Apple warns Trump that more China tariffs will help rivals (Aw, shucks)

BBC ^ | 21 June

[cba123]

The US has said it may impose duties on $300bn (£236.1bn) worth of Chinese products if the two sides can't reach a trade deal.

In a letter, Apple "urged" the White House to drop the tariff plan.

The tech giant said the duties would "tilt the playing field" to its global rivals.

(please see link for full article)

[cba123]

Raise the tariffs, Mr. President.

Apple sold out, long ago.

How would China tariffs "tilt the playing field" to its global rivals, unless Apple is SOURCING too much from China?

Huh?

How else?

[cba123]

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-48714701

[Cowboy Bob]

Is Apple an American company, or Chinese? Difficult to tell.

[Long Jon No Silver]

Apple loves Chinese commies.

[wastedyears]

That’s too bad. Who wants to pay $800 for your low-end equipment?

[Thumper1960]

Apple just loves those slave labor level Chinese peasants.

[JudgemAll]

How so? We make the semiconductors. Trump already saved Apple from Huawei but maybe should have not , I guess. What a bunch of lunatics are these money grubbing lefty execs, total globalist ideological traitors

[nathanbedford]

Who has skin in this game?

Consumers

Clearly, consumers obtain Apple phones cheaper because much of the labor producing them is done outside of the United States. Therefore, we presume that Apple phones are available in America at a cheaper price because they are manufactured abroad. On the other hand, while consumers are favored to the extent that the price is reduced, workers are disadvantaged because they have no job.

Nor is it clear that most of the cost of an Apple product is generated by labor, much less labor done in China. We have been given to understand that the supply chain touches on many countries where there is a relative advantage. The question is, how much of the cost of an Apple product would be increased if labor were removed from China to another low-cost venue? How much would it be increased if it were returned to the United States?

Investors

The assumption of this argument is that American investors will be harmed because the profit margins of Apple will be reduced as other competitors thrive because they continue to enjoy a cheap source in China for products competitive to Apple.

This argument discounts the nimbleness of capital in its capacity to move overnight at the touch of a keystroke to a different sector, a different industry, a different country, a different company. It further discounts the fact that Apple is an international company, a paragon of globalism, and it is not just American investors but international investors who might be harmed, if there is any harm at all. The nimbleness of capital also implies that alternative sources of product, or links in the production chain, can be relatively quickly set up in competing venues.

I do not know how much of the dollars generated by sales of Apple ends up in American hands. These data are available, I guess but until we have some idea what we are talking about, there is no need to rush to the barricades to defend Apple.

The United States

To the degree that China poses a national security as well as an economic threat to the United States, that interest must be weighed against the extra cost to consumers and against the losses to the investing public. Conversely, advantages to domestic manufacturing and labor should be calculated and offset.

If mercantilist China in fact represents an existential threat to the United States and that threat is funded by Americans buying Apple products partially produced in China, why should we risk national security to benefit an enterprise more globalist than domestic?

Cui Bono?

[jazminerose]

Oooh, competition? Can’t allow that.

While no one was paying attention in 2017, President Trump took a big trip to Asia.

He was negotiating trade deals with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and S Korea. Then, he sent Ivanka to India.

All as a hedge against the inevitable day he had to finally stick it to China.

The Taiwan thing probably irritates them the most.

It’s called the long game.

[magua]

What’s going on in Hong Kong should be a real eye-opener to Apple. Organ harvesting for the Commie czars of China should be eye-opening also. Apple made a bad business decision. Your first loss Apple is always your best loss get out of China.

[mikefive]

Maybe Apple should not have moved all their operations to a communist country to save a buck and screw the American workers. Screw apple and the horse they rode out with.

[DAC21]

So says the Company with 250 Billion dollars cash on hand.

[DAC21]

I have no doubts the Apple Cultist shall not blink an eye throwing an extra hundred or two at their Messiah when the IPhone XI hits stores. Sleep easy Tim Cook, your Stockholders will shower you with praise and cheer your genius.

[fishtank]

Not a good day to be a messerschmidt

[EQAndyBuzz]

What’s the margin on an IPhone?

[CincyRichieRich]

If mercantilist China in fact represents an existential threat to the United States and that threat is funded by Americans buying Apple products partially produced in China, why should we risk national security to benefit an enterprise more globalist than domestic?

Cui Bono?
...
Solid analysis, NB

[nathanbedford]

I have the impression, without real knowledge, that Apple's margins are quite high.

Another good question to ask, what are Apple's profit margins? And what part of that profit results from whatever part of the phone is manufactured in China?

Finally, it might be observed that Apple is really not competing on price, rather, it competes on quality and cutting edge innovation. That begs the question, how much will Apple sales be harmed if some portion of the manufacturing cost is elevated because the article is no longer partially made in China? I suspect very little of the innovation is done in China, rather I understand it is done in America.

Yet, Huawei is now reputed to be technically superior to Apple which does not suggest that Apple should be protected but that we should be protected from Huawei because it has learned, or stolen, technology from Apple and others.

My purely anecdotal impression is that people are paying a sum which would buy a small used car for a version of a telephone for reasons that have much less to do with utility than personal (read, ego) satisfaction. My impression is that, presuming big enough profit margins, Apple can eat some of the forecast competitive disadvantage temporarily while manufacturing is set up elsewhere and still generate dividends.

[conservativeimage]

[polymuser]

If Apple thinks they have a sympathetic ear out here, LOL!

Apple’s iPhone is SO chock full of social justice feel-ware, it’s pathetic. From their much-edited/censored emojis to their spellcheck word suggestions — OMG. It illuminates that their coders’ bosses are SJWs on Starbucks high-test (who remembers that term?). I wanna puke sometimes.

F Apple. F Google. F Facebook. F Twitter.

[Rashputin]

and why should Trump care that one #NeverTrump queer CEO who has thrived by selling grossly overpriced electronics to terminally trendy trannies can't compete without relying on cheap Chinese labor rather than by investing in America??