Proposed Tariffs Will Impact Apple Watch, AirPods, HomePod, Mac Mini and More

[Stella]

Apple do champion human rights and everything...... until it impacts profits. Look at China for instance vs rest of world regarding privacy issues.

Apple could make the products here. Problem solved. Oh...wait.... that means a cut in the insane profits which will get the miserable shareholders all pissed off. Got it. Never mind.

I always thought Apple championed human type stuff and injustices. That would point to them wanting to do the right thing here as in move manufacturing to the states and pay some good wages here. But, Apple and Tim Cook are like any other high ranking blow hard: they are only into humanitarian stuff until it might cost them a few bucks. Then, they run and hide. So typical.

So, nope, on with the cheap Chinese slave labor. Awesome.

 

[steve333]

Then build them here, douche

 

[cmaier]

Then build them here, douche

With what employees?

 

[katewes]

Tariffs may be useful as a negotiating tactic, but long term just foolish. They often just put money in the hands of powerful corporations or lobbies- the best example being sugar. Lets hope they are brief and result in more free trade deals.

This statement - although making sense in isolation - makes no sense in the situation that the United States finds itself in.

You have the reality that China already were imposing tariffs, while the U.S. was not, at least to the same degree as China was.

So, how do you apply your principle?

Do you expect the U.S. to not impose tariffs while China does?

To apply your principle, with fairness, both sides must play by the same rules.

It makes no sense for you to quote a truism, without explaining how to implement it in a manner where both sides accept the same rules.

 

[Stella]

Trump isn’t winning this trade war. Today, u.s trade deficit just hit a record $31B with China!

Expect the man baby trump to unleash a volley of tweets today!

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Come on Apple... be the "good guys" we all know you are and lower the price of your products so we, the beloved consumers, don't have to pay more for your products. We believe in you...

 

[Wando64]

This statement - although making sense in isolation - makes no sense in the situation that the United States finds itself in.

You have the reality that China already were imposing tariffs, while the U.S. was not, at least to the same degree as China was.

So, how do you apply your principle?

Do you expect the U.S. to not impose tariffs while China does?

To apply your principle, with fairness, both sides must play by the same rules.

It makes no sense for you to quote a truism, without explaining how to implement it in a manner where both sides accept the same rules.

I’d like to inform myself better about this.
Do you have any sources of information regarding tariffs imposed by China on US goods, before the recent imposition of tariffs by the US?

 

[citysnaps]

Then build them here, douche

How? With what infrastructure? See Post# 167.

 

[timber]

It will interesting to see if Apple has the nerve to increase European prices on account of these tariffs.

 

[fairuz]

This will just get passed on to the customer. For all companies that the tariffs affect.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions. Some fraction gets passed on, not all of it. For a company like Apple (high margin, nonessential goods), only a small fraction.
[doublepost=1536588976][/doublepost]I'm normally opposed to tariffs but say "bring it on" when it comes to China and Turkey, only because they've done something to deserve it.

 

[Sora]

I support the POTUS on this issue. And will pay the delta cost without whining.

I think you, and everyone else who does not understand the concept of "trade" needs this.
Is it basic? Yes. Will it be enough to make you conversationally functional? Yes.
Does it contain all nuances? No. But that's not the point. It will take you from a "0" to a functional "60".

You're welcome.
- the intenet

 

[RootBeerMan]

trump's tariff's are going to add $200 to the price of an iPhone? And, even if Apple could make them here in the US, (which is not possible in a global economy) they'd cost $2K apiece. While a lot of people would like to see him impeached and removed for various things, this trade war of his is the real reason he should be turned out. It's going to be a disaster, just in time for Christmas, too, (the time of year most retailers rely on to make it for the year). Congress needs to act now and rein this moron and his supporters in.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/trump-tariffs-iphone-more-expensive

In what seems like an admission that his trade war is neither "good" nor "easy to win," President Donald Trump tweeted over the weekend that prices for Apple products, like iPhones, "may increase because of the massive Tariffs we may be imposing on China."

This kind of honesty is actually a positive step for the administration. Yes, it's misleading to say that the tariffs are being imposed "on China"—tariffs are import taxes paid by consumers, not by foreign producers—but being upfront about how tariffs will increase prices for Americans is a marked improvement over his months of denials, let alone his claim that "tariffs are the greatest."

Still, the Saturday tweet really undersells the potential impact of Trump's plan to slap 25 percent tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. It is not only Apple products but potentially hundreds of consumer goods that could spike in price—from computers, tablets, and video games to vacuum cleaners, furniture, and children's toys. All just in time for Christmas.


In short, American consumers are about to feel the brunt of tariffs in the same way that aluminum- and steel-consuming industries have for months. The first rounds of tariffs focused on industrial goods and raw materials, and they have increased costs without achiving their primary policy goal of on-shoring manufacturing jobs.

Despite the lack of evidence that the tariffs are working—indeed, without understanding why he even wants tariffs in the first place, if Bob Woodward's new book is to be believed—Trump is now doubling down.

Adding 25 percent to the cost of a new iPhone will hike the price of Apple's low-end product to more than $200. If cell phone prices spike, or if there's a hit to Apple stock (a major driver of the stock market as a whole, and a key component of mutual funds held by many average investors as part of retirement accounts and the like), this will quickly go from being an economic problem for Trump to a political one.

But Trump has what he says is an easy solution.

"Make your products in the United States instead of China," he tweeted this weekend. "Start building new plants now."

Even if it were possible for Apple to re-route complex global supply chains that have been years in the making, all to appease Trump's desire for an American-made iPhone, would consumers benefit?

No. An American-made iPhone would cost more than $2,000 at the retail level, according to an analysis by Marketplace.

One interesting detail in that Marketplace report: Cheap Chinese labor, contrary to popular opinion, is not the source of most of the savings achieved by building iPhones in China. Apple pays about $5 per iPhone in labor costs, but building phones in the U.S. would add only about $10 to that total. The real problem with trying to make an all-American iPhone is that cell phone components and parts are sourced all around the world. The pieces that go into an iPhone cost Apple about $190 to puchase, but would easily cost three times as much to produce in the U.S.

Even if it were possible to force, or entice, Apple to make an iPhone in the U.S., you'd end up with a far more expensive product. Or as Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, told Inside Trade reporter Anshu Siripurapu this weekend:

It turns out that Apple knows more about the process of making iPhones than Donald Trump does. Tariffs will hurt American consumers, but they won't make Apple build iPhones in the U.S.—because that would hurt consumers even worse.

 

[magicschoolbus]

And you think this is China’s fault?
We enjoy ridiculously cheap products by having people abroad working for nothing and you think it is their fault?
Just do what Trump suggests and start producing in the US.
Enjoy.
Good luck.

Does not have to be in the US.

Anywhere but China is okay with me.
[doublepost=1536602985][/doublepost]

I think you, and everyone else who does not understand the concept of "trade" needs this.
Is it basic? Yes. Will it be enough to make you conversationally functional? Yes.
Does it contain all nuances? No. But that's not the point. It will take you from a "0" to a functional "60".

You're welcome.
- the intenet

Lol - because what everyone needs that has a different opinion is a lesson from liberal in cheif John Oliver! Get over yourself.

 

[gaximus]

The "Cost of materials" going up is one thing, a tax imposed by a power hungry narcissist is another. Apple already enjoys massive profits and they will take a hit if the tariffs go into affect, they may still sell a lot of iPhones, iPads, etc but it won't be at the numbers they told wall street. Its time Congress got off their butts and did their job. This is not the emperors sole decision, they too have the power to check him as he is out of control, yet they are too scared and unwilling to do it.

They will end up paying big time in the long term.

Apple will not loose any profits, they will just increase the price, the customer always pays, this won't hurt Apple at all.

 

[RootBeerMan]

Apple will not loose any profits, they will just increase the price, the customer always pays, this won't hurt Apple at all.

Actually, it will hurt Apple, their workers, and their investors. When the price of cell phones spikes, as it will, due to Trumps tariffs, we will likely see a lot of people skipping buying a new phone or pad or what have you. We've already seen it in the other industries that the idiot in chief has taxed with his stupidity. Sales will likely go down, across the industry. Hell, lots of people skipped the iPhone X because of cost. How do you think that's going to play out when the entry level models go up $200? This will be bad for Apple and the consumers.


[doublepost=1536611501][/doublepost]Laurence Vance, over at the FFF, lays it out on the conservatives and their defence of tariffs and anti-free trade outlooks. These are not your fathers conservatives. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's right on target with this one.

The Latest Conservative Defense of Tariffs

For many years now, some conservatives, in their magazine and web articles criticizing government-managed trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA, have made veiled criticisms of free trade.

But no more. Since the beginning of the year, when Donald Trump started imposing protective tariffs on selected items from certain countries, those conservatives have begun to openly criticize free trade and promote protectionism.

Sure, they are still denigrating real free trade by associating it with trade agreements, GATT, the WTO, the UN, the EU, the desire of globalist elites to have a one-world government, the decline of American independence, and the surrendering of American sovereignty.

They are still promoting the idea that without the government’s protecting certain industries, the United States can become dangerously dependent on foreign suppliers for essential commodities in times of war. (In response to Trump’s recent tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, the DoD stated that the tariffs were not necessary to ensure national-defense requirements.)

They are still reciting the logical fallacy that — because the federal government was funded by tariffs from its inception and into the twentieth century, and America prospered and became an industrial power during that period — America did so because of tariffs, rather than in spite of them.

And they are still maintaining that although Americans have to pay somewhat higher prices for manufactured goods due to tariffs, it is foreigners who mainly pay tariffs for the privilege of selling their goods in the vast U.S. market. (The truth, of course, is that tariffs are taxes on importers that are paid to the customs authority of the country imposing the tariff. They are not a tax on the seller of the goods. And Americans may have to pay considerably higher prices for goods due to tariffs if the total increase in the cost of a good caused by the imposition of a tariff is passed on to the consumer.)

But now, thanks to Trump, it appears that those conservatives feel emboldened to directly attack free trade and advocate protectionism.

The latest conservative defense of tariffs is that the Founding Fathers were protectionists and not free traders in the tradition of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.B. Say, and Frédéric Bastiat. The father of the country, George Washington, so we are told, was a protectionist. The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and the father of the Constitution, James Madison, although they had flirted with the idea of free trade, came to share Washington’s view. Other Founding Fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, were protectionists. So why aren’t you a protectionist? Are you smarter than the Founding Fathers?

There are four major problems with the “Founding Fathers” argument to justify tariffs.

One, with respect to economics, the American colonies of the Founding Fathers were not exactly free markets, as recently described in the Cayman Financial Review:

Before the Revolutionary War, the American colonies also had pre-capitalistic, quasi-feudal economies similar to England before the Whig Revolution.

The Whig Revolution, which had allowed England to develop a modern capitalist economy, did not immediately cross the Atlantic.

In the 1770s, colonial legislatures still regulated the prices for many goods and services and forbade arbitrage and speculation. Colonial courts still accepted “just price” doctrine, allowing judges, all [of] whom were members of a small oligarchy, to overturn contracts when market prices moved against colonial elites. And when crops failed or prices fell, colonial legislatures frequently declared “debt holidays” to prevent creditors from seizing the property of the colonial oligarchs.

Most of the America’s founders were from the small, wealthy elite in the colonies. Identifying with the English gentry rather than the rising middle class, [Henry St. John 1st Viscount] Bolingbroke greatly influenced most of the founders’ views of economics and politics. Most founders, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, agreed with Bolingbroke about the primacy of agriculture, shared his fears of banks and a paper currency, and dreaded industrialization. Most founders accepted Bolingbroke’s policy recommendations with the exception of a ruling monarch.

Do conservatives who advocate tariffs, as the Founding Fathers did, likewise want the current American economy to be patterned after the colonial economy? I don’t think so. Conservatives generally say they favor a market economy free from government interference.

Two, many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. George Washington, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Rush owned slaves at one time. Washington didn’t free his slaves until after his death. Would a conservative justify slavery today because many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners? Of course not. Would a conservative even listen to any proposal to reinstitute slavery because the Founding Fathers were slave owners? Of course not.

Three, the time of the Founding Fathers was much different from today. The United States had just fought a war with Great Britain to secure its independence. America was neither an economic powerhouse nor economically self-sufficient. There really were “infant industries” for the government to protect. (That, of course, doesn’t mean that it was the proper role of government to protect them.)

And four, the Founding Fathers had no income tax, Medicare tax, or Social Security tax to fund the government. Those three taxes fund the current federal government a thousand times higher than it should be. It is ludicrous to argue that we need tariffs because the Founding Fathers instituted tariffs to fund the federal government of their time. If conservatives are going to argue that a small revenue tariff on all imported goods would be better than having an income tax, Medicare tax, and Social Security tax, then I would agree with them. But that is not what they are saying.

The Founding Fathers did and said many good things, and had a lot of wisdom when it came to U.S. foreign policy, but that doesn’t mean that they were infallible.

Free trade has nothing to do with trade agreements, government organizations, globalism, a one-world government, or national sovereignty. It has everything to do with freedom — freedom to engage in commerce with anyone in the world without government interference.

 

[gaximus]

Actually, it will hurt Apple, their workers, and their investors. When the price of cell phones spikes, as it will, due to Trumps tariffs, we will likely see a lot of people skipping buying a new phone or pad or what have you. We've already seen it in the other industries that the idiot in chief has taxed with his stupidity. Sales will likely go down, across the industry. Hell, lots of people skipped the iPhone X because of cost. How do you think that's going to play out when the entry level models go up $200? This will be bad for Apple and the consumers.

I agree it'll hurt they're sales, but probably won't hurt their margins.

 

[Brandhouse]

Proof that Trump gives no thought to any consequences other than his ego and his posturising.

 

[AustinIllini]

Then build them here, douche

That would make the prices worse.

Not to mention, I'm not sure you're aware just how hard it is to make that many devices.

 

[RootBeerMan]

That would make the prices worse.

Not to mention, I'm not sure you're aware just how hard it is to make that many devices.

Yep, the prices would be massively worse, as the article I posted above (#187) shows. The cost of an iPhone would go up to $2000. Apple would be out of the cell phone business. If Trump knew anything about business he'd know that.

 

[steve333]

How? With what infrastructure? See Post# 167.

Like they don't have enough money to build the infrastructure?

That would make the prices worse.

Not to mention, I'm not sure you're aware just how hard it is to make that many devices.

Prices are already based on if they were built without slave labor, they can afford to lower their ridiculous margins

 

[Chopper9]

Yea, heaven forbid the Trillion dollar company take less profit to not screw over the little guy.

Or better yet... make the stuff here in the US so there is no tarrifs to worry about.

 

[citysnaps]

Like they don't have enough money to build the infrastructure?

Prices are already based on if they were built without slave labor, they can afford to lower their ridiculous margins

Oh. OK... This must be a subject in which you have experience. How long would it take to put that level of infrastructure in place? Where would the labor come from and how long would it take for training? And what would the cost be? And again, how long would it take?

Please show your work.


"Prices are already based on if they were built without slave labor, they can afford to lower their ridiculous margins"

Ridiculous margins? This must be another subject you are expert in. What are Apple's GPMs, and how do they compare with industry norms and GPMs of similar companies?

 

[curtvaughan]

Maybe Apple should stop manufacturing in China and bring their manufacturing to the USA. They certainly make enough profit to manufacture in the USA.

The reason they don't manufacture here is due to wages they'd have to pay. Not only Apple, but all multi-national corporations move their manufacturing operations to the "lowest bidder." That leaves out the U.S. and most of Europe. If Apple products were manufactured in the U.S. your gadgets would be priced at least 50% (likely much more) higher.

 

[ackmondual]

Your assumption is incorrect. But it would be way more off base to accuse me of being liberal (they are hysterical virtually all the time about everything on average , it’s noise to anyone not piped in) than republican for I find their followers generally more annoying, while preaching the most and being full of blatant hypocrisy even on the surface. They won’t stop virtue signaling about love trump’s hate but they are very very hateful. You aren’t even allowed to wear MAGA attire without fear of getting assaulted. There’s a reason 63 million people voted for him, but if you walked around, you’d think 20 people voted for him. Rallies are the only physical safe space / the internet is the only
Place to express support without repercussions... except for rampant censorship towards his supporters

The worst of them are the ones that many of us need to be concerned with.... they go to rallies, punch people, wear shirts that say they'd rather be Russian than Democrat (what's stopping you from moving?), or "Trump.. **** your feelings!" (but then they get all offended when we call Trump a moron, with accompanying reasons. Some of them truly are hypocrites. And they're even more of snowflakes then they accuse liberals of being

The same couldn’t be said of people wearing attire supporting the previous administration, no matter whether people who see it in passing agreed with the support or not. If they did disagree, they generally kept it civil and their mouths shut. But now- Liberals (again on average there are exceptiOns) don’t allow dissenting opinions... whatsoever. Tolerance of diversity cannot extend to thoughts. It’s either “you’re on our team or you’re our enemy.”

That's amusing because the Trump fans and republicans keep saying stuff like "you're not allowed to accuse the president", but then you had Bill O'Reilly mention "Bush is a our president. You can either get on board, or shut up!". Liberals made no such threats when Obama was in charge.

I don’t identify with either party / find them both generally reprehensible and similar. I think it’s a dividing tactic to get people who aren’t in power to argue with each other all day. The phenomenon of divisive American politics is largely attributed to the media (imo), not the current president of coming up on 2 years. Division doesn’t happen comparatively overnight. It’s been stewing for a long time. Longer than “fascist cheetoh” entering the WH. Longer than even obama administration but he didn’t help

As they say, most empires are destroyed from within An alien invasion just might be what we need. Seriously, even if millions and billions of people die, if the biggest issue is the human species getting wiped off the face of the earth, that'll get us to "all the suddenly" agree, just like that!

The irony is that the economy is all Obama's doing which Trump trumpets as his own. Will he own up to destroying the economy with these insane import taxes? Not likely.

That's often how it's been. It's sort of a good thing if a Democrat has to take the heat for Trump's mess because at least that would mean a Democrat will be back into office again. This country can NOT survive another republican presidency.

 

[thadoggfather]

The worst of them are the ones that many of us need to be concerned with.... they go to rallies, punch people, wear shirts that say they'd rather be Russian than Democrat (what's stopping you from moving?), or "Trump.. **** your feelings!" (but then they get all offended when we call Trump a moron, with accompanying reasons. Some of them truly are hypocrites. And they're even more of snowflakes then they accuse liberals of being

That's amusing because the Trump fans and republicans keep saying stuff like "you're not allowed to accuse the president", but then you had Bill O'Reilly mention "Bush is a our president. You can either get on board, or shut up!". Liberals made no such threats when Obama was in charge.


As they say, most empires are destroyed from within An alien invasion just might be what we need. Seriously, even if millions and billions of people die, if the biggest issue is the human species getting wiped off the face of the earth, that'll get us to "all the suddenly" agree, just like that!

That's often how it's been. It's sort of a good thing if a Democrat has to take the heat for Trump's mess because at least that would mean a Democrat will be back into office again. This country can NOT survive another republican presidency.

You just sound really hateful in general so there isn’t much to pick apart there that you posted. It’s a lot of emotions you wear on your sleeve and feel the more conviction you have in your emotions, the more they are a legitimate argument for debate... and not Much in the way of facts or rationality.

You’re supposed to be the virtue signaling tolerant party and you can’t even fake pretending to be for a moment. That’s embarrassing and shameful.

Peace be with you! I won’t be responding to anymore of your posts, you appear to be troubled and I don’t Generally entertain hysteria. Especially when there’s no self awareness that that’s what it is. Might as well talk to a wall.