Apple Avoids iPhone Tariffs as U.S. and China Reach Trade Deal

[512ke]

Protecting American technology and creating equitable trade relationships are noble goals.

I'm personally concerned that the approach being taken to achieve these goals isn't effective.

The tariffs against Apple seem to be potentiating China to create its own phones with its own chips and its own OS and its own massive base of customers.

 

[MacLoveMacHate]

Just a little (hopefully) ass kissing from Tim Cook saves billions of dollars.

 

[Sedulous]

Protecting American technology and creating equitable trade relationships are noble goals.

I'm personally concerned that the approach being taken to achieve these goals isn't effective.

The tariffs against Apple seem to be potentiating China to create its own phones with its own chips and its own OS and its own massive base of customers.

Yes, it has to be a world-wide effort and not just the US. But it is already difficult to get others to stand up to the CCP. People have to look beyond short term discomfort to realize if left unmanaged, the problem will grow out of control.

 

[Cosmosent]

CNBC is reporting today, Fri, Dec 13th, that the 15% iPhone Tariffs have been "Delayed", NOT Dropped !

BIG difference there !

 

[eatrains]

It will take a long time to clean up the mess that Trump has created.

 

[brinary001]

As if you expect the Amazon owned Washington post to be impartial. post has put out dozens of false stories before.

Trump is a master deal maker. He’s produced results for this economy and keeps his promises. More jobs, record stocks, record unemployment, renegotiated trade deals. Even Pelosi called trumps USMCA unquestionably better than NAFTA. You can’t beat him, honestly.

Even Tim is smart enough to see past the anti-trump hate. I’m sure he’s tired of China trying to steal intellectual property - which is a huge part of the trade deal with China.

Sigh. It’s so exhausting for those of us living in reality having to constantly correct the delusional. He’s still riding the strong Obama jobs numbers, and the ones he has managed to add when he’s not shipping them out of the country, are piss poor and/or just part-time.

 

[nylon]

Really? So if EU buys soybeans from Brazil but now China starts buying Brazilian soybeans (because tariffs make US soybeans too expensive for China), where does the EU now buy soybeans? That’s right, the US.

So you think the only two countries that produce soybeans on the planet are the US & Brazil..... interesting. And you seem to think China buys the entire production output of Brazil. 🤦‍♂️

Here's some stats for you based on US Department of Agriculture 2017/2018 numbers. Brazil Produces 112 metric tonnes of Soybean annually. Argentina produces 54 metric tonnes of soybean. China buys approx 74 metric tonnes annually and the EU buys 30 metric tonnes. Can you do the math? Brazil can supply both China and the EU if required. Though that's not how trade works.

I suggest you take a basic course in economics first.

 

[Sedulous]

So you think the only two countries that produce soybeans on the planet are the US & Brazil..... interesting. And you seem to think China buys the entire production output of Brazil. 🤦‍♂️

Here's some stats for you based on US Department of Agriculture 2017/2018 numbers. Brazil Produces 112 metric tonnes of Soybean annually. Argentina produces 54 metric tonnes of soybean. China buys approx 74 metric tonnes annually and the EU buys 30 metric tonnes. Can you do the math? Brazil can supply both China and the EU if required. Though that's not how trade works.

I suggest you take a basic course in economics first.

This was a simplified illustration for the sake of brevity. Obviously other nations produce soybeans. Specific country and/or commodity is irrelevant. However more specifically in this illustration: China buys a lot of soybeans. They switch to "Brazil" from the US because US soybeans are higher cost (tariffs). Demand for "Brazilian" soybeans (or whatever source you like) will drive "Brazillian" soybean prices up. This leaves the US with a ton of lower demand soybeans that can be sold to other nations that are not under tariffs. Why buy higher priced "Brazillian" soy beans if you can buy cheaper soybeans from the US?

 

[A MacBook lover]

Sigh. It’s so exhausting for those of us living in reality having to constantly correct the delusional. He’s still riding the strong Obama jobs numbers, and the ones he has managed to add when he’s not shipping them out of the country, are piss poor and/or just part-time.

It’s going to be a tough 5 more years for you.

 

[Strelok]

Sigh. It’s so exhausting for those of us living in reality having to constantly correct the delusional. He’s still riding the strong Obama jobs numbers, and the ones he has managed to add when he’s not shipping them out of the country, are piss poor and/or just part-time.

Ahh yes the good old “everything good is because of Obama and everything bad is because of Trump”. Funny how that works, meanwhile the other side says the opposite. It’s like nobody is even slightly interested in stepping back for a second and recognizing who is responsible for what.

 

[jarman92]

No, he didn't. You need to educate yourself on the unfair trading that was going on between the majority of imports into china, not just the soy. He's the only person that could take this to the end. Any other 'career politician' would never have done this. And it needed to be done, judgement on the deal when all facts are out.

OP said Trump got into this tariff mess, which is 100% true...he imposed the tariffs, to the detriment of US farmers, and then subsidized them with tens of billions of dollars from the US taxpayer (which is actual socialism, the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the Great Society). You're claiming it was justified, which I don't necessarily disagree with but which is very different than what OP said.
[automerge]1576264689[/automerge]

If China is buying soybeans from nation “x”, whoever was buying soybeans from nation “x” is probably now buying soybeans from the US. It works both ways.

Except that's not happening IRL...US farmers are losing billions. So clearly something is wrong with your little analysis.

 

[GuruZac]

But Apple will use a what if scenario and raise the prices of next years iPhone just to justify squeezing more profits. Either way, doesn’t matter, will still be using my iPhone X

Apple’s profit margins have actually shrunk since the Jobs era. Contrary to popular belief that Tim Cook has just maximized profits while producing worse products.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins

[automerge]1576271627[/automerge]

Sigh. It’s so exhausting for those of us living in reality having to constantly correct the delusional. He’s still riding the strong Obama jobs numbers, and the ones he has managed to add when he’s not shipping them out of the country, are piss poor and/or just part-time.

There’s so much dishonesty with this post. The economy and jobs growth has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama. It has grown in spite of Obama’s massive governmental growth, which has never worked to promote job growth. In fact, the reason the economy has exploded and continues to explode is because Trump removed the disastrous bureaucratic red tape Obama set in place that stifled economic growth. Obama’s legacy is stagflation and taking an already expensive healthcare system and giving us less choice and higher costs while simultaneously transferring more control in to insurance companies. As a healthcare professional, Obamacare was a disgrace and was based on deception, which is why the senate had to pass the bill using a crappy old legislative loophole, where a standard majority of votes didn’t matter. Let’s not also forget Obamacare was so great the Democrats felt the need to exempt themselves (and the rest of congress) from such a wonderful piece of legislation.

Moreover, will all those who credit Trump’s economy to Obama also credit Obama should the economy take a U-turn? Of course not.

 

[A MacBook lover]

Well put, sir.
With regards to @Amacfa making the ludicrous chest-thumping Trump drunk statement that China “caved”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html?outputType=amp

Someone over at The Post sure seems to have a differing opinion! ;0)

TLDR;
FROM LINKED ARTICLE:
“On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported the Trump team caved on that huge point...”

Poster had story exactly backwards!

The Wall Street Journal story on the China Deal is completely wrong, especially their statement on Tariffs. Fake News. They should find a better leaker!
[automerge]1576273368[/automerge]

and then subsidized them with tens of billions of dollars from the US taxpayer

Wrong. Its a small portion from the tariffs taken from the treasury.

Except that's not happening IRL...US farmers are losing billions. So clearly something is wrong with your little analysis.

This contradicts your first statement, how do they lose billions if they are subsidized. By the way, 95% of farmers support Trump

• President Trump arrives, and places Tariffs on Chinese imports effectively devaluing their cash savings and more.
• China responds with their own tariffs on US goods (which they import very little of hence the trade imbalance).
• but President Trump makes new deals around the world instead!
• China responds again and threatens to take their exports elsewhere ...until they realize no one else in the world has +$1 Billion dollar per year Croc market, and no one will by their cheap, crappy shoes!
• Womp! Womp! Someone got left holding the bag!

Keep trying, trump is a genius - you’re not.

 

[nylon]

This was a simplified illustration for the sake of brevity. Obviously other nations produce soybeans. Specific country and/or commodity is irrelevant. However more specifically in this illustration: China buys a lot of soybeans. They switch to "Brazil" from the US because US soybeans are higher cost (tariffs). Demand for "Brazilian" soybeans (or whatever source you like) will drive "Brazillian" soybean prices up. This leaves the US with a ton of lower demand soybeans that can be sold to other nations that are not under tariffs. Why buy higher priced "Brazillian" soy beans if you can buy cheaper soybeans from the US?

Wrong. There might be short term adjustment in domestic soybean prices but this is because of a temporary shock to US demand. Commodity prices are global which means that given the US glut of soybean due to Chinese tariffs on US soybeans, global prices were stable or fell. There is no soybean shortage. Long established supply chains in a global commodity market only shift when there is a shortage or significant new producers enter the market. So your original argument that the EU will shift their purchases from Brazil to US is bogus. If your argument were cogent there would have been no need for Trump to bail out the US farmer to the tune of $20bn+ in tax payer funds.

Once you lose a client in a stable market it is very difficult to win them back especially when you can't trust your supplier won't engage in another tariff battle on a whim.

 

[Sedulous]

Wrong. There might be short term adjustment in domestic soybean prices but this is because of a temporary shock to US demand. Commodity prices are global which means that given the US glut of soybean due to Chinese tariffs on US soybeans, global prices were stable or fell. There is no soybean shortage. Long established supply chains in a global commodity market only shift when there is a shortage or significant new producers enter the market. So your original argument that the EU will shift their purchases from Brazil to US is bogus. If your argument were cogent there would have been no need for Trump to bail out the US farmer to the tune of $20bn+ in tax payer funds.

Once you lose a client in a stable market it is very difficult to win them back especially when you can't trust your supplier won't engage in another tariff battle on a whim.

Yes, soybean prices went down globally and not just in the US. That still does not mean US is unable to sell soybeans. Prices of commodities are based on speculation AND NOT actual demand. Looking at the chart of global soybean prices, there is actually a slight upwards trend. Other commodities like Pork prices have risen even with tariffs. No idea why you are so hung up on soybeans. There is no soybean shortage because the US is still selling soybeans.
[automerge]1576286806[/automerge]

OP said Trump got into this tariff mess, which is 100% true...he imposed the tariffs, to the detriment of US farmers, and then subsidized them with tens of billions of dollars from the US taxpayer (which is actual socialism, the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the Great Society). You're claiming it was justified, which I don't necessarily disagree with but which is very different than what OP said.
[automerge]1576264689[/automerge]


Except that's not happening IRL...US farmers are losing billions. So clearly something is wrong with your little analysis.

Maybe some farmers are. Corn prices are high, pork is high, soybeans are not. Blame it on speculators rather than actual demand. The US has often subsidized farmers in the past when markets dip. Regardless, this is a much smaller price to pay than to allow things with China to continue unchecked.

 

[FairlyKors]

I can't decide which is worse: that Putin's actual bots have found their way even onto the MacRumors forum, or that Trump's human bots have.

Fortunately, it’s still rather easy to spot both. You either have simple and unqualified carte blanche opinions with zero real justification/proof, or, in the second case, what usually ends up leading to an anarchic or nihilistic view of global politics and society (nearly always fueled by paranoia, anger and anxiety). This is just my opinion, however—based on what I’ve witnessed in my own life and online for years and years.

 

[JPack]

Kudos to the president!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1205520992329711621

 

[nylon]

Yes, soybean prices went down globally and not just in the US. That still does not mean US is unable to sell soybeans. Prices of commodities are based on speculation AND NOT actual demand. Looking at the chart of global soybean prices, there is actually a slight upwards trend. Other commodities like Pork prices have risen even with tariffs. No idea why you are so hung up on soybeans. There is no soybean shortage because the US is still selling soybeans.
[automerge]1576286806[/automerge]

Maybe some farmers are. Corn prices are high, pork is high, soybeans are not. Blame it on speculators rather than actual demand. The US has often subsidized farmers in the past when markets dip. Regardless, this is a much smaller price to pay than to allow things with China to continue unchecked.

1. I am hung up on soybeans? 😂 Dude, I was responding to your absurd argument on Soybeans.

2. No-one said US is unable to sell soybeans in totality. This is known as a straw-man argument. However, losing the Chinese market has meant that the US has lost it's primary buyer who also is the worlds largest consumer of the crop. And no one can pick up that slack. Foreign producers were able to meet Chinese demand without issue.

3. Prices are fundamentally determined by supply and demand in a stable commodity market such as soybeans. Speculations would only affect futures due to shocks in demand or production (which this is not). Price movement at the moment is solely due to US glut.

4. I repeat, Trump would not have needed to bailout US farmers for $20bn+ if there was a ready buyer to replace China. Nice try but this is not a 'subsidy' due to a market dip. This is an 'aid package' due to a domestic market crash due to Trump's policy. Also known as 'welfare' or as the GOP likes to call it 'socialism'.

There are serious issues with US-China trade which require an intelligent policy none of which Trump has the intelligence to address in any rational way.

Let's stop this back and forth. You can keep on trying to shift the goal posts, put up straw man's and cherry pick your replies but your arguments and defense of Trump's policy on this issue is fundamentally economically unsound and armchair speculation. Just like Trump's ramblings on Trade. Have a nice weekend.

 

[A MacBook lover]

1. I am hung up on soybeans? 😂 Dude, I was responding to your absurd argument on Soybeans.

2. No-one said US is unable to sell soybeans in totality. This is known as a straw-man argument. However, losing the Chinese market has meant that the US has lost it's primary buyer who also is the worlds largest consumer of the crop. And no one can pick up that slack. Foreign producers were able to meet Chinese demand without issue.

3. Prices are fundamentally determined by supply and demand in a stable commodity market such as soybeans. Speculations would only affect futures due expectations in demand or production shocks (which this is not). Price movement at the moment is solely due to US glut.

4. I repeat, Trump would not have needed to bailout US farmers for $20bn+ if there was a ready buyer to replace China. Nice try but this is not a 'subsidy' due to a market dip. This is an 'aid package' due to a domestic market crash due to Trump's policy. Also known as 'welfare' or as the GOP likes to call it 'socialism'.

There are serious issues with US-China trade which require an intelligent policy none of which Trump has the intelligence to address in any rational way.

Let's stop this back and forth. You can keep on trying to shift the goal posts, put up straw man's and cherry pick your replies but your arguments and defense of Trump's policy on this issue is fundamentally economically unsound and armchair speculation. Just like Trump's ramblings on Trade. Have a nice weekend.

didn’t you lie earlier and claim tax payers were paying for the farmers subsidy?

 

[nylon]

didn’t you lie earlier and claim tax payers were paying for the farmers subsidy?

No, I said taxpayers were paying for $20bn+ farmer bailout.
[automerge]1576296625[/automerge]

Kudos to the president!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1205520992329711621

He must think he's running one of his casinos. 😂

 

[Sedulous]

1. I am hung up on soybeans? 😂 Dude, I was responding to your absurd argument on Soybeans.

2. No-one said US is unable to sell soybeans in totality. This is known as a straw-man argument. However, losing the Chinese market has meant that the US has lost it's primary buyer who also is the worlds largest consumer of the crop. And no one can pick up that slack. Foreign producers were able to meet Chinese demand without issue.

3. Prices are fundamentally determined by supply and demand in a stable commodity market such as soybeans. Speculations would only affect futures due to shocks in demand or production (which this is not). Price movement at the moment is solely due to US glut.

4. I repeat, Trump would not have needed to bailout US farmers for $20bn+ if there was a ready buyer to replace China. Nice try but this is not a 'subsidy' due to a market dip. This is an 'aid package' due to a domestic market crash due to Trump's policy. Also known as 'welfare' or as the GOP likes to call it 'socialism'.

There are serious issues with US-China trade which require an intelligent policy none of which Trump has the intelligence to address in any rational way.

Let's stop this back and forth. You can keep on trying to shift the goal posts, put up straw man's and cherry pick your replies but your arguments and defense of Trump's policy on this issue is fundamentally economically unsound and armchair speculation. Just like Trump's ramblings on Trade. Have a nice weekend.

Again, it was a simple illustration and could be applied to any commodity. And as you said, “prices are fundamentally determined by supply and demand... speculations would only affect futures due to shocks in demand”. Loss of the “largest buyer of US soybeans” would certainly count as a “shock to demand” and this is essentially what I was saying. Speculation put prices down on soybeans but they are still selling. Eventually speculation will catch up with reality and soybean prices will go up (as they have been closing in on average price before tariffs). I also have offered actual charts showing prices of other commodities where prices have gone up even though they are equally affected by Chinese tariffs. In the meantime, as always happens in the farming industry, the price ebbs and the federal subsidies kick in when required. It was not too long ago when corn was tanking But at least this time, the tariffs can pay for those subsidies.

I will agree that Trump appears to be an egotistical jerk, but it is good that he has pushed China to reform. It is going to hurt but it will be much more difficult if China is permitted to continue unchecked. Farmers suffering from low soybean prices is nothing compared to what will happen.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. Please do not let it upset you.

 

[nylon]

This has nothing to do with your original idiotic comments which I responded to. Oh you posted charts!. 😂

If China is buying soybeans from nation “x”, whoever was buying soybeans from nation “x” is probably now buying soybeans from the US. It works both ways.

and the pièces de résistance 😂

Really? So if EU buys soybeans from Brazil but now China starts buying Brazilian soybeans (because tariffs make US soybeans too expensive for China), where does the EU now buy soybeans? That’s right, the US.

All you've been doing since then is try to detract from their stupidity by trying to show you know what you are talking about yet all you do is dig a bigger hole.

 

[brinary001]

It’s going to be a tough 5 more years for you.

Lol keep dreaming. Americans aren’t THAT dumb. Dumb enough to try this **** once, sure. Dumb enough to keep it going? Not likely.
[automerge]1576345176[/automerge]

Ahh yes the good old “everything good is because of Obama and everything bad is because of Trump”. Funny how that works, meanwhile the other side says the opposite. It’s like nobody is even slightly interested in stepping back for a second and recognizing who is responsible for what.

Perhaps, but in this case it’s actually true.

 

[Sedulous]

I still highly suspect this trade dispute is not over and will intensify. I wonder how Samsung was able to extricate their manufacturing from China. Perhaps Apple could ask them for tips?

 

[Strelok]

I still highly suspect this trade dispute is not over and will intensify. I wonder how Samsung was able to extricate their manufacturing from China. Perhaps Apple could ask them for tips?

Samsung is a South Korean company, not an American one.