Trump's dream of a US-made iPhone clashes with Apple's manufacturing reality

I was laughing at a MAGA comment I read today that all those people that lost their jobs in the 70s and 80s to foreign manufacturing want them back.

Yes, apart from the fact those people are now either retired or dead. Everything I see from these pro MAGA people is incredibly stupid.

This generation of Americans do not want to do the jobs of their grandparents anyway. That's why there are about a million American women on Onlyfans. A literal million.

I think manufacturing has been in decline because the U.S. had been entering late capitalism, but even faster because the dollar was being used as a global reserve currency.

Meanwhile, to pay for jobs that most Americans want, the U.S. has to take on increasing debt, which in turn requires that the same dollar be used as a global reserve currency, because the same strong dollar has led to continuous trade deficits since the 1970s.

In short, all countries eventually move away from manufacturing (e.g., Singapore used to make textiles and Taiwan slippers, and then they moved to computer peripherals and internals, and then financing with some manufacturing left) as they experiencing late capitalism, but at the same time they're reliant on financial speculation and cheap labor and resources from other countries.

Which those other countries don't like because they want to grow richer, too. In short, ironically, they're also in the same situation as the U.S. was in the past: people working in factories but want to enter the service sector as economies improve.

Reminds me of news in China of more factory workers moving to fastfood franchises that pay more.
 
The US has now a minimum of 10% import tax called Trump Tariffs. It is like VAT. Exactly like VAT except it is not written separately on the posted price so magats can be fooled.

You guys threw some tea into the Boston Harbour at some point, just to make a point over taxes imposed by a tyrant… However now you seem think French Roast Coffee is actually French so I don’t have much hope for you anymore.
If you think a tariff is exactly like VAT then I cant take anything you say seriously because you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Just clarify, a tariff is placed on goods as they enter the country, its paid for by the vendor. VAT is a sales tax placed on goods at the point of sale within a country.

I must say, its wild how many fully grown adults there are in this world who dont know basic economics.
 
If you think a tariff is exactly like VAT then I cant take anything you say seriously because you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Just clarify, a tariff is placed on goods as they enter the country, its paid for by the vendor. VAT is a sales tax placed on goods at the point of sale within a country.

I must say, its wild how many fully grown adults there are in this world who dont know basic economics.
Or basic math... :)
 
If you think a tariff is exactly like VAT then I cant take anything you say seriously because you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Just clarify, a tariff is placed on goods as they enter the country, its paid for by the vendor. VAT is a sales tax placed on goods at the point of sale within a country.

I must say, its wild how many fully grown adults there are in this world who dont know basic economics.
You make me laugh. A tariff is paid by the local importer of the goods, NOT by the exporter. So a 10% tariff on imports means the US population pays a 10% tax on everything sourced outside the US. So it is not a VAT but a TAT (Tariff Added Tax) (or Trump Added Tax?)
When the already existing imported stock of goods depletes, and your local US importers replenish it, they will have to pay the Trump tariffs to bring the goods in at the US ports of entry. When the goods are reaching the store shelves they will reflect that price increase and you will pay it.
Wild indeed how many full grown US adults know f all.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1chE6f2Oof4tJ6oT8whCUbBhnKMYadF3b/view?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
You make me laugh. A tariff is paid by the local importer of the goods, NOT by the exporter. So a 10% tariff on imports means the US population pays a 10% tax on everything sourced outside the US. So it is not a VAT but a TAT (Tariff Added Tax) (or Trump Added Tax?)
When the already existing imported stock of goods depletes, and your local US importers replenish it, they will have to pay the Trump tariffs to bring the goods in at the US ports of entry. When the goods are reaching the store shelves they will reflect that price increase and you will pay it.
Wild indeed how many full grown US adults know f all.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1chE6f2Oof4tJ6oT8whCUbBhnKMYadF3b/view?usp=sharing
Oh dear, you are humiliating yourself my friend! A tariff Is actually paid by both the importer or the exporter. Its just applied to goods moving into a country whether that be by an entity in or out of a country.

Its good to see the tariffs are working with America getting concessions and world leaders announcing that they want to make a deal.

I feel sorry for the people who are consumed by hatred for Donald Trump that cant see the forest through the trees. Also Biden implemented many tariffs so calling it a TAT just shows how little you actually know about what is going on.
 
Oh dear, you are humiliating yourself my friend! A tariff Is actually paid by both the importer or the exporter. Its just applied to goods moving into a country whether that be by an entity in or out of a country.

Its good to see the tariffs are working with America getting concessions and world leaders announcing that they want to make a deal.

I feel sorry for the people who are consumed by hatred for Donald Trump that cant see the forest through the trees. Also Biden implemented many tariffs so calling it a TAT just shows how little you actually know about what is going on.
Please educate yourself, OK? Then speak.

“While tariffs are often described as a tax on foreign businesses and do place an economic burden on foreign exporters, the costs are often borne by consumers in the country that is imposing them. Tariffs directly increase the cost of domestic sales by artificially increasing the price on imports.”
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/gl...-,Tariff,economic burden on foreign exporters.
 
Please educate yourself, OK? Then speak.

“While tariffs are often described as a tax on foreign businesses and do place an economic burden on foreign exporters, the costs are often borne by consumers in the country that is imposing them. Tariffs directly increase the cost of domestic sales by artificially increasing the price on imports.”
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/tariffs/#:~:text=Search-,Tariff,economic burden on foreign exporters.
You are the one who needs an education my very young friend. And im glad that you finally put tariff in google. So now you know what it is!

Theres no guarantee that the tariffs will be borne by the US population if Trump implements them. Economists would say that high demand goods would see tariffs included in the price but for everything else its likely that the company selling them would eat the cost.

But its overwhelmingly obvious that Trumps tariff strategy is to get people to give the USA concessions and its working very well so I dont really see why anyone should oppose it.
 
You are the one who needs an education my very young friend. And im glad that you finally put tariff in google. So now you know what it is!

Theres no guarantee that the tariffs will be borne by the US population if Trump implements them. Economists would say that high demand goods would see tariffs included in the price but for everything else its likely that the company selling them would eat the cost.

But its overwhelmingly obvious that Trumps tariff strategy is to get people to give the USA concessions and its working very well so I dont really see why anyone should oppose it.
Are you sure you're not a bot or something?
Because information on tariffs is widely available and the fact that they raise the prices for the US is widely known. So known that your Beloved Leader blinked. Again.

Here's the news:
"Trump Adds Tariff Exemptions for Smartphones, Computers and Other Electronics
A long list of electronic products got a reprieve for now from at least some of the levies on China, which had been expected to take a toll on tech giants like Apple.

After more than a week of ratcheting up tariffs on products imported from China, the Trump administration issued a rule late Friday that spared smartphones, computers, semiconductors and other electronics from some of the fees, in a significant break for tech companies like Apple and Dell and the prices of iPhones and other consumer electronics.

A message posted late Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection included a long list of products that would not face the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed in recent days on Chinese goods as part of a worsening trade war. The exclusions would also apply to modems, routers, flash drives and other technology goods, which are largely not made in the United States.

The moves were the first major exemptions for Chinese goods, which would have wide-ranging implications for the U.S. economy if they persist. Tech giants such as Apple and Nvidia would largely sidestep punitive taxes that could slash their profits. Consumers — some of whom rushed to buy iPhones this past week — would avoid major potential price increases on smartphones, computers and other gadgets. And the exemptions could dampen additional inflation and calm the turmoil that many economists feared might lead to a recession."

So... no, you are wrong about everything. Your own Trump blinked again when he finally pulled out his little abacus and figured out what damage his tariffs on China would do to a significant chunk of the US economy represented by giants like Apple, Dell, Google and others, giants who helped the US reap a neat 295 billion surplus on the services trade in 2024 alone (and hundreds upon hundreds of billions in the last 20 years or so).

Only the lunatics in Trump's administration insist tariffs are paid by others not the US.

And do pray tell which concessions he got from China this time around before backing down, tail between his legs? I'm asking because you keep insisting this sad joke is "working very well".
 
Last edited:
Enjoy the new Iphones, you better for 2300$ a piece. :)))))))))))))))))
It's not that simple as much of the price is state taxes, retailer's charges, transport costs, Apple US royalties, chip design and software etc.
Moreover, a major component isn't made in China but in Taiwan at TMSC.
 
Oh dear, you are humiliating yourself my friend! A tariff Is actually paid by both the importer or the exporter. Its just applied to goods moving into a country whether that be by an entity in or out of a country.

Its good to see the tariffs are working with America getting concessions and world leaders announcing that they want to make a deal.

I feel sorry for the people who are consumed by hatred for Donald Trump that cant see the forest through the trees. Also Biden implemented many tariffs so calling it a TAT just shows how little you actually know about what is going on.

The one importing pays for the tariff, which is why it's also known as an import duty.

It's up to the importer to decide how to cover that. He can increase his prices or absorb the cost.

Small companies and those with low margins and have been relying on cheap labor from overseas will be affected. Larger ones with high profits, especially those that appear in stock exchanges and have overvalued worth, will absorb them.

In addition, this is like the issue concerning immigration. Many of Trump's critics complained that anti-immigration will affect prices, unwittingly admitting that they're utterly reliant on exploiting cheap labor from foreigners.
 
The one importing pays for the tariff, which is why it's also known as an import duty.

It's up to the importer to decide how to cover that. He can increase his prices or absorb the cost.

Small companies and those with low margins and have been relying on cheap labor from overseas will be affected. Larger ones with high profits, especially those that appear in stock exchanges and have overvalued worth, will absorb them.
No company can absorb a 30-40% tariff, let alone a 145% one, no matter how big they are. In the short term they either stop importing or pass the grand majority of those tariffs to the customers. If they survive the short term they may, in the long term (a few years) start beginning manufacturing in the US, for that market alone. If there is stability. If not, those companies will take the hit and start ignoring the US market which it will not be as difficult as it seams, as the US market itself will shrink.

Tariffs are usually a lose-lose situation. That’s the reality.
 
No company can absorb a 30-40% tariff, let alone a 145% one, no matter how big they are. In the short term they either stop importing or pass the grand majority of those tariffs to the customers. If they survive the short term they may, in the long term (a few years) start beginning manufacturing in the US, for that market alone. If there is stability. If not, those companies will take the hit and start ignoring the US market which it will not be as difficult as it seams, as the US market itself will shrink.

Tariffs are usually a lose-lose situation. That’s the reality.

It can if raw materials are imported and they make up a fraction of the total cost.

For example, the labor costs plus materials to make branded, popular sports shoes in the states make up around 25 percent of the same. The next 25 percent goes to research, and 50 percent goes to marketing.

The same applies to popular, branded jeans, etc.

That means a tariff of around 40 percent will lead to a 10-percent increase.

About that lose-lose situation, many don't know that the labor costs to make those shoes is around a dollar or so. In which case, it's actually a win-lose situation: the one buying the cheap products wins and the one providing the cheap labor doesn't. That reminds me of recent news about contractors complaining that the illegal immigration policies will lead to higher building costs. Apparently, the country had been exploiting foreigners for cheap labor throughout. Meanwhile, foreigners were accepting that because it was better than what they were being paid at home. It's as if mainstream society wants that arrangement to be permanent: the middle class gaining from cheap labor, and the poor providing that to them.

This also explains why many developing countries, including several among BRICS and emerging markets, had been using tariffs all along to protect their industries and thus allow them to grow. Many don't know that, too. In that case, it's a lose-win situation: the U.S. doesn't sell much while developing countries get to sell more to them.

Which is inevitable because there's a third thing many don't know: the U.S. has been experiencing growing trade deficits since 1975, which means it's been buying (and spending) more than it's been selling, and more each year, for decades. How was it able to do that? It's been racking up increasing amounts of debt each time. But how can only country do that? Easy if you're currency's used as a global reserve.

Put simply, these countries which had been imposing tariffs on U.S. products for decades to protect their industries had also been relying on the dollar for trade, which made that dollar very strong, and in turn allowed the U.S. to borrow more against itself. And the U.S. had to borrow more because the same strong dollar made many of its products too expensive too many, and worsened when the same countries expected to buy from them imposed tariffs. Finally, the same countries need to industrialize, which means they need to keep producing and selling, which means the U.S. is expected to keep buying, which means the U.S. is expected to take on more debt in order to buy more.

But there's a catch: more of the same countries have become richer, and because of that they want to move away from the dollar. Why? Because in order to keep them weak, and thus dependent on the dollar all of the time, the U.S. had been using its military industrial complex to keep them weak through destabilization, war, and onerous foreign aid and loan policies like structural adjustment.

Do you see the contradictions? Developing countries need the U.S. to keep buying and borrowing so that they can sell more and become stronger economically, but that means being dependent on the dollar for trade. But when they become stronger economically, then they want to move away from the dollar, which means the U.S. can no longer borrow more, and thus can't spend more.

And what do you think will happen after that?
 
It can if raw materials are imported and they make up a fraction of the total cost.

For example, the labor costs plus materials to make branded, popular sports shoes in the states make up around 25 percent of the same. The next 25 percent goes to research, and 50 percent goes to marketing.

The same applies to popular, branded jeans, etc.

That means a tariff of around 40 percent will lead to a 10-percent increase.

About that lose-lose situation, many don't know that the labor costs to make those shoes is around a dollar or so. In which case, it's actually a win-lose situation: the one buying the cheap products wins and the one providing the cheap labor doesn't. That reminds me of recent news about contractors complaining that the illegal immigration policies will lead to higher building costs. Apparently, the country had been exploiting foreigners for cheap labor throughout. Meanwhile, foreigners were accepting that because it was better than what they were being paid at home. It's as if mainstream society wants that arrangement to be permanent: the middle class gaining from cheap labor, and the poor providing that to them.

This also explains why many developing countries, including several among BRICS and emerging markets, had been using tariffs all along to protect their industries and thus allow them to grow. Many don't know that, too. In that case, it's a lose-win situation: the U.S. doesn't sell much while developing countries get to sell more to them.

Which is inevitable because there's a third thing many don't know: the U.S. has been experiencing growing trade deficits since 1975, which means it's been buying (and spending) more than it's been selling, and more each year, for decades. How was it able to do that? It's been racking up increasing amounts of debt each time. But how can only country do that? Easy if you're currency's used as a global reserve.

Put simply, these countries which had been imposing tariffs on U.S. products for decades to protect their industries had also been relying on the dollar for trade, which made that dollar very strong, and in turn allowed the U.S. to borrow more against itself. And the U.S. had to borrow more because the same strong dollar made many of its products too expensive too many, and worsened when the same countries expected to buy from them imposed tariffs. Finally, the same countries need to industrialize, which means they need to keep producing and selling, which means the U.S. is expected to keep buying, which means the U.S. is expected to take on more debt in order to buy more.

But there's a catch: more of the same countries have become richer, and because of that they want to move away from the dollar. Why? Because in order to keep them weak, and thus dependent on the dollar all of the time, the U.S. had been using its military industrial complex to keep them weak through destabilization, war, and onerous foreign aid and loan policies like structural adjustment.

Do you see the contradictions? Developing countries need the U.S. to keep buying and borrowing so that they can sell more and become stronger economically, but that means being dependent on the dollar for trade. But when they become stronger economically, then they want to move away from the dollar, which means the U.S. can no longer borrow more, and thus can't spend more.

And what do you think will happen after that?
So, it is a lose-lose in the end, due to all the contradictions, right?
To get out of all this situation US has created for themselves, you would imagine the US leading an economic coalition of Western allies applying some overtime increasing tariff pressure to net exporting countries such as China and others.
Please note that all I’m saying is:
1. The US and the west have to get themselves out of this very real situation.
2. The way the US is acting on this is akin to the clowns taking over the circus and chaotically harassing everyone.
 
So, it is a lose-lose in the end, due to all the contradictions, right?
To get out of all this situation US has created for themselves, you would imagine the US leading an economic coalition of Western allies applying some overtime increasing tariff pressure to net exporting countries such as China and others.
Please note that all I’m saying is:
1. The US and the west have to get themselves out of this very real situation.
2. The way the US is acting on this is akin to the clowns taking over the circus and chaotically harassing everyone.

It's not so much the U.S. creating a problem for themselves but a global currency needed for stability. Here's what I remember:

Right after WW2, the allies realized that the world needed a global reserve currency in order to prevent future world wars. The U.S. dollar was used because that time the U.S. had the strongest economy in the world (and hardly damaged by WW2), with a quarter of world oil production, the largest manufacturing base, the largest gold reserve, and lots of natural resources and labor power.

True enough, many countries started using the dollar for trade, but they needed to recover economically from WW2, if not industrialize. And they could only do that by selling more and buying less.

After around two decades, they started doing that, starting with European countries, and then Japan, and with U.S. companies licensing to meet demands for foreign markets. That's how the transistor industries in Taiwan and Japan rose, together with all sorts of electronic devices from Japan.

A decade after, the U.S. began to experience trade deficits even as it battled the Iron Curtain. It dropped the gold standard as more allies became wary of increasing U.S. costs even as they and others became recipients of those costs, via increased spending from the U.S. (and thus increased sales and earnings for them), and made deals with Saudi Arabia and OPEC to price oil in dollars, thus retaining the importance of the currency.

But a few years later, even as other Asian countries joined Japan in making their economies stronger thanks to protecting them plus using the dollar for trade and relying on the U.S. and others to buy what they sell, in comes China, which with two tweaks in economic policies (disavowal of the ban on private property, and forming export zones in partnership with foreign companies) began to industrialize as well. It, too, availed of the use of the dollar for trade, foreign capital, and foreign markets to sell its goods.

This was followed by financial deregulation in the states needed to continue spending, the fall of the Iron Curtain, etc.

Thus, in many ways, the U.S. created this problem for themselves, but so did the rest of the world: everyone's expecting the U.S. to continue borrowing and spending, and to the point where U.S. debts are now so high it has to keep borrowing just to pay for part of the interest of previous debts, and then move slowly away from the dollar as they become richer, leaving the U.S. with a ton of debt. Will the U.S. default if that happens? Will China and Japan, which hold a lot of U.S. treasuries, demand control of U.S. physical assets as payment? Will the U.S. military industrial complex, which has been keeping various countries weak to keep their labor and resources cheap, and which is dependent on increased military spending, accept that?

At the same time, if the U.S. defaults, wouldn't it drag down the rest of the world, which has large amounts of dollars earned from sales to the U.S. and to others?

This also reminds me of the recent news where anti-Trumpists reported on U.S. contractors complaining about illegal immigration policies leading to higher building costs. The same people who had been calling for protecting human rights and calling Trump a "tyrant" had been essentially dependent on cheap labor from foreigners, and ironically wanted to maintain that.

It's like calling for keeping tariffs low so that they can avail of cheap labor and resources from poorer countries, while the latter want the same because they need the sales and earnings.

Given that, what's the solution? I think the only way is for countries like China and Japan to start buying from the states. That will weaken the dollar but reverse U.S. trade deficits, thus allowing for a decrease in debt.

Trump tried that during his first term, remember, and China accepted by buying more U.S. products, but after that it stopped. Meanwhile, the Biden admin, unknown to its supporters, continued Trump's America First tariff policies because it likely realized all of the points I raised above. Heck, even Biden's Inflation Reduction Act uses MAGA policies.
 
It's not so much the U.S. creating a problem for themselves but a global currency needed for stability. Here's what I remember:

Right after WW2, the allies realized that the world needed a global reserve currency in order to prevent future world wars. The U.S. dollar was used because that time the U.S. had the strongest economy in the world (and hardly damaged by WW2), with a quarter of world oil production, the largest manufacturing base, the largest gold reserve, and lots of natural resources and labor power.

True enough, many countries started using the dollar for trade, but they needed to recover economically from WW2, if not industrialize. And they could only do that by selling more and buying less.

After around two decades, they started doing that, starting with European countries, and then Japan, and with U.S. companies licensing to meet demands for foreign markets. That's how the transistor industries in Taiwan and Japan rose, together with all sorts of electronic devices from Japan.

A decade after, the U.S. began to experience trade deficits even as it battled the Iron Curtain. It dropped the gold standard as more allies became wary of increasing U.S. costs even as they and others became recipients of those costs, via increased spending from the U.S. (and thus increased sales and earnings for them), and made deals with Saudi Arabia and OPEC to price oil in dollars, thus retaining the importance of the currency.

But a few years later, even as other Asian countries joined Japan in making their economies stronger thanks to protecting them plus using the dollar for trade and relying on the U.S. and others to buy what they sell, in comes China, which with two tweaks in economic policies (disavowal of the ban on private property, and forming export zones in partnership with foreign companies) began to industrialize as well. It, too, availed of the use of the dollar for trade, foreign capital, and foreign markets to sell its goods.

This was followed by financial deregulation in the states needed to continue spending, the fall of the Iron Curtain, etc.

Thus, in many ways, the U.S. created this problem for themselves, but so did the rest of the world: everyone's expecting the U.S. to continue borrowing and spending, and to the point where U.S. debts are now so high it has to keep borrowing just to pay for part of the interest of previous debts, and then move slowly away from the dollar as they become richer, leaving the U.S. with a ton of debt. Will the U.S. default if that happens? Will China and Japan, which hold a lot of U.S. treasuries, demand control of U.S. physical assets as payment? Will the U.S. military industrial complex, which has been keeping various countries weak to keep their labor and resources cheap, and which is dependent on increased military spending, accept that?

At the same time, if the U.S. defaults, wouldn't it drag down the rest of the world, which has large amounts of dollars earned from sales to the U.S. and to others?

This also reminds me of the recent news where anti-Trumpists reported on U.S. contractors complaining about illegal immigration policies leading to higher building costs. The same people who had been calling for protecting human rights and calling Trump a "tyrant" had been essentially dependent on cheap labor from foreigners, and ironically wanted to maintain that.

It's like calling for keeping tariffs low so that they can avail of cheap labor and resources from poorer countries, while the latter want the same because they need the sales and earnings.

Given that, what's the solution? I think the only way is for countries like China and Japan to start buying from the states. That will weaken the dollar but reverse U.S. trade deficits, thus allowing for a decrease in debt.

Trump tried that during his first term, remember, and China accepted by buying more U.S. products, but after that it stopped. Meanwhile, the Biden admin, unknown to its supporters, continued Trump's America First tariff policies because it likely realized all of the points I raised above. Heck, even Biden's Inflation Reduction Act uses MAGA policies.
I agree on most points as I agree that obviously something needed to be done.

As the history goes, China did not become the massive manufacturing powerhouse it is overnight, it was boosted mainly by the “China Gold Rush” started in the mid ‘90s and only accelerating in the ‘00s. I personally witnessed, right here in Canada, the mad drive to relocate in China everything that was not bolted down. I was working in the manufacturing sector, still am. Please don’t leave this China Gold Rush out next time you go through history. Without it China would not be in the position of purchasing a single dime of US debt in 2008-2009 (another American-made self inflicted wound which affected the whole world)

You also overlook some of the ill the effects of Trump’s first round of tariffs for China, like the collapse of America’s soy production. Soy farmers had to be bailed out twice to a total closing on 40 billion dollars after China simply switched their soy imports to Brazil, now the number one exporter worldwide.

I also welcome the acknowledgement that Biden wasn’t all bad actually. I seem to recall TSMC building new fabs in Arizona, Hyundai building a new plant in Georgia and a new steel one in Louisiana, or Toyota putting up a new battery manufacturing in North Carolina, just to mention a few out of the many examples of a trend started by the Biden’s administration with joint democratic and republican Congressional support. Sure TSMC and others, like Apple, are opening more plants in US and that is a good thing as it doesn’t only brings the actual processes back, but also some of the technical expertise long gone from this continent. Yes, the new Apple Texas plant, a joint venture with Foxconn will bring some of that manufacturing prowess back. It is all good and it was started by the previous administration/ congress on the premise that you attract more bees with honey than vinegar.
 
I agree on most points as I agree that obviously something needed to be done.

As the history goes, China did not become the massive manufacturing powerhouse it is overnight, it was boosted mainly by the “China Gold Rush” started in the mid ‘90s and only accelerating in the ‘00s. I personally witnessed, right here in Canada, the mad drive to relocate in China everything that was not bolted down. I was working in the manufacturing sector, still am. Please don’t leave this China Gold Rush out next time you go through history. Without it China would not be in the position of purchasing a single dime of US debt in 2008-2009 (another American-made self inflicted wound which affected the whole world)

You also overlook some of the ill the effects of Trump’s first round of tariffs for China, like the collapse of America’s soy production. Soy farmers had to be bailed out twice to a total closing on 40 billion dollars after China simply switched their soy imports to Brazil, now the number one exporter worldwide.

I also welcome the acknowledgement that Biden wasn’t all bad actually. I seem to recall TSMC building new fabs in Arizona, Hyundai building a new plant in Georgia and a new steel one in Louisiana, or Toyota putting up a new battery manufacturing in North Carolina, just to mention a few out of the many examples of a trend started by the Biden’s administration with joint democratic and republican Congressional support. Sure TSMC and others, like Apple, are opening more plants in US and that is a good thing as it doesn’t only brings the actual processes back, but also some of the technical expertise long gone from this continent. Yes, the new Apple Texas plant, a joint venture with Foxconn will bring some of that manufacturing prowess back. It is all good and it was started by the previous administration/ congress on the premise that you attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

I can't find any reference to the "China Gold Rush". From what I know, their policies started almost two decades earlier, with Deng dropping two of four policies and tweaked the other two, allowing for private property and then opening four export zones in the south, from which deals were made with foreign partners to manufacture.

About soy production, I think the U.S. agri industry had been experiencing problems since the 1970s and was heavily subsidized by government. Meanwhile, poorer countries took over due to cheap labor.

My point isn't that Biden wasn't all that bad; rather, he actually promoted MAGA, too, by continuing America First tariff policies while adding even the Inflation Reduction Act, which ironically contains MAGA policies like protectionism. Likely his officials knew what the Trump admin knows, which includes every point I raised, and are struggling to figure out what to do. Remember the time time Trump visited China and told them to buy more U.S. products, and they did but only briefly?

What makes matters worse is that MAGA is actually the overriding framework of the East Asian Miracle: protect industries that have the potential for advancement, nationalize those that have no competition (like utilities), develop infra needed for industrialization, and don't forget export orientation. Of course, the U.S. already did those back in the 1960s, but could not benefit in the long term because the dollar's used as a global reserve currency.

If any, that's the main concern of this issue, and what most still don't get: when your currency is used as for global trade, then you eventually experience the effects of the Triffin dilemma, which are chronic and growing trade deficits and increasing debt to cover spending.

Which is precisely what happened to the U.S. That's also why no one among BRICS wants their currency to be used as a global reserve, as they'll end up the same way. This also explains why they're been pushing for something like a basket of currencies coupled with special drawing rights. That's why China has been talking to Malaysia about the latter's plans in forming an Asian Monetary Fund, as they slowly move away from the dollar.

But that still brings up back to my last point: what happens when more countries (in this case BRICS and forty emerging markets) do that? Won't that leave the U.S. with a weak dollar and saddled with debt that's impossible to pay back? Won't that cause many countries with dollar reserves or investments in U.S. treasuries (like G-7 and even China) to be dragged down with the U.S.? How will the most expensive military industrial complex in the world react to that?
 
I can't find any reference to the "China Gold Rush". From what I know, their policies started almost two decades earlier, with Deng dropping two of four policies and tweaked the other two, allowing for private property and then opening four export zones in the south, from which deals were made with foreign partners to manufacture.

About soy production, I think the U.S. agri industry had been experiencing problems since the 1970s and was heavily subsidized by government. Meanwhile, poorer countries took over due to cheap labor.

My point isn't that Biden wasn't all that bad; rather, he actually promoted MAGA, too, by continuing America First tariff policies while adding even the Inflation Reduction Act, which ironically contains MAGA policies like protectionism. Likely his officials knew what the Trump admin knows, which includes every point I raised, and are struggling to figure out what to do. Remember the time time Trump visited China and told them to buy more U.S. products, and they did but only briefly?

What makes matters worse is that MAGA is actually the overriding framework of the East Asian Miracle: protect industries that have the potential for advancement, nationalize those that have no competition (like utilities), develop infra needed for industrialization, and don't forget export orientation. Of course, the U.S. already did those back in the 1960s, but could not benefit in the long term because the dollar's used as a global reserve currency.

If any, that's the main concern of this issue, and what most still don't get: when your currency is used as for global trade, then you eventually experience the effects of the Triffin dilemma, which are chronic and growing trade deficits and increasing debt to cover spending.

Which is precisely what happened to the U.S. That's also why no one among BRICS wants their currency to be used as a global reserve, as they'll end up the same way. This also explains why they're been pushing for something like a basket of currencies coupled with special drawing rights. That's why China has been talking to Malaysia about the latter's plans in forming an Asian Monetary Fund, as they slowly move away from the dollar.

But that still brings up back to my last point: what happens when more countries (in this case BRICS and forty emerging markets) do that? Won't that leave the U.S. with a weak dollar and saddled with debt that's impossible to pay back? Won't that cause many countries with dollar reserves or investments in U.S. treasuries (like G-7 and even China) to be dragged down with the U.S.? How will the most expensive military industrial complex in the world react to that?
"I" called the gutting of North American manufacturing "China Gold Rush" for brevity so of course you won't find it referenced anywhere. It did happened though. There were dedicated US firms which had only one scope: helping other companies relocate to China.

As for Biden... you seem attempting a pretty narrow, quite self contradicting point. I'm sorry if you don't see that.

The US already has a weakened position, the sellout of US Treasury Bonds is not a good sign and it will continue as the US has lost its status of reliable partner. It will take a while but the US will get what they wanted, a less connected, more self sufficient economy. And a lesser role to play in the world.

So be it.
 
"I" called the gutting of North American manufacturing "China Gold Rush" for brevity so of course you won't find it referenced anywhere. It did happened though. There were dedicated US firms which had only one scope: helping other companies relocate to China.

As for Biden... you seem attempting a pretty narrow, quite self contradicting point. I'm sorry if you don't see that.

The US already has a weakened position, the sellout of US Treasury Bonds is not a good sign and it will continue as the US has lost its status of reliable partner. It will take a while but the US will get what they wanted, a less connected, more self sufficient economy. And a lesser role to play in the world.

So be it.

I think they outsourced starting in the 1980s because labor's cheaper overseas plus they can manufacture closer to overseas markets. At the same time, more U.S. workers were looking for higher pay in the service sector, which also started in China around two decades. That's why it was also reported then that up to 40 percent of China's manufacturing's assembly, as they, too, outsourced to other Asian countries.

Your second paragraph's not clear: are you claiming that Biden didn't continue America First and that the IRA does not contain MAGA elements like protectionism?

I think the U.S. has had a weakened position since the 1980s, which is why it deregulated its financial markets, allowing for increasing debt:

 
I think they outsourced starting in the 1980s because labor's cheaper overseas plus they can manufacture closer to overseas markets. At the same time, more U.S. workers were looking for higher pay in the service sector, which also started in China around two decades. That's why it was also reported then that up to 40 percent of China's manufacturing's assembly, as they, too, outsourced to other Asian countries.

Your second paragraph's not clear: are you claiming that Biden didn't continue America First and that the IRA does not contain MAGA elements like protectionism?

I think the U.S. has had a weakened position since the 1980s, which is why it deregulated its financial markets, allowing for increasing debt:

You're off by at least a decade. If in doubt, ask yourself when was Tienanmen happening.

The second paragraph shows your contradictions. Biden bad but kept fighting China's influence with maga style policies. Which is also bad? You need to decide here: was Biden all bad or not?

The '80s saw the rise of Milton Friedman style neoliberal capitalism applied first by Reagan and Thatcher. Friedman was an adviser to both. China Gold Rush accelerated at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00's.
About Winkler's column...yawn... mixing half truth in a crusade against Krugman, without actually reading what Krugman was saying. 2008-2009 a Keynesian crisis? I thought I died laughing.
 
You're off by at least a decade. If in doubt, ask yourself when was Tienanmen happening.

The second paragraph shows your contradictions. Biden bad but kept fighting China's influence with maga style policies. Which is also bad? You need to decide here: was Biden all bad or not?

The '80s saw the rise of Milton Friedman style neoliberal capitalism applied first by Reagan and Thatcher. Friedman was an adviser to both. China Gold Rush accelerated at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00's.
About Winkler's column...yawn... mixing half truth in a crusade against Krugman, without actually reading what Krugman was saying. 2008-2009 a Keynesian crisis? I thought I died laughing.

You mean the opposite: you're off by a decade. What I'm describing took place before Tiananmen. Also, did you know what happened after the latter took place? Businesses not only came back to China they even ended up investing more, with China even receiving Most Favored Nation satus. The cute storylines about the West being offended by that or even by some genocide don't carry water because when money talks....

I didn't argue that Biden's bad.

Reaganomics took place because of the trade deficit, not because Friedman thought about it and Reagan applied the same for no reason at all.

BTW, I referred to Winkler's article only because of the chart.
 
You mean the opposite: you're off by a decade. What I'm describing took place before Tiananmen. Also, did you know what happened after the latter took place? Businesses not only came back to China they even ended up investing more, with China even receiving Most Favored Nation satus. The cute storylines about the West being offended by that or even by some genocide don't carry water because when money talks....

I didn't argue that Biden's bad.

Reaganomics took place because of the trade deficit, not because Friedman thought about it and Reagan applied the same for no reason at all.

BTW, I referred to Winkler's article only because of the chart.
Let’s agree to disagree here.
You’re going against pretty much everything, starting with Friedman continuing with Fukuyama and so on. Reagan and Tatcher were following Friedman, no matter how inconvenient it may be for your argument. You’re also Ignoring it took a good few years for Nixon’s opening to take a hold as it eventually did in 1978 with Deng Xiaoping eventually taking power.
A decade later there were around 5000 foreign firms invested there. A decade later the growth was 7 times more reaching 35000 when China ascended to WTO. It accelerated even more after. So it might have started LATE ‘70s but the Mad Rush to China happened almost 15 years later. So yes, your chronology is off.
That was the history…


I have nothing more to add to this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Let’s agree to disagree here.
You’re going against pretty much everything, starting with Friedman continuing with Fukuyama and so on. Reagan and Tatcher were following Friedman, no matter how inconvenient it may be for your argument. You’re also Ignoring it took a good few years for Nixon’s opening to take a hold as it eventually did in 1978 with Deng Xiaoping eventually taking power.
A decade later there were around 5000 foreign firms invested there. A decade later the growth was 7 times more reaching 35000 when China ascended to WTO. It accelerated even more after. So it might have started LATE ‘70s but the Mad Rush to China happened almost 15 years later. So yes, your chronology is off.
That was the history…


I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

You're still not getting it. The point is that the U.S. began experiencing growing trade deficits starting in 1975:


Where did the money needed to pay for increasing spending come from except from debt? But those are growing trade deficits across four decades. How is a country able to take on increasing amounts of debt to cover increasing amounts of spending? The answer is the Triffin dilemma: the country whose currency is used a global reserve eventually experiences trade deficits, and increasing debt to cover spending. But if that global economy continues to grow because most live in poor countries and want to become richer, then demand for that currency continues to rise, prompting for more money created.

How did they make it easier to take on increasing amount of debts? Deregulate the financial industry, which is what happened with Reaganomics.

But given increased amounts of dollars created, wouldn't the value of dollars drop? Not if demand for it continue to increase, which is what happened. How did that happen? The dollar was used as a global reserve, which kept demand high and its value strong.

But shouldn't demand for the dollar decrease if there are too many dollars in the global economy? Not if that global economy keeps growing. Why would it keep growing? Because up to 70 percent of human beings live on only a few dollars a day and want to earn more.

So you see, I didn't go against anything. The problem is that you kept living in some world where things take place in isolation. You failed to see the big picture.
 
Trump's dreams are always crashing with reality.
Trump's delusions are always crashing with reality
Fixed...

Another time honored adage, "you get what you pay for", needs a touch of updating as well. In regard to the US presidency, "you get what Elon Musk pays for", seems more "appropriate".
 
Back