| ▲ | joshstrange 2 hours ago |
| No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency. The company that moves (or starts) manufacturing here today might get run out of business when/if tariffs are repealed and their competitor already has production lines in other countries ready to go. Heck, the factory might not even open before the winds shift. No one can accurately plan with the uncertainty. All the big names like Apple are just paying lip service to this. They are throwing, quite literally, pocket change or funds from the government (like CHIPS, which was less ham-fisted than the tariffs IMHO but still not something that's going to change the landscape overnight) at these endeavours to appease the current admin in favor of reduced/removed tariffs on _their_ products and good PR. If congress wanted to actually do their jobs instead of both them and the judiciary abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch then _maybe_ we'd have a chance in hell. Until then you can look forward to more flip-flopping as the government changes and the smaller companies continuing to be ground under the heel of large corporations who can weather (or bribe) their way out of the tariffs. |
|
| ▲ | FuriouslyAdrift 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Any company should definitely be planning for the inevitable decline or elimination of China as a production and/or trading partner. If not caused by politics, then by demographic crash. |
| |
| ▲ | mywacaday 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm curious why you think China will decline or be eliminated, I always thought that China was a reliable as a production/trading partner and that they planned for decades ahead with programs like Belt and Road Initiative unlike western politics that only looks as far as the next election. Very open to correction on this though, thinking about it not sure what formed my opinion on this. | | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The Belt and Road initiative is a nice try, but it's not a roaring success. The flaws of democracies are easy to see because of the openness, and whatever goes wrong usually do so over a long time. Dictatorships go wrong in more dramatic ways. | |
| ▲ | jorts 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Their aging population will pose an extremely serious problem in the coming decades. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Over what timescale? Is the presumption that China, the country of one child policy, will do nothing about the problem? |
|
|
| ▲ | bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That isn't 100% true, maybe 99% though. Anyone paying attention to politics for the last 40 years would have seen that there has always been an undercurrent of people unhappy with imports. This is the most power those people have had, but they have always been there and got significant political attention. There have thus been signs to be aware of, and those signs are things a smart company will take into consideration - they may or may not act, but they should know and consider them. |
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | But that's the current dollar-based system. Like the gold-based system before it, today countries as a whole have to have long-term balanced trade, as measured in dollars. That's what a great many countries demanded to keep the system fair. If need be, some temporary imbalances can be forgiven by the world bank, but not much. Outlawing or taxing imports (=tarriffs) of course helps with this. However, if you look at economic history this always slowly lead to problems that only got resolved by fresh loans (that's what the move to dollar effectively did), hyperinflation or wars. |
|
|
| ▲ | znpy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency. Indeed, but the role of a government is to steer/push private initiative in a certain direction. Tariffs and stuff are steering private companies towards building stuff in-house (as in: "in the us"). Future initiative inconsistent with this directions will essentially be a sabotage of the US economy. |
| |
| ▲ | joshstrange 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Tariff introduced by congress? Sure. Tariffs introduced by fiat? No. The fact that a president can create them out of thin air means they can be removed just as easily. I'm not anti-tariff or anti-re-homing-production (where it makes sense) but the _way_ it was done is my problem. Additionally there was no ramp, it was 0->100 immediately. A bill passed by congress to slowly ratchet up tariffs or similar over a period of time would have a much larger impact IMHO. It would give companies the ability to plan instead of just react. The tariffs were enacted in a timespan that made it impossible to move production local before they went into effect. Additionally, tariffs being applied unequally is terrible, it just means whoever has the biggest bribes (solid gold plaque holders anyone?) or can pretend they are moving manufacturing back to the US gets an advantage. The amount of power held in the executive branch is unacceptable. Just look at how they raided/repurposed the CHIPS act money to force Intel (which I have no real love for) to sell a stake to the government. Authoritarian governments are bad for business. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The American electorate seems quite happy to elect people who will sabotage the US economy, so that isn't any reassurance that it won't happen. Tariffs are currently going up and down based on a single man's whims. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would when when they can just bribe the current government to be exempt? If tariffs were planned, steady increase on a long term we might see a good effect. Like tariffs were used before this trump admin. |
|
|
| ▲ | fragmede 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you get that quote from Patrick McGee's book "Apple in China"? Wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_in_China > In the book, McGee says that, under the leadership of Tim Cook, Apple invested $275 billion in China between 2016 and 2021, to manufacture its products in the country (including building factories and supply chains in China, as well as training Chinese workers). McGee compares this to the Marshall Plan, as this is in excess of other corporate spending and, in real terms, was about twice the monetary value of the Marshall Plan.
I did a quick fact check. The Marshall Plan was originally 13.3B USD, or about 150B USD today. | |
| ▲ | elAhmo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You fail to understand that Apple investing in China is in their best interest - and then returned back to millions of shareholders. If investing in the USA would be a better ROI, there would be no need for any measures like this to force companies somewhere. People in favour of tariffs make it seem like the best and wealthiest economy in the world is in a bad shape, and it is completely opposite, while failing to address the inequality issue with the wealth distribution. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaytea an hour ago | parent [-] | | You're conflating better for apple (and shareholders) with better for the country overall. | | |
| ▲ | matwood an hour ago | parent [-] | | The US economy has been one of the best performing economies ever, which has been great for the country overall. Deeper economic ties with other super powers is also a pretty good at keeping the peace. While there are some specific issues, it's hard to argue it hasn't been good for the country overall. |
|
| |
| ▲ | flawn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then all this 3x amount would have had no ROI, China would have outdid the US comparatively. | |
| ▲ | Zigurd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I distinctly remember Apple having produced a video showing off an automated assembly line for PCB production for the original Mac. It's not like they didn't try it. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's a sad commentary on the modern world that state support (ie. tax avoidance, and ... shall we say "help" in labor relations) matters more than even the best people you can possibly hire working on your manufacturing. Because that's the difference between China and the US. It's not that the US does nothing, just that China does way more. Some companies are apparently paying negative tax (meaning every products sold the state adds 15% to the price, such deals apparently exist) But, yeah, less tax means less everything for everyone. Especially less social support and less healthcare. But I guess this is what some of the more constructive people mean when they say taxes are too high. As well as what socialists meant 30 years ago when they said that very high import tariffs are a necessity. They compensate for these huge differences. But at the cost of making any foreign product (ie. "your iPhone") a lot more expensive than it already is. |
| |
| ▲ | selectodude an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Probably not much. The US doesn’t have the capacity for high volume manufacturing. We cost too much. | |
| ▲ | joering2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Easy to imagine - phones would be 1.5x more expensive than they are now, from get go. The cheap electronics (and goods in large part) have been hallmark of "quality of life in USA" for decades; I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe. However, it seems that Americans are so tired of growing prices that they are getting used to paying them. Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price? I think we will see the same happening with electronics - Apple breaking news on $500B factory spending in USA is mostly because they believe Apple owners will keep buying Apple regardless of the price. They may be right... will see. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe.
Isn't this mostly explained by much higher sales tax (VAT) in most European countries? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with off-shoring the manuf'ing of these elctronic devices. That higher tax revenue can be used to fund excellent national healthcare (insurance) programmes, something that the US badly lacks. | |
| ▲ | 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price? Because the gas station across the street will sell it for less. Because a different refinery will sell it to the gas station for less. Gas prices are the pump and oil prices in the commodities market don’t move in perfect unison. But they do move eventually. Wild how some ragebait “article” can erase people’s memory of gas prices going down. Not to mention that gas at the pump has taxes/labor applied to it that can also change. https://www.macrotrends.net/2501/crude-oil-vs-gasoline-price... https://www.macrotrends.net/3591/us-gasoline-prices |
| |
| ▲ | joe_mamba an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Apple invested 3x that because they got 30x in return from the savings versus US manufacturing. >Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead. Then iPhones would either have to be 10x more exsolve to keep the same profit margins or Apple would be broke trying to compete with Chinese made goods using US manufacturing. |
|