- Last Active
blastdoor said:Of all the dumb things the T-admin has done or is doing, I'd say this is the least dumb, just because China is a legit threat and the US (and many others) have legit complaints about Chinese policy/behavior.
But the way this policy is being implemented, especially in the context of lots of other dumb stuff going on, means it probably isn't going to be all that effective. It might even end up backfiring. Sad!
Most of what the Trump administration has done has been far from "dumb." I would say the rollout of the original travel ban was botched. They also failed to communicate the reasons behind continued/increased "family" separation at the border. Those were mostly PR blunders, so I guess you could call them "dumb." But on policy? I'd be interested to know what you're talking about.
currentinterest said:The tariffs are a sales tax on the American people. It is one way Trump can mitigate the disastrous effects on revenue produced by his tax cut for the 1%. It hurts China sales by making them so expensive that the typical American can’t afford them. There are two separate issues, trade and IP. Trade wars do nothing to resolve IP issues. Those require a combined EU and US approach that Trump seems unable to grasp. So, he is making the IS worker pay the price, and invites retaliation against one of America’s foremost companies.
This is the kind of misinformation I see time and time again. While tariffs can be said to be a tax, they aren't exactly equivalent. They are also not being done for their own sake---they are being used as leverage. Trump's stated goal is a fair trade deal that protects our companies, IP, and overall nation. We don't have that right now.
As for the tax cut, you're wrong twice: First, revenue is not down. It is up (in fact...that's a dated article. It was up again recently). It is spending that is completely out of control. It seems like neither party particularly gives a damn about it. Secondly, the tax cut did not go exclusively to the 1%. In fact, as a percentage, the cuts benefited the lower and middle classes far more. Many people earning between 30-100K a year saw major tax deductions. The people who paid more or saw very little cut are upper middle income people in high tax states, often who take a large amount of employee business deductions (e.g me). On the corporate side, there was a significant revenue decline because of the major corporate rate cut. That is recovering as well....but it will take longer due to size of the cut. Of course, people pay taxes in the end, not corporations, so how much of that is really "lost" is up for debate.
I don't what you are talking about with "China sales." In theory, prices will go up on many items. How much really depends. I don't know what you mean by the average American not being able to afford Chinese-made goods. It's unlikely that a 25% tariff causes a direct 25% price hike. Even if long-term (and I don't think it will be), there are other mitigating factors in prices.
IP: Again, you're way off base here. IP is directly tied to trade. China does forced tech transfers, engages is corporate espionage, IP theft, and communo-captialism at alarming rates. Tell me...don't you think China stealing IP and then selling it back to us through quasi-state owned companies involves trade? The trade and tariff issue can and is being used as leverage on the IP front.
I don't know whether or not Trump understands a "combined EU-US approach," or if he thinks its necessary. I don't know what you have in mind, but it seems to me we have plenty of leverage on our own to deal with China's behavior in trade and world affairs in general. They depend on us to buy their products to the tune of a $500 billion per year trade deficit. Trump's approach has already contributed to their growth rate being 30% lower than its two-decade average. Unlike the US, China needs double digit growth to expand. 9% (about where they are) is alarming to them. 5% is a nightmare scenario. They also have 300 million people who live in abject poverty, as well as a working class that is used to rocket-like economic growth in the suburban and urban areas. The point is, they have to make a deal, and they know it. We might have some short term consequences, but the reality is that with just a few years transition, we could eliminate all trade with China and still have a growing economy. They can't do that. The only option they have is a "nuclear" scenario, where they dump trillions in U.S. treasuries onto the market. This would tank the U.S. and likely global equities markets, cause interest to skyrocket, and likely put us into a recession in short order. The problem is, that's a self-destruct button for China, for reasons I would think are obvious.
n2itivguy said:Clear waste of taxpayer dollars letting this proceed. There are alternatives to iPhones and the App Store. Ridiculous.
I don't agree. There are alternatives to the iPhone, but not the App store if you're an iPhone user. I'm not saying I agree it's an illegal monopoly (I lean towards thinking its not), but there is at least an argument there. It's not ridiculous at all, or SCOTUS wouldn't have allowed it. It means there is at least some substantial chance the plaintiffs will prevail.
corrections said:Kentfromohio said:Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity. And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price. Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums. Win/win for customers and artists.
Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away. And that is when they do it legally online. Most are political and their politics is very unattractive. So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo? And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants. I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template. If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.
Also, lots of magazines have great content that many people don’t see because they spend their free time scrolling through the Facebook feed of radical trash and outrage mongering.
Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced.
And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism.
I'm not sure how old you are or what your perspective is on the events of 20 years ago, but it's different than mine. By the time Apple started selling music through iTunes, file sharing was known to be illegal and widespread. I went back and looked up some dates....Metallica sued Napster in March of 2000. Others followed. After being sued by the RIAA, Napster was shut down by court order in early 2001. There were some attempts by the music industry to start selling online, but none reached even close to critical mass. Ripping CD's was still frowned upon by the RIAA, though there wasn't much they could do about it (save Sony's pathetic attempt to prevent it). In 2003, the iTunes Music Store debuted. It was enormously successful because there was a market for reasonably priced, legal downloads. The labels were way, way behind on this, and Apple filled the gap quickly.
Magazines are dead. Say it with me.
Apple absolutely excludes political opinions. Every platform does. And sorry, but "hatred" (however that's defined) and "violence" are not terrorism and would be protected speech were it not for it being a private platform. Advocating or inciting violence (directly) is illegal. "Hate speech" is not. You're going down a very dangerous road here when you advocate for silencing people. Very dangerous.
Quote: "And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism."
Oh boy. First, Facebook and Twitter's discrimination against conservative views is well established and unquestionable. They do not apply the same standards to all users of their platform. They ban and shadow ban conservatives routinely while ignoring blatant violations of their rules by Leftists. Secondly, I don't see how they are "recruiting" anyone into anything. Any "right wing hate and rage" (like actual Nazis and KKK members for example) is exceptionally small, not just on social media but in the nation. The KKK is estimated to have fewer than 3,600 members nationwide. Third, Russia? Are you kidding? The Russians spent $100,000 in Facebook ads both before and after the 2016 election, supporting and opposing both parties' nominees. The candidates and associated groups spent $2 billion. Their goal was to sow chaos, and they succeeded. If you actually think the Russians are running around spreading "right wing hate and rage," you might want to check your closet for monsters.
I feel like this and the previous editorials really illustrate how the change at AI over the last decade. It's one that I, quite frankly, don't like. I joined AI in early 2000, pre-Pismo Powerbook and pre-2001 blackout. For several years, AI was a place to get great hardware rumors, discussion, and even monumental political debates in Apple Outsider. All that has changed. There are few, if any, good rumors. There are fewer real scoops on what's coming. AO is gone, and the boards are policed heavily. Articles with any political content usually have comments turned off. AI has gone from an insurgent, true "insider" website to another cog in the corporate media machine. We get breathy editorials, a constant barrage of "best price" ads dressed up like news stories, and a site that might as well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple itself. Unfortunate.