, with nuances of course.

Part 2. There are farmer markets (real ones, not the hipster kind) with local farmers and it's a good 20%-50% cheaper. Plus, those farmers make a better margin. Problem, lower volume in comparison. Typically (near me) these are part of the weekly flea markets or literally a dude in his pickup truck on the side of the road. These places don't have a good... PR look. But I'm also in Florida and I grew up white trash. Nearly everything grows here and I'm fine if things aren't pristine/well-marketed.

I think over marketing, bad lock in deals and piss poor public perception of real food production are the main problems. Real strawberries look like Frankenstein's face. And they're fucking delicious.


You'd also often be forcing people to leave their communities and families, because the right job for them was somewhere else.

It feels weird to unthinkingly sacrifice valuable life preferences at the altar of Economic Efficiency Uber Alles.


What do you mean by 'the right job' and why would it 'force' people to leave their communities?


I'm going to change up the countries so there's less emotional value associated.

Why should Polish people leave their country so they can find work in England? In theory, countries should be self-sufficient enough to where only niche based jobs should have such movement. I'm talking about highly specialized stuff. But when it comes to generic labor, why? Farming? Building houses? The fact people want to leave one country for another just for basic jobs is kind of messed up. I feel both countries are to blame forcing people to leave their homeland. One needs to get their fucking shit together and/or quit punishing a demographic because said gov wants to become a more service oriented country, the other country needs to stop creating incentives for such actions to become easily profitable on a large scale basis.

Countries need to be self-sufficient with their own population. One population sacrificing its people for the good of another is not sustainable, no matter how you slice or dice it.


No one has to do anything.

> The fact people want to leave one country for another just for basic jobs is kind of messed up.

Do they have to or do they want to? If they want to, what is the problem?

Economically countries are linked. You can say how these things 'should' be, but do you only buy food that was produced locally? You have to think about the incentives all the way through.


In Punjab most of the time they Have to, because staying back means competition 1000sof Over Qualified applications for a peon job, whereas coming over to First World means being rich in few years.


Shipping foreign produce is not good for the environment at all. Easy to harvest and low maintenance produce such as garlic should not need to be imported. The margins over garlic may be low, but local producers can still benefit from being able to sell without too many intermediaries.


Why would garlic prices rise 53% if the tariffs are only 30%?

Are there really no other factors at play?


>Why would garlic prices rise 53% if the tariffs are only 30%?

One purely theoretical explanation is demand elasticity - if you can sell 20 items at 3$ now your costs increase to 5$ - you can sell 10 items at 5$ but 8 at 10$ it makes sense to sell at 10$ - not saying that's the case with garlic - but it explains how a 30% cost increase could cause higher price increase.


Percentage-based taxes stretch the supply curve upward along the price axis.

Adding a 30% tax means that if you draw a line down from the new equilibrium point to zero price, that line will cross the original supply curve at 30% of the way down. But the new equilibrium point may also be at a different (likely lower) quantity, where the demand curve could have a different slope.

For a perfect commodity, where the supply curve is nearly flat, the percentage tax has the effect of raising that flat line higher. A 30% tax raises prices 30% higher. The shape of the demand curve only determines the reduction in trade volume.

For a fixed-supply good, where the supply curve is completely vertical, the price remains exactly the same, and the tax is paid entirely by the supplier. The shape of the demand curve isn't very relevant.

If the demand curve is perfectly vertical, consumers pay all the tax, and quantity remains the same.

In order for an x% tax to produce an x+y% increase in price, there has to be some other effect in play. The demand curve has a positive slope, as with a Veblen good. The demand curve shifts upward or rightward, as though the tax serves as advertising. A 30% tariff on similar goods or general inflation produced a substitution effect that drove more people to demand garlic.

Pure demand elasticity can't account for it all.


Less competition or local producers not being able to make the desired quantities (at least right away) means prices can be higher.


> Are there really no other factors at play?

What factors do you have in mind, and how do they relate to the goal of the trade wars?


Cost might be a % of costs + percentage of profit which increases based on the cost and has a multiplier.


I am quite certain the tariffs went from 10% to 25%, so only actually a 15% in crease.

The real reason for the remaining increases are probably a combination of domestic Chinese pressures and the inflation machine Obama started and Trump has only continued both starting to grip and people are starting to notice as articles like this point out things that have been going on for a decade now.



Here is the text-only version: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=753712449


As someone who has done buying and selling of used furniture, I wonder how much of the variance had to do with increasing or waning popularity of an item.

When I heard this on the radio, one of the first items they listed was a Better Homes and Gardens lamp. My impression of their research on that one was immediately to discount what they found because they are particularly subject to fad and fashion, especially with the proliferation of " XX stylish lamps that make you look like you have an interior designer for under $YY!!" type of blog posts.


Yet somehow our consumer price index shows inflation rising at only 2%


Not only is 2% a fairly tepid number, we’ve had to cut rates, make promises to “sustain the expansion”, stop the tapering of The Fed’s balance sheet just to get that 2%.

All throughout 2013-2017, the CPI number has hovered either close to 2% or been below it. Keep in mind that the Fed’s goal is symmetric, meaning that to make up for the times when CPI is below 2%, there needs to be other times when CPI is above 2%. It blows my mind that throughout the late 80s and 90s we were hitting anywhere from 3-5% and now we’re struggling to get 2%.


I’ve never paid attention to that number. Housing in desirable areas with economic opportunities, education, and healthcare are all understated. I prefer to use SP500 as my benchmark for what I need to keep up with since I am betting the US government will keep devaluing the USD to keep inflating asset values.


As the article notes, some things like consumer electronics are still getting cheaper.


File those under "basically irrelevant" in my opinion. Once you have a relatively cheap phone, you're basically satisfied your Maslow hierarchy for technology, i.e. you can accomplish most of the requirements of existing as a digital citizen albeit you may not be as efficient as those with more devices. The real labor saving devices, dishwasher, clothes washer, refrigerator etc. were/are very meaningful but haven't moved much in the last 20 years.

Education, housing, food, clothing, etc. are far more important and relevant to what it means to live a decent life in the 21st century.


I agree that you don't need a TV and I don't have one either. But other people keep buying them anyway, so it makes sense to include them in a statistical measure of average households.


Which is why they are added when new and expensive - it flatters the real inflation measures and saves governments money longer term.


This is the evil of fiscal policy. Inflation is targeted not at 2%, but 2% plus erasing all the non-fiscal economoc gains of improved technology.


> This is the evil of fiscal policy. Inflation is targeted not at 2%, but 2% plus erasing all the non-fiscal economoc gains of improved technology.

This is a very confused comment. The part that's coherent enough to clearly identify what is wrong is that it refers to “fiscal policy” when it means “monetary policy”, which is the policy targeted at particular inflation rates. But even aside from that, the whole claim is incoherent.


The comment may be poorly worded, but the point is sound. Every bit of technological progress or economic optimization should result in naturally decreasing prices, just as we've come to expect in the technology sector. This goes for both offshoring in general as well as Walmart's replacement of locally-run businesses.

Lower consumer prices would help make up for the reduced demand for labor. But rather than this being allowed to just happen, the overt policy is to keep labor from realizing these gains so that everyone keeps working "full time".


> Every bit of technological progress or economic optimization should result in naturally decreasing prices

Not in dollar terms, especially when dollars are being deliverately managed so that the dollar cost of a labor hour increases over time.

In terms of labor-hours, sure.

> Lower consumer prices would help make up for the reduced demand for labor.

No, lower nominal (dollar) prices would not. Lower real prices are an incoherent concept. Lower labor-hour-equivalent prices would if and only if lower labor demand meant equal employment but reduced hours, otherwise it would just exacerbate the tangible inequality resulting from reduced labor demand.

> But rather than this being allowed to just happen, the overt policy is to keep labor from realizing these gains so that everyone keeps working "full time".

But, it's not: that's not what targeting low positive inflation is. That would only be the overt policy if there was an overt policy to reatrict real wage gains.

While I do think (at least large portions of) one of the two major parties is actively and deliberately pursuing policies with that goal, it's very much not an overt policy.


> Not in dollar terms, especially when dollars are being deliverately managed so that the dollar cost of a labor hour increases over time.

This is sophomoric relativism - achieving lower day-to-day prices is exactly how market competition works. It's tautological to justify a policy of changing the value of a dollar by rejecting analysis in terms of an unchanged dollar. When creating a new variable, you have to analyze it in terms of existing variables.

> lower nominal (dollar) prices would not [help make up for the reduced demand for labor]

It very clearly would if businesses said "we're going to reduce everyone's hours by 20%" while everyone's expenses went down 20% - everyone's budget would remain the same.

I'll give you that this won't happen so pleasantly uniformly. But posit E who remains employed, and U who is laid off. If the expenses of four such E's go down, they now have extra money to spend locally to create a new job for U. Whereas if the E's expenses remain the same, then U's only options to get money are to head towards where it is being printed or compete with the E's in a race to the bottom (which is why the price of easily-interchangeable labor is now set by "minimum wage" rather than the market).

> that's not what targeting low positive inflation is.

An explicit goal of inflationary monetary policy is to drive "full employment". So yes, pushing everyone to keep working full time is one of its overt goals. A goal that is regressive in the face of needing ever-less labor.

I'm obviously not going to convince you on the merits of this, especially in a few comments, and that's fine. It's just fundamentally dishonest to discard a political viewpoint by condescending from a paradigm that rules out said political viewpoint by construction.


> achieving lower day-to-day prices is exactly how market competition works.

That's true, but irrelevant. You are using microlevel concepts on a macro level where they are by-definition cannot apply.

> It's tautological to justify a policy of changing the value of a dollar by rejecting analysis in terms of an unchanged dollar.

You can't have lower overall consumer prices against an unchanged dollar, because the definition of a constant or unchanged dollar is that it is corrected for price-level changes.

You can have lower nominal prices (deflation) which doesn't have the effects you attribute to lower prices at all, and you can have lower consumer prices relative to wages, which, as I've explained, do what you want if and only if the reduction in labor hours is spread evenly. Which there is little reason to think it would be absent direct regulation; what you'd normally expect is increased unemployment, because transaction costs of hiring scale with number employed, not hours worked, so it's usually more efficient for business to have fewer full-time (or even overtime) workers rather than more short-hours workers. Regulation can change this, of course, by reducing number of hours worked before additional overtime compensation is owed and increasing overtime premiums.

> An explicit goal of inflationary monetary policy is to drive "full employment". So yes, pushing everyone to keep working full time is one of its overt goals.

That's...not what “full employment” means. I know that some people like to point to the product of labor force participation rate times the employment rate and call it the real rate of employment, but that's not what policymakers consider employment to be or what they are targeting maximizing with “full employment”.

It's to stimulate a level of economic activity at which there is a labor demand such that all the labor that people want to sell is sold (which is full employment, because employment rate is people selling labor divided by people trying to sell labor) less transactional inefficiencies, it is not intended to increase real costs to force everyone into the labor force (which wouldn't actually support full-employment, but a higher labor-force participation rate.)

When you get to the point of articulating an idea that can be clearly understood, it seems to always be a misunderstanding caused by misinterpreting basic economic terminology.


Thank you for explaining how I am using terms incorrectly according to this model you are trying to constrain my analysis into. It's so much clearer now that I realize the concern I am describing simply cannot exist!

"It's just fundamentally dishonest to discard a political viewpoint by condescending from a paradigm that rules out said political viewpoint by construction."

(And we wonder why political polarization has gotten so extreme)


I had really hoped this discussion would end with your appreciation for dragonwriter's participation in it. It is very clear he understands economics much better than you do.


If by economics you mean "mainstream economic dogma", then sure. Every abstraction necessarily leaves something out, and I'm arguing for what has been cast aside. Simply restating the dogma does not address my claim.

Concretely this dogma was formed based around a need to be manufacturing more stuff. Now we have plenty of stuff but are depleting our natural resources creating a massive surplus just to throw it away. I'd say it's time to revisit the assumptions of that dogma.


Do you believe the CPI is a good measure of inflation?


Hypothetically, the Core PCE would be a better metric of inflation, but Core Urban Consumer NSA CPI works pretty well.

It has some flaws, like failing to take into account new products or improvements in products, as well as being susceptible to swings in volatile food and energy prices. But Core CPI excludes the more volatile pieces and I think it’s a reasonably good indicator.

Perhaps my single biggest gripe with CPI is that it fails to properly reflect changes in housing prices, because of how infrequently people sell/buy their house, and because in some parts of the country nobody rents, so price discovery is a little wonky in those places.


Once you look at the revised numbers and you then start unpacking all the lies contained in the CPI you start understanding that it's a literal con job, a trick of confidence.

There are some people who try to provide alternative accurate information to the government's data, and it consistently shows far less rosy numbers that also match the historical record far closer.


the cart doesn't make sense, it's too small and has too specific things in it. cod filet are pricier, shrimps are way cheaper. Great.


> To create NPR's basket, we consulted the lists from 2018 of tariffs the White House imposed on imports from China, but also Mexico and Canada — as well as China's retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-made products.

The products were picked not to represent an average shopping cart at Walmart (because we already do that and it’s called the CPI), but to specifically target items which they thought would be hardest hit by tariffs.

It’s an entirely unscientific report showing price changes at a single store with an artificial basket of goods with no attempt whatsoever to control for independent variables. In short, it tells us nothing at best, and is misinformation at worst. It’s hard to tell if the effort was even done in good faith.

Then again, TFA’s first sentence is “Shoppers beware.” Maybe that tells us all we need to know. I am actually a bit surprised that first sentence made it to print.


> but to specifically target items which they thought would be hardest hit by tariffs

In that case we can draw some conclusions. Even trying to game the basket, most of the items either stayed the same price or went down. So the effect of tariffs on prices appears to be negligible.


NPR is tracking dozens of items. The full table is further down in the article. "NPR's basket was based on the 2018 lists of tariffs the White House imposed on imports from China, Mexico and Canada as well as China's retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-made products."


What do you mean too specific? How can you reasonably track the price of something less specific than a product?


NPR only tracked 80 items. Walmart has giant analytic teams who determine pricing changes based on demand elasticity, profitability, and other things so there will be a lot of noise when you see price changes to determine the cause.


When the recession comes, it will be interesting how it will be spun.


It will be, but it not that hard to guess the major themes, depending on who is in the driver seat when it hits.


Kruschev in the 1950s wondered how capitalism worked without a price committee. Looks like NPR forgot about this with this rather pointless article extrapolating prices in one Walmart to the trade war between China and the US.


The goal of the tariffs is to improve the bargaining position of America in getting better trade deals with China... not to move manufacturing back to the US.

That might be what’s fed to the average Joe the plumber Trump supporter but common sense easily precludes that motivation. To actually move manufacturing back you’d have to tariff every country with a lower cost of living than the US, and that’s most of the world. You’d have to massively reduce consumption in the US since such a policy will greatly redistribute wealth to domestic the physical laborer. And in the long term, because of the unsustainable labor costs here eventually automation and robotics R&D will catch up to destroy those jobs anyways.


It's even more likely that China will switch to a higher level of automation and robotics before the West does. They already have the production, and can incrementally adapt and upgrade, whereas in the West, it would have to be (re-)built from the ground-up with intent to directly compete against low-labor markets (though arguably, in some industries this would probably be an advantage), and that would require far more investments up front, which carries a higher risk.


The west is an information and trchnology economy. If it has specialties in anything it’s in high tech. As fast rising and impressive as Chinese tech is, it’s still generally inferior. We’re not not scrambling for Chinese devices because of tariffs, they’re just usually coming in on the low end.

Manufacturing is also the low-value end of the supply chain. Building up expertise at the top (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, AMD, Nvidia—level tech) is exponentially harder than building up the bottom end.


The first iPhone rattled the headlines, but I'd argue the third or fourth generation is what really settled it into the mainstream.

In other words, the West may the first to have fully automated factories and warehouses, but China is likely to be the first to deploy them on a large-scale.


Unlikely they have to keep the working and middle class happy


And if that's no longer possible, it's easier to contain an unhappy populace in an Orwellian than in a "Huxlodian" state.


Until it doesn't see Romania, The technocrats that run china don't want to see themselves and their family's put against the wall or strung up from a lamp post.


You would have to tariff every country with a comparative advantage in manufacturing cheap goods, not just “the cheapest countries” in general.

Otherwise, we’d be moving our production to Pakistan and not India (a country with a comparably low cost of living)


The biggest factor in cheap manufacturing is labor cost. Even if the place doesn’t have existing infrastructure it’s better investment there than domestically.

The article even says it: most companies have stayed in China or moved to other countries like Vietnam.


Supply chains are another reason, why shifting production to a lower-cost labour country is not done overnight.


It’s also why they wouldn’t shift to the US overnight. And for over many nights, it’d still not shift to the US which is my point.


> The goal of the tariffs is to improve the bargaining position of America in getting better trade deals with China... not to move manufacturing back to the US.

Alternatively, to decouple US and Chinese trade as China is a major strategic rival to the US.

> That might be what’s fed to the average Joe the plumber Trump supporter but common sense easily precludes that motivation.

Perhaps one should avoid thinly veiled political insults. Particularly as it blinds one to alternative possibilities.


I’m not insulting. It’s true blue collar workers flocked to Trump hoping to bring back manufacturing. Joe the Plumber was the epitome of a blue collar Republican.


[flagged]


I don’t think the administration is deluded by that reality, but many of the supporters are. They just wanted jobs and Trump said yes, but he’s essentially misleading them.


"fed" is the word that is offensive. The notion that Trump supporters repeat lines that are fed to them like an actor on a stage, rather than analyzing different explanations and coming to a conclusion on which one was most accurate. Reinforced by "common sense easily precludes"


When a group indiscriminately accepts the words of someone they are being "fed." This happens for both liberals and conservatives. I'm describing the character of that specific subgroup of Trump supporters which are being fed his words, not that all Trump supporters are being fed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: