Slashdot Mirror
Trump Says He'd Make Apple Build Computers In the US (businessinsider.com)
mrspoonsi writes with Business Insider's report that presidential candidate Donald Trump says he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."
From the article: Trump's ultimatum to the most valuable company in the world was made towards the end of a 45-minute speech he gave at Liberty University in Virginia on Monday. The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States. Apple has manufactured its Mac Pro at a factory in Texas since 2013, but the vast majority of its products (including the iPhone) are largely made and assembled in China. How Trump would force Apple's supply chain, which relies heavily on a vast network of suppliers and large factories throughout Asia, to be brought stateside remains unknown. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently called the U.S. tax code "awful for America." If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple?
Who cares? Really, I can see why some think what he is saying is pretty out there, but I am always a little shocked when the media that loves to pine on about how many jobs are leaving the US take issue with someone's plan to bring back or keep jobs in the US, most certainly manufacturing jobs. As far as the treaties go, do you really think the countries we have those with are following them to a T? A lot of them don't even follow world treaties and then go on and on about how they are champions of the terms of those treaties then later we find out they have been bullshitting everyone all along.
provides the logic most often used to justify offshoring and "free" international trade. However, the theory (logical as it is) is founded on a number of premises. A number of these premises held centuries ago but not so much any more. There is, notably, the premise that "factors of production" (e.g., factories and resources) cannot easily be moved. And money and credit were supposedly not conjurable at whim from nothing but government dictat. GIGO, even if the machine can run for some time on garbage and momentum.
>> Why start with Apple?
I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show every couple of weeks and I know he's currently hawking at least two products: Donald Trump and Apple technology. By focusing on one of Rush's biggest advertisers (Apple), maybe Trump ensures he dominates Rush's show (as Rush tries to thread the needle between defending Apple and not trashing Trump) for a few more days?
(I don't think the effect of Rush's power in the primary polls can be underestimated. When he was hawking Scott Walker, Walker led in the polls. When he stopped hawking Walker, the guy dropped down to something like 1% support.)
He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.
That's because he's not actually going to get elected. My theory is that Trump is a stooge for the Clinton campaign. He's in the Republican primaries just to sabotage the GOP, but saying increasingly stupid and intolerant stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the population, further damaging the GOP's brand. He won't get the nomination, because the party rank-and-file loyalists are against him, but he'll still be able to do a lot of damage, drag out the primary. After he flames out, I can see him launching an independent campaign, or be so obnoxious in his support of the GOP nominee, that he will turn off the general electorate .
Then she has her other stooge Bernie out there. He's out there vocalizing all the far left-wing stuff Hilary wants to say, but can't because she needs to appear more moderate for the general election.He's able to energize the far-left base, and will endorse Hilary after he concedes the primaries. He might win in Iowa & NH, but he'll be done after that.
So basically, Bernie primary voters == Hilary general voters, and Trump primary voters != Republican general voters if he runs independent/3rd party. Pretty smart tactics on her part.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
This is practically boring by Trump standards. It's not even insane- it's protectionism. This has a long history, and in some industries is generally tolerated or even desired (by more than just fringe groups), in some amount. What Trump is describing isn't of the normal sort, of course- it's extreme and would cause havok in a number of industries.
Like much of Trump's rhetoric, it assumes powers that presidents don't have. Trump presumably knows this, and is undeterred, because he wants to be elected, and his track is populist screed, so off he goes.
The only thing he says on this that has some merit is his brief rant about Boeing. A Boeing plant will give China access to seriously new tools and methods that they currently haven't been able to copy from the shortsighted companies that make factories in China and have them duplicated by a Chinese company a few years later. I don't know if this is worth some federal action, however, and certainly a president isn't the one to make the call.
To answer the question, if you listen to Trump, he wouldn't stop with Apple, he'd go on a rampage of magically teleporting factories around and tossing out tariffs that are likely banned by treaty for decades.
It's not surprising for a populist to promise protectionism, and it's the least scary thing on his agenda. Destroying a few dozen industries is nothing compared to what he's promised internationally or for civil rights lol
I'll bite. I'm far from a Sanders supporter, but he's better than Hillary on the Democrat's side. He's not a communist, he's an avowed European-style socialist. Now, I'm not in agreement with him that European socialism is the way to go - I think that well-regulated capitalism means more economic growth. With that said, the difference is small - we're talking a percentage point of growth per year or something on that order. That's significant in a mature economy, but not worth demonizing the guy. He's not exactly "dangerous" economically - not one of his socialist policies is going to be taken up in congress.
He has his positives, too. For a Democrat, he has a very reasonable attitude towards guns. He also has a strong sense of civil liberties, which lack in all of the other candidates on both sides except for Paul.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Let's lower the corporate tax rate...we have "on paper" the highest in the world.
I say on paper, because the big boy corps, have enough tax attorney's and experts on payroll (whole departments in fact) to find every loophole to pay less and less, while the SMALL businesses get stuck paying the high fees and taxes.
So, let's lower it to a much lower rate, one that competes with the rest of the world, but at the same time...cut out all the deductions and loopholes. You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.
Doing that would encourage businesses to come back to the US.
Rather than penalize, let's make it a business favorable environment to have your business on US soil, AND have US workers doing the work.
I don't think a business or a person should have a tax form longer than 1-2 pages long.
I doubt this will come about, in that it would take too much power away from congress over us all.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What is interesting about a potential Bloomberg run is that it might split both parties votes. While Bloomberg has deal breaker positions on abortion, gun rights, size of government and others for many conservatives, the big business/military industrial complex/donner class likes him. That isn't a huge number of conservative/GOP voters but its a big slice of the GOP money pie.
If Bloomberg runs than essentially the election become entirely unpredictable. There will be no modern examples to compare the situation to even remotely.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
... leaves bigger holes than any that currently exist. Re-invest profit into the company by any means, or pay it out as bonuses to top execs, or just buy stuff. Make sure there's a small profit every couple years so you can stay incorporated, and the tax would end up as some infinitesimally small amount. Most of the laws had the best intentions at one point, like your comment, but those need to continually be patched, which results in the current situation.
I disagree - what you're saying would happen (excepting bonuses, maybe) is the point. If they're not going to give it up to taxes, then they can use it on expansion... and while they may pay some people more, keep in mind they have to pay payroll taxes, too, paid for both by employees and employers. Especially in this case, if you are giving bonuses to high income employees, that bonus is being taxed on the employee at the highest tax rate, so they're just pushing the taxes to someone else - in either case, either the company expands (good for the economy overall) or the taxes are collected from payroll on both ends.
I actually do not support this method of taxation at all, but since it's unlikely we'll get rid of it, a lower rate with no loopholes will do more to bring back businesses and/or improve our economy and/or increase tax revenue.
The only people that suffer are the accountants that have to be paid buckets of money finding loopholes.
It's estimated that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on tax compliance every year. I'd rather companies hold on to that and be taxed, or expand.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.
It's more than that. He won't be allowed to do much of what he's saying.
I live in California. Remember when Schwarzenegger was 'governator'? It was a disaster. He thought he could just bully everyone into doing what he wanted them to do, which of course wasn't going to work. He was blocked at every turn. That's how it would go with Trump as POTUS. You think Congress is hostile to Obama? It would be like a teddy-bear tea-party in comparison to how Congress would respond to Trump. He's an outsider, he's extreme, he's a blowhard, and he'd be blocked at every turn. He seems to think that he can just say 'jump!' and everyone will say 'how high, Sir?' because that's what he's used to, but it won't work that way. Trump as POTUS would probably be the least productive and positive Presidency this country has ever seen, assuming he didn't get impeached.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The biggest business expense isn't taxes (for the most part since they're variable), it's labor. Not just the labor to assemble parts and what not but on the supplier side too. That's where the US has the biggest issues, not to mention unions, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for jobs coming back to the US and am an employer myself for a small company of 30 people. We get *slammed* for taxes (37.5 percent is what plan for all in state/feds on all "profit") even using a competent and well-respected accounting firm. Even "profit" is a lie, we keep all the "profit" in the company. So when we have a not so great year that "profit" is gone even though we've paid taxes on it and we can't spread out the loses like the big guys. So I get stuck with a $100K tax bill every year and only have a $170K salary. Sucks balls.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
While the fantasy that the Clinton campaign is somehow in charge of two other leading candidates - one of which is in the other party, makes for a cool narrative, it takes a particularly kind of naivete and never-mind lack of faith in investigative journalism to believe it's even logistically possible to do, let alone keep it a secret.
Really? how hard would it be for Hilary to suggest to Trump in a private conversation that he run for president as a Republican to derail the GOP? After all, it's not like she doesn't know him. Also, I didn't say she was in control, but Trump & Sanders are more like useful idiots. And you're right, I have no faith in investigative journalism. The press glosses over any kind of negative story linked to Clinton because the majority of them are in the tank for her.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
How do you think _anybody_ gets rich? It's by gambling with other people's money If you win the bet, you get paid off big time, if you lose, you pass off your losses to some other poor sucker (usually the bank that lent you money), or simply declare bankruptcy. Do this enough times, eventually you get rich. What I can't understand is, giving the number of times Trump-controlled businesses have gone bankrupt and screwed their creditors, why does anyone still lend him money? Other than lucrative bribes, I can't think of any logical reason.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. ~ Sanders
He's also against Uber because it's "unregulated" echoing voice of Europe; being articulated euro socialist, no surprise there. But since we're talking about regulating the "unregulated" you could throw in the entire West Coast gig economy right along in there too.
He's not smart. In fact, he's a self-addmited communist sympathizer link text having traveled to the nations that espouse it's views directly (USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua)
Life is not for the lazy.
Plenty of Roman Senators and Emperors got away with exactly that.
In Rome during the "panem et circences" times, sex in a brothel was cheaper than a loaf of bread.
Unbelievable in our times ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.