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?

Comments

Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage

[tanstaaf1]

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.

Re:Trump just says stuff

[MightyYar]

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.