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

Trump just says stuff

[MichaelSmith]

He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.

Re: Trump just says stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Re: Trump just says stuff

[goose-incarnated]

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Sounds like every US president ever. What exactly was your point?

Re:Trump just says stuff

[DrXym]

The problem is that Trump says stuff and he means it. He's absolutely right in all matters. He's right even when he demonstrably isn't. He's right even when experts tell him he's full of shit. He's right even if it means reality is wrong. And don't dare tell him he is wrong because suddenly you're an enemy to be demeaned and mocked.

It's not hard to find articles that suggest he is suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder and I can easily believe it.

Re:Trump just says stuff

[peragrin]

True communism has never been practiced on a major scale. Current communism countries get stuck at the command level economy setup stage. And to keep the peasants from revolting they give away a bunch of stuff.

Norway and Sweden are closer to true communism than China,Cuba or russia(was).

Both Norway and Sweden ditched command economic mode in favor of regulated capitalism.

That is the mode Bernie wants for the is and will a decent goal, won't happen with the number of hypocrite we have in this country. If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

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.

Re:Trump just says stuff

[Beezlebub33]

No, not typical.

One of the problems with political discourse is that the expectations are so low that Trump can literally say anything and there will people who say 'Politician X says stuff too' or 'They all do it'. However, Trump is different. He is isn't even bothering to try to couch his words in standard dog-whistle terms or not directly insulting massive parts of the electorate. The things he has said about specific women, about physically handicapped people, about particular racial and religious groups are far beyond anything we have seen for a national politician. It has significantly lowered the bar in terms of acceptable behaviour; and you're not helping by being an apologist for him by calling him typical.

Re:Trump just says stuff

[hey!]

Of course; anyone with a half a brain can see he's a bigtime bullshitter. But that doesn't mean you should dismiss what he says; you can a learn a lot from the BS he spouts about the people who support him. What this shows is that they're not conservative or libertarian; and they're certainly not liberal either. So what are they?

They're authoritarian.

Authoritarians are a different breed from conservatives or liberals; conservatives and liberals differ on issues of ideology, but authoritarianism is about the cult of personality. The key attribute of an authoritarian leader is the utter lack of intellectual integrity. Authoritarian leaders don't serve ideologies, they use them, even mixing and matches to suit the need of the moment.

So the election of an authoritarian would be news for anyone who holds a principled political position, no matter what position that leader claims to support. In this case Trump is running as a conservative, but here he's signaled his complete lack of interest in consistency with principled conservatism. And his admirers admire him all the more for it. They aren't interested in consistency, they're interested in a "strong" leader, by which they mean someone who will unashamedly give voice to their resentments -- of foreigners and of the elite. That should sound alarmingly familiar.

So yes, Trump doesn't intend to force Apple to make its computers here. But if he gets elected and it serves his purposes he'll try. If he fails, he'll just point that as proof he has to have more power.

Re:Trump just says stuff

[DarkOx]

If you vote republican and accept Medicare and social security you are a hypocrite.

Hardly! That is not how a representative democracy works. You vote for who and to a lessor extent how you think things ought to be and then you play by the rules the winners set for society. Its does not make someone a hypocrite for accepting medicare or social security, while voting to end them. Since that person does not get a choice about paying medicare and social security taxes while they are working, they are as entitled as everyone else to accept the benefit.

Re: Trump just says stuff

[shadowrat]

Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.

Sounds like every US president ever. What exactly was your point?

well, we know obama wasn't handed a silver spoon at birth. they don't have those in kenya :)

Re:Trump just says stuff

[tlhIngan]

The trouble is, depending on your age, you almost HAVE to take them when you get to retirement age.

This money was forceably taken from my pay over many decades, rather than giving me a choice on how best to invest it for myself. If given that choice early on in my employment history, I could have e invested it and I'd be more well off by having that money grow more, and I could use it.

But when you get close to retirement age, well....you've thrown so much money into the pot, it makes no sense not to try to draw a little of it back from the well.

Guess what? It's going to be taken from you no matter what.

People seem to think "social safety net? That's for irresponsible people". Guess what? There are irresponsible people, and they cost you and I money. Either we plan for this and accommodate the fact that there will be irresponsible people and make it so everyone gets to benefit, for we pay for it via increased costs in everything.

Let's take a few examples. Say you save for retirement. You don't want to give money for stuff that others need like social security because you're responsible, so you want to keep that money for yourself and invest it giving yourself a nice retirement account. Well, what about those who didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't? The end up on the street, and do petty crimes and all that. If they shoplift, well, the stores have to pay for the missing goods, increased security, etc., by raising prices. We all suffer because we, the responsible ones, pay for that increased cost. If they get caught and are sent through the justice system, WE again pay for the policing, the courts and the jails. In other words, we pay.

Healthcare - again, people seem to think they can buy insurance, or just save it themselves. Well, there's a group who qualified for neither, or again, could not, would not, save for health. They get sick, they go to the ER, and everyone else pays for the medical treatment. Even worse, emergency room medical treatment is among the most EXPENSIVE treatment there is - so not only are we paying for other's irresponsibility, we're paying for the most expensive care available.

I can go on and on and on. But it basically shows that you DO have to plan for others to be irresponsible because it's human nature, and if you don't, you end up paying for it. It's why countries have social security nets, national healthcare, etc - because really, you're going to pay anyhow, so why not pay to make it efficient and available to everyone rather than those who end up gaming the system and costing us all.

And it's why ideas like basic income are being reinvigorated, because we're all going to pay somehow or other.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just looking to reduce their tax bill in favor of making you pay more.

Not that I like Trump, but...

[danbob999]

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.

Re:Not that I like Trump, but...

[njnnja]

While I agree with your analysis about the fact that companies will find ways to legally avoid the tax ("loopholes"), it is unlikely that the cost of the iPhone will go up as a result. Non-commodity firms like Apple charge the highest price they can get away with in the marketplace, regardless of their costs. If they thought the same number of people would pay $50 extra for an iPhone, that is what the price tag would be already. When costs go up, in the short run, Apple just becomes less profitable because of the higher costs. In the medium run, the next generations of iPhones will tend to have a focus on cost cutting because competitors will have to lessen features to remain profitable under the new regulations, so Apple can afford to cut costs and still look better than the competition by comparison. In the long run, the decision to mass produce the next iWhatever will have to incorporate these extra costs in the evaluation of whether the total costs of R&D + production + regulatory costs are sufficiently less than the revenue they will get for it. If the costs are too great to produce the profit their investors demand, they will not produce the iWhatever.

True, apple will claim that this (or any) new government mandate will "require" them to increase prices by $x, but that is just lip service to try to avoid the policy from going into effect. And if it does go into effect anyways, then whatever extra they add onto the price is only done because they now believe that people will pay more (possibly because other manufacturers will reduce their product selection, and with decreased competition, Apple can increase prices).

Trump would 'convince' not 'force' Apple

[Jaxim]

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."

10 yrs out with robotics

[justcauseisjustthat]

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.

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:Politician-Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

If he pulls off half of what he claims, he'll make America in 2017 look a hell of a lot like Germany in 1939. Only with smartphones.