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?
He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
For someone who claims to not be a politician, Trump is very good as politician-speak - the art of telling people you'll do things with no intentions/plans/ability to follow through on it.
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference? How long until people realize that President Trump won't be able to do half the things he claims he'll do?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It's obvious: because it's such a well-known and popular brand, and because it was recently under attack for treating Chinese workers poorly.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
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
How about TFS be consistent with itself? It isn't unknown, it's by taxing them:
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.
As in how many would we have to back out of to do this?
No sir I dont like it.
And I absolutely include anybody in that category who promises, while running for president, to do something only Congress can do.
Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them. He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.
Here's what he actually said...
"We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."
Every time some politician makes a promise like this I always think, Sure but because of globalisation it will always be the smaller part of the company that resides in the first world. Therefore the logical outcome to any single government's moves against a corporation would be the decamping of said corporation to another jurisdiction. i.e. Apple would move out of the US entirely and place their headquarters in a more friendly nation.
That's Google, and its Ireland.
Donald Trump says he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."
He can like whatever he wants but it's not possible for a lot of reasons.
1) Labor costs are too high in the US to be competitive on assembly work of that scale. I know this because I run a company that does contract assembly of electric products. Even Apple's profit margins aren't fat enough to make that possible.
2) The supply chain for all the components does not exist in the US. That business left the US a looong time ago.
3) Apple is actually a software company. If you put Android on their gear, nobody is going to pay a premium for it. The margins on their product are decidedly not in building the computer and Apple has no particular manufacturing expertise.
4) Apple doesn't build their computers. They hire other companies to do it. Same with Dell, HP, etc. The companies that actually build these things aren't US companies.
5) The president doesn't have the authority to do that and even if he did it would be a REALLY stupid idea. The only thing he would accomplish is to make it difficult for those companies to compete. Samsung isn't going to start building their machines in the US. Manufacturing goes where the costs are lowest and frequently that is not in the US thanks to high labor costs and in some cases regulations.
If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple?
It isn't a good idea and Trump is pandering. He knows perfectly well that it isn't possible, practical or a good idea. But he's more than happy to lie to people too dumb or ignorant to understand supply chain economics.
Apple will be assembling productsin the US within 10 yrs, using robotics, but it won't help employment rates because it will all be robotics based.
apple is known for squeezing every last cent out of its foreign workers' veins. if forced to move to usa, would it do the same for americans? it would have work hard at it, given the lazybone habits of americans.
apple is already hoodwinking american customers using hype (easy task since average american is unable and unwilling to use brains, any more than they do brawn ) by selling highly over priced average blah products as innovative, edgy, and stylish .
anyway good to see trump using hype and propaganda to beat up on apple that expert at hype and propaganda.
When Trump starts making his own crap in the US, maybe he can be taken seriously on the issue.
The "Double Irish" was pioneered by Apple in the late 1980's. They did so well, Google copied their tax-avoidance model. Look it up.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
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.
Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them.
There is virtually nothing a US president can do to "convince" companies to make decisions like that. Getting Apple to move production back to the US will require a sea change in macro-economics and supply chains for manufacturing. A president could maybe make things a tad friendlier but most of the relevant obstacles are well outside the control of a president. We build plenty of stuff in the US. The manufacturing sector in the US is somewhere around $3 Trillion annually and growing. Worrying about where Apple builds its phones kind of misses the big picture.
He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.
The tax codes have almost NOTHING to do with why Apple builds their products in China. They could drop taxes to zero and it wouldn't matter because it would still be cheaper to assembly elsewhere. The actual reasons are in approximate order of importance:
1) The supply chain for electronic assembly is in Asia. Most of the parts are made there and the companies that assemble them are there. Making an equivalent supply chain in the US is economically impossible at this point without heavy government subsidies which would violate all sorts of trade agreements.
2) Labor costs in china for assembly work are substantially lower than in the US
3) The companies who build the vast majority of consumer electronic products are located in Asia and are Asian companies
4) Labor and environmental regulations in places like China are substantially less stringent. This is not a bad thing but it does matter for where to make products. Matching the lack of regulations in some of these places would be a bad idea.
4) China is a critical market for a company like Apple to grow. The US market is important but saturated and future growth will need to come from the other 95% of the world population.
Its effectively a disguised import tariff and the US has gone to a lot of trouble to get "free trade" agreements with many countries, or alternatively deals with minimal customs duties. He'll end up with the regulatory bodies saying that this form of tax is illegal under the agreements and the USA would have to pay a lot of compensation
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
>> 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.)
Says the man who has his merchandise made in China.
I know this site leans to the right with the selection of front-page articles and the majority of user comments as well, but why are we giving more free PR to Trump? He gets it from every news network you can think of in this country and plenty abroad as well. If this statement came from anyone else it would have been ignored as the ramblings of a deranged person. Instead since they came from Trump we take them seriously.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There is a groundswell of support for Trump and others perceived to be "political outsiders" because the American public is increasingly fed up with career politicians. It's during times like this where a number of very unsavory characters have entered political life and caused quite a bit of mischief. I'm not saying Trump is comparable to any of those bad actors, but I am saying that the feeling of helplessness and anger in the American electorate is real and pervasive. Desperate people sometimes do silly things. One need look no further than the current administration to see what can happen when people throw caution to the wind hoping to "shake things up".
*sigh* I guess this post shows the level of ignorance that is present today. Apple is still a US company. To do business around the world, companies establish subsidiaries in different countries to deal with tax codes. For Apple, they base their European taxes on Ireland because it is the lowest tax rate in the EU. For Asia, I think they are based out of Singapore, again, because it gives them the lowest tax rates. Every multinational company does this.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Donald Trump said that America has been mismanaged, the same as Europe. I hope American people elect Donald Trump, and the Great USA, as we knew it, returns back.
News for the gullible? Stop feeding the Trump troll.
This seems like evidence that Trump doesn't really understand macro-economics. The reason why manufacturing of consumer goods was shipped overseas is because it was discovered that we couldn't afford the consumer goods as well at higher prices to pay American workers to make the goods. Thus, we moved the manufacturing overseas to bring down the price point to something more palatable to the typical American consumer. There is a far more complex economic issue going on here. We need to peel back the layers of the onion and find out answers to some real questions:
All of these are inter-related. There are better presidential candidates to get into these details than Trump and probably less biased.
We'll make great pets
As Tim Cook made clear in his discussion of this topic with Charlie Rose on 60 Minutes; the United States doesn't have the manufacturing labor force required to do what Apple needs. For a thorough discussion of the skills gap that is now a fact I recommend “Rebuilding America's Workforce: Business Strategies to Close the Competitive Gap” by William H. Kolberg and Foster C. Smith. Over two decades ago Kolberg and Smith warned that this was going to be a problem and how other countries were preparing for the future. Unfortunately business, government and education leaders in the United States didn’t listen.
He says he would raise taxes on businesses manufacturing outside the US. That seems like a practical and implementable, if stupid, plan.
The president has no control over tax rates on businesses. Congress controls that. The president can suggest but that's about all.
Anyway, that will be the least of your problems if you elect him.
True 'dat
The summary at least is a little poorly thought.
"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."
Okay.
"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."
Seriously, did you not read that first quote? Obviously, that is how he plans to do it.
"If Trump (or anyone) thinks this is a good idea, why start or stop with Apple? "
Again, did you fail to read that first quote. Apple is an obviously an example, he proposed a tax (the quote above) that would give a financial push to all US based companies to manufacture in the US.
Whether you think it's a good idea or a bad one there is no reason to be deliberately obtuse. Despite us having almost non-existent inflation, arguably being in danger of deflation even with the fed rate at practically nothing (banks can get new money for free, all you can eat inflation buffet) the economy is crashing in response to free falling oil prices and more importantly problems in the Chinese economy. Not to mention widespread IP threat and industrial espionage on the part of the Chinese. It IS a valid strategy, that would force inflation (which our currency depends on), would do in a mostly luxury area (tech) and create jobs in the US providing a vehicle for some of that money to move out of the banks and into the general population.
The problems are that it is isolationist, may hurt our relations with China, and that the jobs will be mostly low paid so it will actually further hollow out the middle class. Some would argue that businesses would leave. That isn't really a valid problem, being blocked from trade in the US in retaliation for such a move would bankrupt any such technology instantly.
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
Our government should encourage Foxconn to build a plant in the US. That way Apple, Microsoft and other US company products can be built in the US. A tax break for all companies manufacturing in the US for North American, and other, distribution would go a long way.
Unfortunately (for Hillary) the 'scientific' polls miss out a huge demographic - the political revolution that is the previously non-politically-engaged public who have now taken an interest now that there is a truly honest candidate with no ties to the corporations that want to take all the money. He is the real deal, he will be President.
Even with that huge demographic missing from the polls, he is either neck & neck or ahead of Hillary in the early states. All polls that I have seen put him as more favourable against Chump than Hillary is.
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
Wanting to help the US economy is fine. Wanting to encourage companies to manufacture more things in the US is fine. This "simple and obvious" solution to the problem would end up causing more problems than it solved. Tax dodging through technicalities, decline in quality and/or increase in prices, US companies moving off shore, treaty violations, and i'm sure others that haven't been brought up yet.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I think the trick to this is getting both sides to really do their part, meaning I'll lower the tax rate but we have to close these other loopholes. Lowering the rate is the easy part since that's what people cheer. Closing loopholes always gets angry responses from whoever just lost a loophole. That's why loopholes tend to stay put or, if closed, are matched by a new loophole. It's not unlike amnesty programs for illegal aliens. I think a lot of people would be fine letting them stay in exchange for no more illegal immigration. Reagan tried that back in 1986 and gave amnesty in exchange for tougher border controls to stop the flow. The amnesty happened but of course millions more illegals came. Getting both sides to follow through is the hard part. A simpler tax process would also increase transparency, which in general is a good thing.
I guess it's true, some men just want to watch the world burn.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I was thinking along the same lines the other day, however....there may be other factors.
1. I think there is a real possibility that Clinton may get indicted with the recent FBI findings.
2. Looks like Bloomberg is looking to possibly do a 3rd party, that would split the liberal vote.
There's still a lot of factors in play out there...interesting voting season this is...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ted Cruz was elected senator of Texas, because his opponents were unpopular: David Dewhurst, Tom Leppert, and some Democrat. I think Mike Rawlings, and George P. Bush (Jeb's kid) are waiting for Texas to become hispanic dominated before running for national office. Ted Cruz has acted as a hardline conservative, as many Texans desired their senator too.
Unfortunately, the only thing in the Senate Ted Cruz is the head of, is the Senate Subcommittee on Space and Science (NASA). Ted Cruz could have pushed to have the SLS cancelled, and spend money developing new tech, as the Obama Administration wanted to, but he was rejected. Ted Cruz could have been involved in the RD-180 engine sanction issues, like Bill Nelson, and John McCain were, but he wasn't. Thank god for Bill Nelson for doing at least a mediocre job in setting NASA policy. Ted Cruz has had some embarrasing flip flops on H-1Bs, and other issues. That's ok if you're running as an experienced moderate, but not as a political hardliner.
I think a better, older, American made Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump, but this is a young and inexperienced Ted Cruz going up against an old, and seasoned, Donald Trump. I am afraid of a Ted Cruz foreign policy. Obama benefited by having Biden, and by trying not to do much.
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
Very clueless idea to try and force a company or anyone to do something not in their own interest. Even worse idea to single out one company.
What he should have said is that he would change the tax environment to make it in their interest to do the right thing.
Say, provide tax incentives to encourage not only Apple but everyone to source/build/work in the US, and tax disincentives to do it offshore.
Ultimately any company would still be free to build in China or anywhere else if they really want, they just need to end up paying more than it would cost them locally for the pleasure.
Trust me, if the government did that, everything would change VERY quickly, since companies REALLY don't like giving up money.
Unfortunately (for Hillary) the 'scientific' polls miss out a huge demographic
Morons?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yes and every of those companies skew their annual/quarterly reports of profits and reallocate a good portion of those recorded profits from the U.S. and say they got it from Europe or Asia where the corporate tax is a lot less.
What are you talking about? The main complaint about Apple is that they didn't "repatriate" their profit overseas. To be absolutely clear on this: Apple makes money by selling products overseas. These days more and more money is being made in Asia as markets there get bigger. Apple didn't "skew" the books as you imply. Now Apple (like every other company) has two choices when it comes to this money: 1) keep it overseas or 2) repatriate it by moving it back to the US. To do #2, they have to pay 40% taxes. So like MANY OTHER companies, they decided not to repatriate money made overseas and not pay taxes they don't have to pay. Considering that Apple (like other companies) have expenses like buildings, personnel, etc to fund, keeping it overseas is just business. But thanks for proving my point.
So what you said about establishing a small HQ for the area to deal with local formalities better is correct; but the main headline is about taxes.
Again, Apple bases their subsidiaries based on where it gives them the most tax advantages. So you missed the point.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Go fuck yourself. I own an iPhone and a MacBook, which I love and use every day, and am seriously considering voting for Trump. I am not a luddite, nor a troglodyte, and neither inbred nor uneducated.
You're playing right into their hands. Trump is a bit of a blowhard, and he consistently says things that, when taken out of context or provided in a 5 second sound bite, sound completely ludicrous.
He's using Apple computer as an example of a company that has (for better or worse) gotten filthy rich off of slave labor and overseas production while Americans here at home are out of work. I happen agree with him that we need to build things here again. Make things in the United States that we can take pride in. We really *can* do those things here. There are plenty of other examples besides Apple of companies that use the current arrangement to their benefit, not just Apple.
But as long as people like you can reduce someone who happens to agree that we should see what we can do about making things, something, here at home again to "neo fascist piles of human excrement", we all lose. I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat), but even if Trump was saying we should put restrictions on companies using overseas slave labor instead of American labor (which he wasn't), that sure sounds awful god-damned left wing to me. What is it you're fighting against exactly? The message or the man?
Trump is the first truly populist presidential candidate in a long time. But there's a long rich history of chest thumpers willing to say anything to get elected.
The best recent example in modern times is probably Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
How about make all companies doing business in the US use US resources (including human) rather than just focusing on one company outsourcing their labor?
Unless Apple is a national company (which, it isn't) or vital to national defense/security, I don't see how they legislate just one company to use his proposed model.
Adding more labor jobs sounds great and all, but toxic byproducts from manufacturing doesn't.
The alternative being to start/stop nowhere in particular? To shroud the issue in a quantum haze of indeterminacy? Here's what every slippery-sloper knows deep in his heart of hearts: you fundamentally get the job done with a single unsuppressed stroke.
Any other duration would be arbitrary.
A president that can set rules that only penalize a single corporation... can also set rules that immensely benefit a single corporation, and rake in a fortune in bribes. Hopefully, that is not allowed in our democracy. It it were, it might be more properly described as a kleptocracy. That doesn't mean that laws that only benefit a single company have never been passed; they have, but by bribing members of congress, not the president.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
>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.
>why start or stop with Apple?
Maybe, just maybe the answer lies in this part
>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.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
Because his crowd of brown shirts hate hipsters *almost* as much as they hate minorities.
If you don't mind that all those iStuff gets so expensive that you need an iLoan to buy it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Made in USA" requirements for the US tech industry would do exactly what "Made in Britain" requirements did for the British auto industry - destroy it in the span of a few decades.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Actually I'm pretty sure that naming and shaming would already go a long way. We're talking about one of the countries on the planet that is maybe the most proud-to-be-a-citizen country where it's not followed by an or-else clause. Yes, people are still proud of their country there. Without The Party telling them they better be, but because they really are.
Use that.
Raise awareness. Create awards for "real american" companies and promote those awards as something only companies can get that are "real american". And that real americans buy at real american companies. Make a TV show out of it. It's a cheap format that should tie a lot of eyes to your network.
You can bet your ass that would work!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, you might just maybe have a job that pays you money so you wouldn't have to... You know, like in the good old days when things were actually built in the US, when people had jobs and could afford to buy shit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But I'm sure there's a downside to it, too?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, Rand Paul, then? Actually, I liked Ron Paul, but of course the only thing Democrats and Republicans cooperate on is torpedoing 3rd party candidates.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Sounds suspiciously like National Socialism. Look at what it did for Germany!
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
TGrump is pathetic. His clothing lines are made in Mexico and China while his hotels are cleaned and serviced by numerous illegal aliens. What a pathetic joke he is.
your little two-bit company's experience not relevant, large scale manufacturing of electronics IS and can be done in the USA.
Sorry my friend but I'm in the industry and I make my living from global sourcing of electronics. I've worked in Fortune 500 companies doing global supply chain analysis and sourcing. Pretty much ALL large scale assembly of electronics is done outside the US. We have some chip fabs and we do some specialty work in some vertical industries but if it involves any meaningful amount of labor it is almost always done in countries with low labor rates. (in other words not the US) The supply chains for the components are largely in Asia so it is most economical to do assembly there as well especially given the cheap labor. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. You believe that large scale mfg of electronics can be done in the US but to believe that you have to ignore the last 30 years of evidence. Your ideology is not based in fact.
supply chain is global, anything can be sent to USA
Not economically it can't. Shipping them across the ocean for final assembly is a LOT more expensive than assembling them first and then shipping a finished product. It's generally far cheaper to assembly an iphone in china than it is to ship a screen + a circuit board + a shell + the rest and then assemble in the US with higher labor rates.
apple is also a hardware design company and has things built
Apple is a software company that sells their software in a pretty box. I've already linked to Steve Jobs himself saying so explicitly. They manufacture almost nothing tangible themselves and have no particular expertise in manufacturing. They outsourced their manufacturing because they don't make their profits from it. Apple designs nice hardware to help sell their software but almost nobody would pay a premium for a Macintosh running Windows without OSX. The iPhone hardware is no better than any number of Android phones and nobody would pay premium prices for an iPhone running Android. Apple does design because nobody would buy their products if they were poorly designed. That just gets them in the game.
Fast Track Trade. look it up, president has the power
Fast track trade authority is an authorization given by congress to the president for a limited time to negotiate a trade deal which Congress still has to approve with an up or down vote. It does not give the president any sort of authority to force companies to manufacture goods inside the US.
and most of it is complete and utter bullshit.
This policy initiative sounds like a fantastic way to speed up corporate inversions. Want to see all the remaining US companies that actually manufacture products headquarter somewhere else? Enact this idea.
What a fucking idiot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Asshat. But in a race with others ranging from liars to loons, he somehow fits right in. Reminds me of Huey Long.
Organization? You must be joking..
when they hear this policy proposal.
If American robot factories are going to be cost-competitive with Chinese manual factories or the upcoming Chinese robot factories, then why not bring back the "robo-facturing" (the new word for "manufacturing") to America.
Just don't expect it to bring job growth with it, as he is trying to sell.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Uhh, you're not basing that on polls,since they say the exact opposite... So, you're basing it on.. Lies or magical thinking?
There's a significant chance now that Hillary gets a federal indictment. (Were we a nation of laws, not a banana republic, she already would have been, but I suspect the fix is in.) If that happens, it's Bernie's to lose IMO. The Dem primary isn't over until the FBI makes a decision.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It was on Politico: http://www.politico.com/magazi...
Which is fine and dandy but then they (Apple) should stop bitching about all the money they have off-shore. You want to keep your revenue off-shore for tax purposes, fine. You want to bring back to America - then pay your fucking taxes!
Troll? Funny? Insightful? I am so confused.
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/...
It is not clear yet how Trump compares to Hillary or Bernie, but it is clear that the felon waiting to be charged is 13 points ahead of the free money for all guy.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Your vote counts the same with an IQ of 40 as it does with one of 140...
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
No, they don't do that, because that would be illegal.
Apple pays it's owed tax on all revenue from the Americas through the US Tax Code. Anything from Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia is revenue realized through Apple Operations International (AOI), which is an Irish corporation.
That is, unless you are claiming that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress. In which case, you'd better cite some evidence.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I don't disagree, however further to this, three points:
1) It is called a "safety net" not "irresponsibility net". Sure there will be those that take advantage of the system, there always will be. You can be totally responsible, and try to plan for things, but sometimes life doesn't quite cooperate. Anyone could be hit with something that could destroy them, the net is there for that purpose.
2) Not all things are equal. Certain people are going to have better success being responsible and planning for things. I would say that it pretty directly proportional to how well off your family is (and all sorts of related topics such as better education, health, etc...). Essentially if you already have support, it is easier to responsibly support yourself. The rich have an easier time of it, the poor not so much.
3) A safety net allows those in certain situations, such as coming from a poor family, a better opportunity to end the cycle, and with that additional state sponsored support, become more responsible and plan for things, thus eventually (ideally) reducing the amount of folks that actually need such support into the future.
However you will have those situations where folks in a negative environment abuse the system, and then learn how to abuse the system themselves perpetuating the abuse. So it is important to be vigilant and try to reduce this. However addressing this issue is complex.
shit, i'd vote bloomberg in a heartbeat.
and i'm middle of the road as they come.
sanders is a crackpot on the left, trump is all sound and fury... clinton is a political animal first and makes me wary...
If Trump wins, and Hillary wins, it seems like something out of a Simpsons episode.
I mean Trump is a ridiculous human being, and the other candidate is named CLIN-TON.
Somehow I can see a debate ending with them taking off their human disguises, and laughing maniacally about the failures of the two party system!
Queue the Alien Overlords with whips forcing Americans to build a giant ray gun, er I mean Apple Smartphones...
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A presidential candidate that actually knew what the fuck they were talking about when it came to computers, networking (And security) and the internet?
I run for the popcorn every time bernie, hillary, trump, cruz, etc. are asked any kind of technology related question.
Which is fine and dandy but then they (Apple) should stop bitching about all the money they have off-shore. You want to keep your revenue off-shore for tax purposes, fine. You want to bring back to America - then pay your fucking taxes!
Apple isn't complaining about the money offshore. People like the OP are complaining that Apple doesn't want to pay taxes twice. So Apple says that tthey'll bring it back to the US if they weren't taxed twice. Period.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's made in china and his excuse was it's too expensive to make it in the US. You paying 35% tariff on those goods OK if you're elected? The guy is a waste roof the reality show but unfortunately none of what he says has any relationship to reality.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I can't see how anyone can think Sanders is a crackpot.
The only conclusion that I can come to on this is that said people have not actually looked at his policies, relying only on what they are being told by the anti-Sanders media.
Please, explain one crackpot idea that Bernie Sanders has.
Hillary Clinton does not have her husband's slimy charm. Even if she evades legal responsibility for her unending felonious activities, she won't be able to defend herself politically. If she wins, the electorate is so defective that there is truly no hope.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It is assembled in Texas all the electrics are from elsewhere except maybe a few chips and the screws. It is also probably their lowest volume product (iPod might be less by now not sure) and isn't exactly drawing many crowds if you haven't noticed what was expensive is now ludicrously so and obsolete (~2.5 yr old CPU, 1/2 speed ram versus "enthusiasts" DDR 4 now etc). I get it is ECC ram and PCIe SSDs but damn.
Lets see them try to source the majority of the parts and manufacture in the US a high volume item like say the iPad mini: good luck.
Isn't it funny how the "small government" types often want far more power to tell people what to do?
Chairman Mao would be pleased with such a desire to have a command economy. The only reason China is capable of building Apples today is because they relaxed such idiotic control.
At least four of his businesses have gone under, but somehow he's managed to get out unscathed.
Seems like he is the ideal US President then. US will not do well in the coming years - Trump will dodge the responsibility expertly.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
And isn't that why Apple keeps so much money offshore already? Moreover, if Apple is already willing to keep large chunks of profit in offshore subsidiaries, what's to stop them from inverting and avoiding Trump's penalty by not being an American company at all?
Labor is a small component of that. In terms of labor time, we are talking roughly 10-13 hours (studies in 2012 demonstrated this).
Cripe, I could have given you a pretty good estimate of the labor required. (I'm an industrial engineer and an accountant and I do this for a living) The labor costs are meanigful but they would be 4-5X larger here in the US. What is FAR more important is that the product is made almost literally right next door to the companies that make the components. There is NO equivalent supply chain here in the US and developing one isn't going to happen. Having your suppliers nearby is a big deal.
With a US wage differential, one adds roughly $150 dollars in cost.
So you are suggesting Apple add 25% to the cost. Are you aware that Apple's net margins are approximately 25%? Basically you are suggesting Apple sell this product for breakeven prices. Remember that the vast majority of the profit in that supply chain goes to Apple so you are (intentionally or not) suggesting Apple take a huge reduction in profits on their most important product. To say that is a bad idea is to state the obvious.
By the way, people have looked into the cost of an All American iPhone and the results aren't pretty. You'd possibly be looking at an iPhone that might cost $2000 retail.
2. The $150 in cost is not borne entirely by consumer. Rather, it is split by everyone in the transaction including investors and other suppliers.
Since Apple takes almost all the profits in the supply chain you are either suggesting Apple take a bath or that consumers pay more. Neither of those are likely. I can assure you that the margins at Foxconn and the others aren't fat and there isn't a lot of room for them to accept smaller margins if they want to stay in business. It is highly unlikely their net profits are above 10% - very typical for manufacturing companies.
3. Competitive effects would be muted by tariffs and tax incentives against foreign or offshoring competitors.
So you are suggesting protectionist taxation to enable inefficient US companies to compete? That is a stupid and ultimately counterproductive idea. We did that with steel during the Bush presidency and all it accomplished was to raise prices on products that use steel like cars. Raising tariffs on any product ultimately forces the consumer to bear the added cost. It also has all sorts of detrimental effects on companies in affected areas not to mention the fact that it would likely violate all sorts of WTO and other trade agreements. Tariffs and tax incentives to prop up companies that cannot compete are generally a hugely bad idea.
The man's run enough companies into bankruptcy, why not go big.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Yes and every of those companies skew their annual/quarterly reports of profits and reallocate a good portion of those recorded profits from the U.S. and say they got it from Europe or Asia where the corporate tax is a lot less.
What are you talking about? The main complaint about Apple is that they didn't "repatriate" their profit overseas. To be absolutely clear on this: Apple makes money by selling products overseas. These days more and more money is being made in Asia as markets there get bigger. Apple didn't "skew" the books as you imply. Now Apple (like every other company) has two choices when it comes to this money: 1) keep it overseas or 2) repatriate it by moving it back to the US. To do #2, they have to pay 40% taxes. So like MANY OTHER companies, they decided not to repatriate money made overseas and not pay taxes they don't have to pay. Considering that Apple (like other companies) have expenses like buildings, personnel, etc to fund, keeping it overseas is just business. But thanks for proving my point.
So what you said about establishing a small HQ for the area to deal with local formalities better is correct; but the main headline is about taxes.
Again, Apple bases their subsidiaries based on where it gives them the most tax advantages. So you missed the point.
the foreign profit question has been moot for a long time. typically a corporation's domestic and foreign enterprises are separate legal entities, even if one may own the other. as such, the foreign corporation can certainly make loans to the domestic entity of whatever amount it wishes, including but not limited to the value of any foreign profits. the domestic entity pays no taxes on this amount. whatever interest it may pay for the loan simply gets rolled into the profits of the foreign entity and and can be recycled in subsequent iterations of the process.
this is old business school thinking, has been going on since forever; suitable not just for evading domestic taxes on foreign profits, but for shuffling large sums around internationally for any reason.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
He should have been a story writer for the Onion. Seriously, this guy is like a walking-talking Mad Lib generator. Some of the weirdest shit comes out of his mouth. Someone should whip together a Trump headline generator that puts out the most over-the-top senseless crap and and auto-post the results to free press release sites. The general press is bound to be fooled by a few of them (Hell, Trump may even adopt a few for himself as campaign positions).
You present a false choice, between a social safety net and no social safety net.
We are always going to have a social safety net. The real choice is, will we pursue pro-growth policies that allow us to fund a great safety net rather effortlessly? Or will we condemn ourselves to a low-growth economy, in which maintaining a mediocre safety net is rather burdensome?
Social Security was set up as a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul scheme, with Peter being current workers, and Paul being current retirees. (Along with that scheme comes a constant angst: "Birth rates are falling, and if we don't let in millions of immigrants with questionable skills and loyalties, there won't be enough workers paying FICA taxes and Social Security will collapse!")
If it had instead been set up as a system of more privatized accounts, with owners permitted to invest the funds in bonds and diversified stock holdings, all current retirees would be immensely better off. And they would have the means to contribute to a more robust social safety net than the one we currently have.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Filter your Presidential candidates with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...
Casteism