News Trump's Tariffs and Tech: Everything You Need to Know

[Admin]

President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs on Chinese goods could have a big effect on tech companies and consumers, and many are speaking out.

Trump's Tariffs and Tech: Everything You Need to Know : Read more

 

[Gurg]

So US government gets $75 B in tariff revenue but consumers only pay between $45 B to $57 B in increased prices for these luxury goods. The increased prices should go away once those Commie loving manufacturers can move their production back to US or to other friendly countries that treat the US fairly and have non-slave labor. Sounds like a tremendous deal for the US and our economy as $75 >($45 to 57).

 

[Lutedogg1]

Good, I'm tired of buying slave labor products from Communist China where they put up nets at Foxconn factories to prevent workers from jumping to death and commit suicide. Their products should have been tariffed a long time ago. They can build automated facilities in the US. It will help our economy and stop slave labor. I don't care if I have to pay more for a couple years and wait for the transition. Hello $35 hourly jobs in America. The monopoly tech giants will make more money when there is actually a middle class in America again. Foxconn said they were going to automate slave labor jobs because they cost too much in China.....pathetic....https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 ....ohhh....they did it already.

 

[mihen]

This was a very well written and neutral article. It didn't take any biased stance for or against the tariffs, just breaking down the facts.
Personally, I don't think these tariffs will last long. Given the situation in Hong Kong, China can't afford this trade war.

 

[tomspown]

I hope the taxing stays in the USA and does not affect EU in any way, this way USA prices will match our prices here in EU. We wont have to feel bad about over paying for pc
hardware.

 

[ElectrO_90]

other friendly countries that treat the US fairly and have non-slave labor.

yes, like the US Prison Service does NOT employ slave labor...and force people to work for 5 cents an hour

 

[bit_user]

I have all kinds of questions about how the tax is actually applied.

1. For instance, if a SSD is assembled in China using chips form Korea, does the tariff apply to the entire unit?
2. Likewise, if memory chips from China are exported to Vietnam for assembly of the DIMM, does the entire DIMM skirt the tariffs?
3. What if the merchandise just transits through another country, maybe getting repackaged along the way?

It seems to me that what they want is a value-added tax, though I doubt that's actually how it's implemented.

 

[BiggWigg92]

So US government gets $75 B in tariff revenue but consumers only pay between $45 B to $57 B in increased prices for these luxury goods. The increased prices should go away once those Commie loving manufacturers can move their production back to US or to other friendly countries that treat the US fairly and have non-slave labor. Sounds like a tremendous deal for the US and our economy as $75 >($45 to 57).

Except those in America already strapped for cash will struggle more due to the price increase on many common items, even razors orally most anything mass produced.

 

[ElectrO_90]

Except those in America already strapped for cash will struggle more due to the price increase on many common items, even razors orally most anything mass produced.

I love how its always these big corporations that are in trouble, even if they do make $30bn profit or more a year, it's the PEOPLE who have to suffer, not the corporation who could easily absorb the increase. But you know, they have to blame everyone else apart from Corporate Greed.

 

[bit_user]

I love how its always these big corporations that are in trouble, even if they do make $30bn profit or more a year, it's the PEOPLE who have to suffer, not the corporation who could easily absorb the increase. But you know, they have to blame everyone else apart from Corporate Greed.

Yes, corporations are greedy. That's sort of the point of them. If their management fails to maximize profit, they get fired and new executives are brought in.

So, then perhaps we should shift the blame to the investors. Wouldn't you want the biggest return on your investment? If you were going to take a smaller return, how would you know that it was worthwhile? Profitability is the easiest thing to measure, while "social good" or "being nice to consumers" is much harder to quantify. So, even for investors who aren't so greedy, the easiest thing to do is still just to look at the balance sheet.

What I want to know is what's your solution?

 

[ElectrO_90]

People always have the power if they want and can avoid buying items and products. It has worked in the past.
The solution is to tax everything fairly and remove loop holes from tax evasion.
Setting prices rather than % as tax, more open accountancy in more detail.
Who gets paid what and where the money goes.
People who buy products should know who owns that product and which companies are involved and cost of production vs profit should be open, and seperate for information on how much was invested into that item to be produced (research)
An open book is the way to go forward.

I think Mass Profit over peoples lives should be allowed either. For instance, Toys'r'us was a profit making company, got stripped, then sold off and thousands of families lost their income and lives while a few made horrendous profits. This is where Capitalism fails because laws are made so shareholders get more money.
Multitude of laws can prevent greed. For instance, workers in a company can hold 10-15% of the companies shares among the workers, so when the company makes a profit the people who made the profit for the company also benefit. As well as having that amount of shares means they get a decision on the board as well.

The issue cannot be sorted in a post, but there are farer ways of doing things.

Personally, I try to avoid anything owned by Nestle, because they are an atrocious company with their less than legal practices and problems they have caused around the world. But also knowing which other companies are owned by Nestle is a mine field.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

While I'm not stoked about increased prices, I think the extra jobs will be a benefit to all.

I hope more factories from Asia move to the US where laws mandate better working conditions and where anti-suicide nets are not needed since the workers wouldnt be constantly tortured.

There are good and bad companies in the US and elsewhere. For example, Huawei from China has been shunned for spying on the US and Apple from the US has been shunned for illegally using intellectual property without paying royalties, amongst other things.
Apple has also been violating right to repair laws and screwing customers with soldered SSDs and T2 chips.

 

[mihen]

In the grand scheme of things, the cost of labor isn't a major cost of manufacturing. A single employee may produce hundreds of products an hour. The difference between 1 cent labor per product verse 8 cents labor per product isn't huge. Yet for a corporation, 7 cents is a pretty big dig into their profit over millions of products. Given the laws corporations must follow, they need to maximize profits, even if its a negligible difference in the price of a product. These tariffs give corporations a reason to move manufacturing out of China if they are permanent.

 

[bit_user]

While I'm not stoked about increased prices, I think the extra jobs will be a benefit to all.

US-based manufacturers that have to pay more for the components they use (because they're made in China) actually stand to lose jobs - especially when you consider that their foreign competitors don't face the same rise in component costs.

US retailers are also going to take a hit from rising prices, which means more job losses.

I hope more factories from Asia move to the US

They are moving, but not to the US. Instead, to elsewhere in southeast Asia - especially Vietnam. About the closest that most would come to the US is probably Mexico.

Meanwhile, counter-tariffs create burdens for US-based exporters, creating more pressure to move manufacturing out of the US, or otherwise dampening the prospects of those that don't.

The net effect of ongoing tariffs would be a weaker US economy - not stronger.

That gets to the biggest problem with these tariffs, which is that businesses are reluctant to make long-term adjustments, since they could just disappear in as soon as a couple weeks. Businesses hate uncertainty, because it complicates planning and investment.

If you want a good way to promote US jobs, I'd say take healthcare costs off the backs of employers. That would make US employees cheaper, and more comparable to what they cost in other developed countries. Tying healthcare to employment is a weird idea, if you think about it. It's really a historical accident that it's even done that way.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I agree healthcare in the U.S.A has issues. Obamacare started forcing employers to provide insurance for full time employees, and in some cases directly affecting some of my family, employers just reduce hours to part-time to avoid paying insurance. Not good for employees or businesses. I like the effort to reform, but it's not helped that to my knowledge.

They are moving, but not to the US

Seems funny, the Detroit auto companies seem to manufacturer vehicles both in and outside of the US, just like Import cars are made in the USA and abroad.
Cars like the honda civic, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Camry, and Nissan leaf are assembled in the USA using parts from abroad, but other models are made in Mexico and Asia.
Since a lot of these car parts are from japan, they shouldnt increase right?

 

[fball922]

US-based manufacturers that have to pay more for the components they use (because they're made in China) actually stand to lose jobs - especially when you consider that their foreign competitors don't face the same rise in component costs.

US retailers are also going to take a hit from rising prices, which means more job losses.


They are moving, but not to the US. Instead, to elsewhere in southeast Asia - especially Vietnam. About the closest that most would come to the US is probably Mexico.

Meanwhile, counter-tariffs create burdens for US-based exporters, creating more pressure to move manufacturing out of the US, or otherwise dampening the prospects of those that don't.

The net effect of ongoing tariffs would be a weaker US economy - not stronger.

That gets to the biggest problem with these tariffs, which is that businesses are reluctant to make long-term adjustments, since they could just disappear in as soon as a couple weeks. Businesses hate uncertainty, because it complicates planning and investment.

If you want a good way to promote US jobs, I'd say take healthcare costs off the backs of employers. That would make US employees cheaper, and more comparable to what they cost in other developed countries. Tying healthcare to employment is a weird idea, if you think about it. It's really a historical accident that it's even done that way.

It's not only about manufacturing jobs, which seems to get the most attention, but about other aspects of China abuse as well. Subsidized industry and raw materials (like steel, which has ravaged parts of Africa, if I recall... Which not only undercut other providers but eventually shut them down, making China a monopoly), IP theft, and currency manipulation. Manufacturing will move, and definitely not all to the US, but the net effect on China will have broad implications for their force as a military and economic power.

This is big, not just for manufacturing.

 

[bit_user]

It's not only about manufacturing jobs, which seems to get the most attention, but about other aspects of China abuse as well.

Right. That's the point. The tariffs aren't about directly improving the US economy - they're punitive and not intended to remain in place for the long term.

I just worry that Trump is either going to make a bad deal so he can lift them, or else the Chinese will simply wait until the US has a new President. Trump's fatal error might've been in estimating how much clout the US has vs. China and just how distasteful they'd find backing down. I think they've already grown too much for the US to go it, alone. He needed allies, but already alienated those who would've helped us.

The whole Iran thing doesn't help matters. That's going to be a stalemate, if it doesn't blow up into an all-out war. People overestimated how dangerous the North Korea situation was, but I think they might've underestimated the volatility in trying to corner Iran. From China's perspective, the whole thing probably makes the US look weak and distracted.

Lastly, China can always start dumping US Treasury Bonds. That would sure get some attention.

 

[fball922]

Right. That's the point. The tariffs aren't about directly improving the US economy - they're punitive and not intended to remain in place for the long term.

I just worry that Trump is either going to make a bad deal so he can lift them, or else the Chinese will simply wait until the US has a new President. Trump's fatal error might've been in estimating how much clout the US has vs. China and just how distasteful they'd find backing down. I think they've already grown too much for the US to go it, alone. He needed allies, but already alienated those who would've helped us.

The whole Iran thing doesn't help matters. That's going to be a stalemate, if it doesn't blow up into an all-out war. People overestimated how dangerous the North Korea situation was, but I think they might've underestimated the volatility in trying to corner Iran. From China's perspective, the whole thing probably makes the US look weak and distracted.

Lastly, China can always start dumping US Treasury Bonds. That would sure get some attention.

Yeah, it's always possible China goes nuclear with the treasuries, but they would do so at the cost of devaluing the rest of their holdings and the risk of turning a trade spat over tariffs, a common practice, into something far worse. Destabilizing world markets would not help them on the global stage.

So far, I wouldn't say Trump has shown any desperation in making a deal... So far, repurcussions to the tariffs to your everyday person has been minimal (I haven't noticed at all, not that I've been looking for it). He has shown cleverness in his dealings with foreign leaders, so we will see.

As for the Iran thing, how does it make us look weak and distracted when a drone got downed by an isolated, extremist regime? I for one am glad something like that didn't result in a open conflict. No need to risk any more American blood out in that desert over something like that. I could see Iran going the way of NK (which does have nuclear weapons)... Some well placed ordinance opens the door for change from the interior. I firmly believe the US played a part in NKs nuclear site collapse. The biggest difference is I don't think there's any negotiating with the Iranian leadership, so that will be a regime change from the inside. Of course just my 2c!

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Ahhh the middle east.
Im surprised the president didnt fire back at the us drone shot down by iran.

 

[bit_user]

Yeah, it's always possible China goes nuclear with the treasuries, but they would do so at the cost of devaluing the rest of their holdings and the risk of turning a trade spat over tariffs, a common practice, into something far worse. Destabilizing world markets would not help them on the global stage.

It's not all-or-nothing, though. They could just start unwinding their position. Gradually, at first, and then threaten to step it up. Perhaps they'll wait until Trump has a few more irons in the fire, as there are rumors he's now about to turn up the heat on India.

As for the Iran thing, how does it make us look weak and distracted when a drone got downed by an isolated, extremist regime? I for one am glad something like that didn't result in a open conflict.

First, I'm certainly not pushing for war. However, in a sense, his bluff was called. Now, Iran basically knows how much they can get away with, without risk of a kinetic reaction. So, it can turn into a cat and mouse game, where Iran continually just harasses US forces.

What I'm anticipating is basically a situation where the US gets bogged down, having to police the Strait of Hormuz. Such a stalemate could just drag on... do you really think that's a positive?

I could see Iran going the way of NK (which does have nuclear weapons)...

The problem with Iran restarting its uranium enrichment is that now other middle east states are going to want nukes, too. At that point, it's basically a matter of time before terrorists manage to get one.

Some well placed ordinance opens the door for change from the interior.

Except a lot of public discontent has turned from blaming their regime to blaming the US for their problems. You can't simply assume that Iran's regime will fall like a house of cards. Even if it did, regime change hasn't worked so well in pretty much everywhere we tried it, lately.

I don't think there's any negotiating with the Iranian leadership,

Agreed. Hence, why I think this is gonna be a quagmire.

I'll add that hoping for a successful revolution is quite a Hail Mary. And any Iranians who had such inclinations can't have been encouraged after seeing the way Trump left Juan Guaidó hanging, in Venezuela.

 

[ElectrO_90]

The problem with Iran restarting its uranium enrichment is that now other middle east states are going to want nukes, too. At that point, it's basically a matter of time before terrorists manage to get one.

Terrorists (depending on definition) already have them and have not used them yet

 

[bit_user]

Terrorists (depending on definition) already have them and have not used them yet

Well, you know what I meant, and it's probably different than what you're implying.

Can we leave that can of worms closed, please? Thanks.

 

[fball922]

However, in a sense, his bluff was called.

Yeah I am curious about this whole situation, to be honest. Felt like a mole hunting exercise... Trump has always maintained that he would not telegraph his moves to the enemy (as he was highly criticized for not giving up his plan for ISIS, etc), but before a military response was mounted, the fact that there was a response planned was widely reported, from the type of strike to the timing. Where did that info come from? A quick search yields no definitive answers on that. It's just curious to me, but feels like a good way to find a leaker (since it makes no literally no sense to publicize your counter attack plans haha).

 

[poopflinger]

Well, Trump added more sanctions on Iran. This time on their leader, Ayatollah Khomenie, who controls about $200 Billion in wealth. That's whole lot of money that Iran can no longer access. Iran can't keep up it's sponsoring of terror in the region and continue it's military aggression when it's economy continues to suffer as horrifically as it has. Iran is acting out of desperation and they will have no choice but to rejoin the nuclear deal or risk losing everything.

 

[mihen]

I find some of the commentary on Iran to be quite funny. There is a conspiracy by neo-nazis that the current Iranian government was put in place by Israel Because Iran is an Aryan country.