Apple Supplier Forecasts Product Shortages in US Amid Tariff Chaos

[BaldiMac]

Ok, you're reading far too much into the discussion. As I said, we were discussing the previous administrations policies, that is what was far left, and I provided examples of them.

You provided examples of leftist policies, but none of them were far left. On the political spectrum, the far left is generally considered communism (at the extreme), as well as marxism, socialism, and anarchy. None of these are supported by the current Democratic party. Democratic Socialists and Progressives are left (not far left) and make up a minority of the party. And the majority of the party is center left to center right.

No, we're not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic, period. The Founding Fathers intentionally did not want a Democracy and their writing make that very clear. Now, what many do is use "democracy" as a euphemism for our system of government, that is fine, if that's how you're using it.

That's simply not true. We certainly elect our representatives. And the founders certainly designed it that way. Where does this nonsense come from?!?!?

 

[jblank]

Then why did the whole world see America as a democracy (except you?)
Or do you again have your own definition of democracy, which is more truth than the one that has become consensual in the world?
The Americans were instrumental in forcing a formally democratic system in Europe after WW2. And now you say that they have always favored other systems, that is absurd.

I look forward to your reply when you are in a position to do so.

Ya know what, you're simply trying to poke at me and start an argument and I'm not going to bite. If you're genuinely curious, there are answers to your questions accessible via simple Google searches and you can also read the writings of the Founders, where they plainly and eloquently explain their reasonings for not creating a pure democratic system.

You can call it absurd but the fact is as I stated. We are a Constitutional Republic.

 

[jlc1978]

That's assuming the 12th amendment is even acknowledged by 2028. There's no rule preventing him from running for a House seat, or becoming Speaker, and then president, I don't think.

No, and he even does not need to be a member of the House to be Speaker, the Constitution does not require it.

While it may be theoretically possible, it would require a majority of the House members to support him as speaker, the VP and then the President to resign. I suspect, once some is elected President, they will change the deal and not give up the job; and that the VP resigning first so as not to have him ascend to the Presidency and decide to stay. It also assumes anyone in the line of Succession would stand aside if he were to be made a Cabinet member. 2028 is just a way to grift a bit longer selling hats and other junk.

The Trump administration has said they are the same thing to justify tariffs, but they are either lying or stupid or both.

I vote for both.

Well let's just say you didn't exactly come off as Barry Goldwater.

Barry would be called a RINO today.

Then why did the whole world see America as a democracy (except you?)
Or do you have your own definition of democracy again?

Most people consider a republic set up as the US , Europe, etc. a representative democracy; only those making fine political science distinct don't, since they only believe a direct democracy qualifies as a democracy.

If you're this unfamiliar with libertarian economics

The problem with libertarian economics is they don't work in practice; and the Mises Institute (which only took his name) but is not representative of the Austrian school of economics thought, even as it claims to be authoritative.

 

[Howard2k]

Why? Did you see the last guy ….

Pretty sure it's not going to be him again. But yeah, those folks were the best they could come up with? Really?

 

[jblank]

You're right, you said dullard, not dumbass. But all the same, clearly some tax cuts CAN be beneficial to the poor.

We're getting into the weeds here.

This was what I said.

"ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes."

I never claimed the poor never benefit from a tax cut or that a tax cut couldn't be engineered to assist the lowest earners. That being said, if the goal is to put more money in people's products so they buy more widgets or invest or whatever, you're not going to engineer it so that the bottom is where there is the focus.

Hopefully we're on the same page now.

 

[redheeler]

Trump managed to have the worst approval rating on his 100th day of any president of the last 80 years. That is quite an achievement.

People have already understood that THEY are the one who have to pay the tariffs. Not other countries.

In Europe we already know the problem. VAT here is very high. Up to 25% in some countries. VAT is like tariffs, but even on domestic products. So the cheapest iPhone 16 Pro Max costs 1449 Euros in Germany. That is $1650. In the US it is about $1305 with taxes. So we pay $345 more for the same product and that really is no fun. That is what US customers will also have to face now. Not for iPhones, but for example for Japanese cameras.

And in exchange for those high taxes, you get some of the best government-funded social services in the world. We get tax cuts for the rich. Good ol USA 🇺🇸

 

[Morgenland]

Oh yes, so lovely to hear from the "enlightened" European trying to explain the world and politics to me. Thank God my trash can is close by.

There was a historical juncture at which reciprocal intellectual engagement constituted a central feature of political discourse—an ethos that contemporary libertarians, it seems, no longer deem requisite.

The European landscape, far beyond the confines of the United Kingdom, was once densely populated by a multitude of ideologically driven micro-factions, each animated by a conviction in its own theoretical distinctiveness.

The vast majority have since faded into obscurity, with only a negligible few demonstrating any enduring capacity to reshape socio-political or economic paradigms.

 

[jblank]

This is what I don't get. Biden, by and large, was a quiet president, he invested in infrastructure, spent a lot of money but did well to steer the ship to a good place. Weeks could go by and you could forget who the president was. The Both Sides gives you a Media hungry Lump, with no discernible intelligence, just a talent for publicity, EVERY BLOOMIN DAY, making things worse for the USA!!!!
Are they really as bad as each other?

Well, I suppose we just fundamentally disagree on the last four years and where the ship ended up.

I think both parties suck but they suck for different reasons.

 

[BaldiMac]

We're getting into the weeds here.

This was what I said.

"ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes."

I never claimed the poor never benefit from a tax cut or that a tax cut couldn't be engineered to assist the lowest earners. That being said, if the goal is to put more money in people's products so they buy more widgets or invest or whatever, you're not going to engineer it so that the bottom is where there is the focus.

Hopefully we're on the same page now.

Except the person you responded to clearly described a tax cut that dis-proportionally benefits the bottom. So you're not really on the same page if you continue to ignore that you were wrong.

Heck, Republicans did it in 2018 by increasing the standard deduction.

 

[jblank]

You provided examples of leftist policies, but none of them were far left. On the political spectrum, the far left is generally considered communism (at the extreme), as well as marxism, socialism, and anarchy. None of these are supported by the current Democratic party. Democratic Socialists and Progressives are left (not far left) and make up a minority of the party. And the majority of the party is center left to center right.


That's simply not true. We certainly elect our representatives. And the founders certainly designed it that way. Where does this nonsense come from?!?!?

Nonsense? Are you really gonna be this condescending and make me have to cite quotes from the Founders? Yes, we elect our representatives........BECAUSE WE ARE A REPUBLIC! Read Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution please. Then, copy and paste it in your reply back to me.

 

[Howard2k]

We're getting into the weeds here.

This was what I said.

"ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes."

I never claimed the poor never benefit from a tax cut or that a tax cut couldn't be engineered to assist the lowest earners. That being said, if the goal is to put more money in people's products so they buy more widgets or invest or whatever, you're not going to engineer it so that the bottom is where there is the focus.

Hopefully we're on the same page now.

That's not "the weeds", that a material deviation from what you stated.

More correct would be "ANY tax cut engineered to benefit the wealthy will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes, and ANY tax cut engineered to benefit the poor will benefit the poor disproportionately because they pay the [insert reason]. Or in other words your statement was wrong. Tax cuts can benefit the wealthy OR the poor, depending how they're designed. Or both, of course, in some situations.

You're disputing "tax cuts designed to benefit the rich" with "tax cuts ALWAYS benefit the rich more than the poor", but that's not true.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

So you blame VAT? Not the vendor? So when you receive a discount? Do you say thank you to the vendor or to the VAT?

How can I blame the vendor for taxes? If I pay 600 Euros for something, about 100 Euros are for the VAT. VAT is on top of all prices. Even if there is a discount. It feels like the money you earned is taxed again. We even have to pay VAT for things we bought abroad. I can buy an iPhone in the US without the US VAT, but unless I "smuggle" the iPhone into Germany, I have to pay the German VAT after landing.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Gave me a good, needed, laugh at least

 

[jblank]

There was a historical juncture at which reciprocal intellectual engagement constituted a central feature of political discourse—an ethos that contemporary libertarians, it seems, no longer deem requisite.

The European landscape, far beyond the confines of the United Kingdom, was once densely populated by a multitude of ideologically driven micro-factions, each animated by a conviction in its own theoretical distinctiveness.

The vast majority have since faded into obscurity, with only a negligible few demonstrating any enduring capacity to reshape socio-political or economic paradigms.

Three paragraphs just to say you're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_political_parties

Worldwide Libertarian Organizations - Libertarian Party

Worldwide Libertarian Organizations - Libertarian Party

lp.org

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were all just supposed to jump onto whatever party you think we should belong to.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nonsense? Are you really gonna be this condescending and make me have to cite quotes from the Founders? Yes, we elect our representatives........BECAUSE WE ARE A REPUBLIC! Read Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution please. Then, copy and paste it in your reply back to me.

So, your argument is that we are not a representative democracy even though we elect our representatives democratically? Somehow that makes sense to you?

Again, the US is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy. Both things are true. The founders were against direct democracy which can lead to mob rule and fail to protect minority interests.

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

The US Stock market could drop by 50%.
China could invade Taiwan.
Another pandemic might hit at the end of this year crippling supply chains and bringing mass death.
You might encounter a ferocious dog that mauls you.
A meteorite could fall out of the sky and kill you while you are watching TV.
A deranged individual might murder you and others while you are out shopping.

However, people will never turn into zombies and walk the earth searching for healthy humans to devour. That's science fiction.

 

[jblank]

That's not "the weeds", that a material deviation from what you stated.

More correct would be "ANY tax cut engineered to benefit the wealthy will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes, and ANY tax cut engineered to benefit the poor will benefit the poor disproportionately because they pay the [insert reason]. Or in other words your statement was wrong. Tax cuts can benefit the wealthy OR the poor, depending how they're designed. Or both, of course, in some situations.

You're disputing "tax cuts designed to benefit the rich" with "tax cuts ALWAYS benefit the rich more than the poor", but that's not true.

I don't think you quite understand the point of a tax cut or why they are constructed in the method they are. At this point, I really don't care to further beat this dead horse.

 

[ForkHandles]

Well, I suppose we just fundamentally disagree on the last four years and where the ship ended up.

I think both parties suck but they suck for different reasons.

Again though. One President tried their best to keep a steady ship despite an international inflationary pressure. The other kidnaps US citizens and put them in prison for the rest of their life in a foreign country, hikes up prices of all your imports, threatens to occupy Canada, Greenland, humiliates another world leader live on television, doesn’t do a single thing that Putin would disapprove of.

Are you really sure they are as bad as each other?

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't think you quite understand the point of a tax cut or why they are constructed in the method they are. At this point, I really don't care to further beat this dead horse.

If the government cuts sales tax by 1%, who will benefit more as a proportion of their income? A rich person or a poor person?

 

[jblank]

Again though. One President tried their best to keep a steady ship despite an international inflationary pressure. The other kidnaps US citizens and put them in prison for the rest of their life in a foreign country, hikes up prices of all your imports, threatens to occupy Canada, Greenland, humiliates another world leader live on television, doesn’t do a single thing that Putin would disapprove of.

Are you really sure they are as bad as each other?

You're comparing a man vs. a man. I was talking about political parties. I think you're maybe cherry picking a bit there with your examples, but if you're expecting me to defend Trump's behavior or his economic plan, you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a Republican Party member. Officially, I am an Independent as I hold membership in no party. Ideologically, I just believe in liberty and property, keeping as much of what I earn as possible, and the non-aggression principle.

 

[Howard2k]

Yeah, kinda they are, yup.

Yes, it was correct Howard and I explained to you why you don't see a tax cut designed around people that don't already pay taxes. Christ some of you would argue about the color of the sky today. This isn't a contest, we're not getting any prizes.

It was not correct. This is what you said:

ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes.

[snip]

Neither side has a monopoly on economic dullards.

But that is not true. I'm not sure why you're now trying to argue against your own point rather than admit that your blanket statement was incorrect. But whatever, you do you.

 

[ForkHandles]

You're comparing a man vs. a man. I was talking about political parties. I think you're maybe cherry picking a bit there with your examples, but if you're expecting me to defend Trump's behavior or his economic plan, you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a Republican Party member. Officially, I am an Independent as I hold membership in no party. Ideologically, I just believe in liberty and property, keeping as much of what I earn as possible, and the non-aggression principle.

Understood.

Libertarianism is a funny old thing. In the USA 0.1% of the population control $22 trillion of wealth, the lowest 50% control $3.8 trillion.

Libertarianism is something that the richest 0.1% teach the rest of the world, through their media publications and political parties, so they don’t have to share their extraordinary wealth with anyone else.

Then we get to the regular pile of folk who support the principle as they actually NEED all their income and they don’t want the rich to take it from them.

 

[BaldiMac]

Ideologically, I just believe in liberty and property, keeping as much of what I earn as possible, and the non-aggression principle.

Ironically, that is the closest you’ve come to describing a far left policy! 😜

 

[jblank]

Understood.

Libertarianism is a funny old thing. In the USA 0.1% of the population control $22 trillion of wealth, the lowest 50% control $3.8 trillion.

Libertarianism is something that the richest 0.1% teach the rest of the world, through their media publications and political parties, so they don’t have to share their extraordinary wealth with anyone else.

Then we get to the regular pile of folk who support the principle as they actually NEED all their income and they don’t want the rich to take it from them.

That's a common myth. The wealthiest you speak of are actually anti-libertarian, free market economics. They frequently use cronyism as a means to increase their power and wealth. Those tippy-top earners are where they're at because of government, not because of the free market. I won't speak for all of them, but I don't think you'll find many libertarians that believe in gov't picking winners or cronyism, to consolidate power and wealth.

Ultimately, if ya boil it down, libertarian economic beliefs are about voluntarism, not statism, so any influence by the state is not "the market".

There's not a finite amount of wealth. There is no "pie" that is only that size and can't be added to. Wealth can and is created and in a market economy, both benefit because "the rich" make the goods the rest want and the rest are willing to pay for said goods.

 

[Premium1]

43 months to go as of today, can't wait til' he's gone. Please, for the love of all reality, vote blue in the midterms!

We wouldn't be in this situation if "blue" threw out a competent candidate (and didn't wait til right before the election to can their "guy").