US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

Ok, I get that. But what's the alternative here?

I remember when Trump was taunting Apple during the election, saying he'd make them bring iPhone production back to the states. There was a study that showed each iPhone would average around $2000 or so if that happened.

Do you have a link to that? It would be interesting to know their methodology for coming up with that price. Just because I would imagine that they probably didn't take into account different manufacturing techniques.

I remember reading in an article a few years ago that an iPad goes through 300 pairs of hands during assembly in China. If they just took 300 and multiplied it by the wage people would get here in the West that is a totally flawed design since if it was made here, there would be a lot more robots involved.

I think the only reason manufacturing in China is so cheap is because it's largely done by hand and there is no initial investment in setting up an assembly line. To give a comparison the Steam controller is built entirely in the US and it retails for the same price as any other console controller ($79.99 over here). However almost the entire thing is assembled by robots. Then there was also that line of Motorola phones that were built in the US before Google bought them and shut down production.

Rightey wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

Ok, I get that. But what's the alternative here?

I remember when Trump was taunting Apple during the election, saying he'd make them bring iPhone production back to the states. There was a study that showed each iPhone would average around $2000 or so if that happened.

Do you have a link to that? It would be interesting to know their methodology for coming up with that price. Just because I would imagine that they probably didn't take into account different manufacturing techniques.

I remember reading in an article a few years ago that an iPad goes through 300 pairs of hands during assembly in China. If they just took 300 and multiplied it by the wage people would get here in the West that is a totally flawed design since if it was made here, there would be a lot more robots involved.

I think the only reason manufacturing in China is so cheap is because it's largely done by hand and there is no initial investment in setting up an assembly line. To give a comparison the Steam controller is built entirely in the US and it retails for the same price as any other console controller ($79.99 over here). However almost the entire thing is assembled by robots. Then there was also that line of Motorola phones that were built in the US before Google bought them and shut down production.

The date puts it a bit before the Trump goading but here's one:

https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/ ... phone-cost

Rassweiler says making all of the iPhone’s parts in the U.S. would push the price of the iPhone’s components from $190 to around $600.

"If the materials alone are costing $600," says Rassweilier, "it stands to reason, that same iPhone could cost, perhaps, $2,000 at retail

."

The iPhone X is $999, it’s not that ridiculous to think that a US manufactured iPhone would cost $2000.

In reality I’d imagine Apple would take a hit on their profit rather than sell it for $2k, but they’d still ramp up the price.

Healthiest man in history is on a diet:

Trump Swaps His Beloved Burgers for Salads and Soups in New Diet

Donald Trump has traded cheeseburgers for salads in the presidential diet -- at least some of the time.

The president whose trademark campaign-trail dinner consisted of two McDonald’s Big Macs, two Filet-o-Fish sandwiches and a chocolate milkshake is cutting back on doctor’s orders to drop a few pounds, according to three people familiar with the matter. Less red meat, more fish.

One person said it’s been two weeks since he saw the president eat a hamburger.

Trump weighed in borderline obese at his first presidential physical in January and his doctor, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, advised him to eat less fat and carbohydrates and to exercise regularly. At 239 pounds and 6 feet, 3 inches tall, Trump measured just one pound below obese under guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It’s not just the president. Jackson and the vice president’s doctor are pushing healthy food choices throughout the West Wing.

Trump so far has embraced the new regimen, giving aides the impression he feels he is thriving on his new diet, they said.

Still, he is allowing himself indulgences. He ate bacon at breakfast one day this week.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium=social

I find Reggies understanding of trade and economics very basic, saying Coors won’t have to lay people off because of their profit margin is hilarious and to moggy’s point, yeah the iPhone would easily cost twice as much if it was made in the US

Regginator3 wrote:

KK wrote:

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969312711371886594

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969313202780688385

For a company that reported a 60% profit margin one quarter last year, in an industry where the average profit margin is around ~40%, which has received heavy tax breaks, to say a 10% tariff in the cost of aluminium will "lead to job losses" is ridiculous.

And even if they did, they could raise their prices ever-so-slightly to account for this. It's not like this would mean a 10% increase on their entire product, since aluminium is not the bulk of their product.

Corporations are not doing what they do for fun. They will never willingly sacrifice profit, even if that means job losses. Look at what happened with the Living Wage over here: as soon as companies were forced to pay more per hour they cut perks, cut overtime and cut jobs to make sure their margins never dipped.

Coors are simply being (sort of) honest. If the tariff is imposed, jobs will be cut.

Photek wrote:I find Reggies understanding of trade and economics very basic, saying Coors won’t have to lay people off because of their profit margin is hilarious and to moggy’s point, yeah the iPhone would easily cost twice as much if it was made in the US

Why is it "hilarious"? You're just insulting my understanding without explaining why, it's an easy post to make when you don't actually have to counter a point, at least Tafdolphin responded. I don't think it's fair to say that my understanding of this is basic.

Tafdolphin wrote:Corporations are not doing what they do for fun. They will never willingly sacrifice profit, even if that means job losses. Look at what happened with the Living Wage over here: as soon as companies were forced to pay more per hour they cut perks, cut overtime and cut jobs to make sure their margins never dipped.

Coors are simply being (sort of) honest. If the tariff is imposed, jobs will be cut.

There is a difference between cutting jobs as a result of regulation of income, and cutting jobs as a result of the introduction of tariffs. Companies will lay off employees if they need to - yes, with the Living Wage, companies did cut perks/overtime/jobs, but the issue was that the Living Wage only really affected companies not already paying the living wage, and where these employees were now of less value to the company than the wage paid. That was a direct regulation on employee income, not on the manufacturing process, and in response to the changes they stuck to the new regulation. Companies that were already paying over the living wage obviously felt no effect. With tariffs, it's a different matter, because job losses would actually make things harder for them - firing employees would arguably cut down on their overall profit, as it leaves them with less valuable employees. Less employees + bigger cost for aluminium does not give them more profit, it gives them less, unless they specifically replace the employees with automation (in which case the tariffs would just act as a wake-up call to adopt such technologies, rather than being the root cause of this). They hire employees for a reason - because their contribution to the company is of a greater value to the company than the wage they are paid. Firing them would just be getting rid of this excess value.

Tafdolphin wrote:The date puts it a bit before the Trump goading but here's one:

https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/ ... phone-cost

Rassweiler says making all of the iPhone’s parts in the U.S. would push the price of the iPhone’s components from $190 to around $600.

"If the materials alone are costing $600," says Rassweilier, "it stands to reason, that same iPhone could cost, perhaps, $2,000 at retail

."

Thanks for the link, from the article it seems like they are just tripling the cost of the labour, since they said labour costs 2 to 3 times more in the US than in China (I'm actually really surprised that it's such a small difference). That being said there are probably components that are mostly made by robots even in China, like the screen where you wouldn't see any big cost savings if you moved the production to the US.

Still Motorola showed it definitely is possible to produce a phone in the west and still have it make a profit. One interesting thing they pointed out which I never really thought of is that it said 2 out of 3 apple users live outside the US. It's pretty interesting and not something we normally think about. How would the Chinese Apple users react if the production moved to the US?

Garth wrote:Healthiest man in history is on a diet:
Trump Swaps His Beloved Burgers for Salads and Soups in New Diet

How is this even news

Sorry Reggie I thought it was obvious that profit margins and Job losses have no correlation with each other.

Photek wrote:Sorry Reggie I thought it was obvious that profit margins and Job losses have no correlation with each other.

They absolutely do. Highly profitable companies do not (tend to) make job cuts unless

a) they can replace them with automation (to inch some further profitability out) or
b) unless they're facing losses as the employees are less valuable than their wage packet.

Tariffs don't change the latter, because they have zero effect on employee value, though they may lead to some companies to take a more serious look at the former, in which case that's just technological progress in action, as is what happened after Bush's steel tariffs at the end of 2001. You can argue that it's an accelerator for job losses of course but that was going to happen at some point anyway.

Trade war with Trump? Sign me back up to the EU and let's do this!

Let's start by blocking US access to Dr Who.

They'll crumble under a tidal wave of nerd rage.

Rightey wrote:

Garth wrote:Healthiest man in history is on a diet:
Trump Swaps His Beloved Burgers for Salads and Soups in New Diet

How is this even news

How dare you question the newsworthiness of President Kardashian's new diet. He's gonna be rockin' a cray fabulous dad bod by the summer.

You just strawberry floating *knew* that term limits being removed for Xi Jinping would put ideas into Trump's head:

Trump on China's Xi consolidating power: 'Maybe we'll give that a shot some day'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/poli ... index.html

Saint of Killers wrote:You just strawberry floating *knew* that term limits being removed for Xi Jinping would put ideas into Trump's head:

Trump on China's Xi consolidating power: 'Maybe we'll give that a shot some day'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/poli ... index.html

My understanding is that there’s no binding need for the President to step down after two terms, but it’s an unwritten rule. FDR stood for three, though he is the only person to have done it and I guess the circumstances were quite exceptional.

Saint of Killers wrote:You just strawberry floating *knew* that term limits being removed for Xi Jinping would put ideas into Trump's head:

Trump on China's Xi consolidating power: 'Maybe we'll give that a shot some day'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/poli ... index.html

You just know that he has never heard how long FDR was President.

.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:You just strawberry floating *knew* that term limits being removed for Xi Jinping would put ideas into Trump's head:

Trump on China's Xi consolidating power: 'Maybe we'll give that a shot some day'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/poli ... index.html

My understanding is that there’s no binding need for the President to step down after two terms, but it’s an unwritten rule. FDR stood for three, though he is the only person to have done it and I guess the circumstances were quite exceptional.

The depression? Oh god! That explains TRADE WAR! Or was it WWII? Oh god! That explains EVERYTHING ELSE!

Moggy wrote:You just know that he has never heard how long FDR was President.

...

The world is officially strawberry floated.

I actually don't see what's wrong necessarily with removing term limits, as long as the rules within the terms are obeyed. If the US public want to self harm and vote Trump for a third/fourth term, that's up to them...

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:You just strawberry floating *knew* that term limits being removed for Xi Jinping would put ideas into Trump's head:

Trump on China's Xi consolidating power: 'Maybe we'll give that a shot some day'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/poli ... index.html

My understanding is that there’s no binding need for the President to step down after two terms, but it’s an unwritten rule. FDR stood for three, though he is the only person to have done it and I guess the circumstances were quite exceptional.

When FDR did it, it was an unwritten rule but afterwards the 22nd amendment was passed putting it into the constitution.