3 ms·

Apple has the resources to make them without a mess now.

unnouinceput 8y ago
No it doesn't. Even with its 100 billion cash that they sit on, they can't. That was the conclusion of the article when it said it needs to bring back the entire web. Well, getting back that web is going to cost more then 1 trillion, the entire Apple value, so no, they can't.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I don't see how that follows necessarily - there is a severe lack of details supporting their conclusions. I am aware that the supply chain is complex but you really don't need to bring back the entire supply web. That is like saying that you can't build houses because you don't have iron mines which you need for the steel foundries you don't have which you need for the nail factories. What you need to do is to start bringing back the parts which it makes sense to do so and expand from there. Assembly plants for cars sold in any significant amount makes sense period just because of the physical volume of cars vs their parts - the assembled cab takes up a lot of excess space - and that is before any tariff issues.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    What if it doesn't make sense for any parts? What if the supply web has fixed points which make it impossible to transfer it in small-enough chunks? I doubt Apple haven't considered all of this. Currently China owns this space because the country invested absolutely insane amounts of money to build supply chains and manufacturing, to staff all of the above with competent educated (and mostly docile) workers, and to build supporting infrastructure. The US (and the UK) have done the opposite - crapped all over public education, allowed infrastructure to rot, and deliberately moved manufacturing offshore, because profit. And also - in the UK at least - because it helps keep the workers from opposing you. You can't turn around an entire sector by bringing parts of the supply chain home unless there's some obvious benefit. "Patriotism" is certainly a benefit, but if it kills your margins it's a double-edged benefit at best. This is where the US political system has failed. The US (and UK) haven't had a credible industrial strategy - or actually much of a credible economic and social strategy either - since the 60s. "Leave it to the markets" turns out to be an exceedingly stupid idea over the medium and longer term. You get your profits and your frothy stock market, and you get a stand-out sector or two which keeps some of the educated middle class minority docile. But you lose your industrial autonomy and your security, the rest of your middle class shrinks to nothing+debt, and ultimately your competitors eat your lunch. In the end game - still to come - they eat you.
    - zachguo 8y ago
      Productivity per capital in US remains high. Isn't the industrial strategy simply producing weapons and waging war around world to pump up demand for weapons?
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        While the weapons industry is somethung the US leads in it is a billions of dollars industry. The US manufacturing is in trillions. The truth is that industry is doing just fine in the US - it is just largely high end and automated so it employees fewer people than services and is more arcane than just working at the plant making widgets day in and day out.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

No it doesn't. Even with its 100 billion cash that they sit on, they can't. That was the conclusion of the article when it said it needs to bring back the entire web. Well, getting back that web is going to cost more then 1 trillion, the entire Apple value, so no, they can't.

Nasrudith 8y ago
I don't see how that follows necessarily - there is a severe lack of details supporting their conclusions. I am aware that the supply chain is complex but you really don't need to bring back the entire supply web. That is like saying that you can't build houses because you don't have iron mines which you need for the steel foundries you don't have which you need for the nail factories. What you need to do is to start bringing back the parts which it makes sense to do so and expand from there. Assembly plants for cars sold in any significant amount makes sense period just because of the physical volume of cars vs their parts - the assembled cab takes up a lot of excess space - and that is before any tariff issues.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  What if it doesn't make sense for any parts? What if the supply web has fixed points which make it impossible to transfer it in small-enough chunks? I doubt Apple haven't considered all of this. Currently China owns this space because the country invested absolutely insane amounts of money to build supply chains and manufacturing, to staff all of the above with competent educated (and mostly docile) workers, and to build supporting infrastructure. The US (and the UK) have done the opposite - crapped all over public education, allowed infrastructure to rot, and deliberately moved manufacturing offshore, because profit. And also - in the UK at least - because it helps keep the workers from opposing you. You can't turn around an entire sector by bringing parts of the supply chain home unless there's some obvious benefit. "Patriotism" is certainly a benefit, but if it kills your margins it's a double-edged benefit at best. This is where the US political system has failed. The US (and UK) haven't had a credible industrial strategy - or actually much of a credible economic and social strategy either - since the 60s. "Leave it to the markets" turns out to be an exceedingly stupid idea over the medium and longer term. You get your profits and your frothy stock market, and you get a stand-out sector or two which keeps some of the educated middle class minority docile. But you lose your industrial autonomy and your security, the rest of your middle class shrinks to nothing+debt, and ultimately your competitors eat your lunch. In the end game - still to come - they eat you.
  - zachguo 8y ago
    Productivity per capital in US remains high. Isn't the industrial strategy simply producing weapons and waging war around world to pump up demand for weapons?
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      While the weapons industry is somethung the US leads in it is a billions of dollars industry. The US manufacturing is in trillions. The truth is that industry is doing just fine in the US - it is just largely high end and automated so it employees fewer people than services and is more arcane than just working at the plant making widgets day in and day out.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]