4 ms·

This could lead to more actions by the Trump admin administration against European countries. Not anti-trust but Cook called Trump to complain about the Irish

by Braxton1980 2y ago

This could lead to more actions by the Trump admin administration against European countries. Not anti-trust but Cook called Trump to complain about the Irish tax outcome where Apple has to pay something like $14b https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4d75zl212o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4d75zl212o What happens if tech companies, long seemingly supporting Democrats are wooed by Trump with promises of bullying Europe with more tariffs to stop them from going after American companies. This would result in tech companies supporting Republicans due to the finanical benefit while controlling the messaging on their platforms For example "Instagram and Threads will start recommending political content to users in the US." After a few years of either limiting it or providing an option(? Unsure)

nonethewiser 2y ago
> What happens if tech companies, long seemingly supporting Democrats are wooed by Trump with promises of bullying Europe with more tariffs to stop them from going after American companies. This has already happened. There is just friction between executives and company culture.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Have previous administrations been as aggressive against other countries due to their policies? For example with South Africa " “The United States won’t stand for it, we will act,” Trump added. “Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!” https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-understanding-the-south-africa-land-reform-law-that-provoked-trumps-ire/ https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-underst... Even if tech companies wanted this and previous admins tried diplomatic pressure or discussions I don't believe it was to the level that we are seeing now.
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    Im sorry, I dont understand your point. I'm talking about Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, etc. all appealing to Trump to fight back against EU regulation and continuing to advance their interests globally. They are all very much in favor of Trump's view of EU regulation on US tech companies.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      I made a mistake and misinterpreted your comment as about past administrations. Sorry
      - nonethewiser 2y ago
        Ah gotcha. I agree with what you’re saying then - its definitely a shift.
  - jonathanlydall 2y ago
    Speaking as a South African, that article was very interesting and didn’t seem to misrepresent anything that I’m aware of, but I’m also not especially knowledgeable in these areas. I don’t support this law myself, but as mentioned by the article it’s not as bad as Trump makes out. However, there is some context which I feel is missing from your post, in particular how it’s a bit strange that Trump even cared to politically attack South Africa. We’re pretty small fry from an economic output point of view, not nothing, but a pretty small market which although it has great potential, has been somewhat stagnant largely due to incompetence and corruption by our government. Something that would have however gotten notice in the US is that we formally filed a case in ICC against Israel for human rights violations (for the record, I would not personally speak in support of Israel or Palestine). Something else that is also likely a factor (and is mentioned in the article) is that Musk was born here. Not mentioned in the article is that he has unequivocally stated he has no love for South Africa. If I recall correctly, his family left the country while he was still in school, where he was bullied. It would be pretty natural that he has some emotional connection to here and would pay some attention to what’s happening, at the very least to things which would reinforce his existing world view on us. Another interesting thing that happened in the last couple of years is that Starlink looked into operating here, but decided not to when the government said a precondition was that a significant percentage be black owned (in practice many companies who adhere to this essentially view it as a form of tax where they’re obligated to give a portion of their company away). Our BBBEE laws which dictate that you can’t do business with the government unless your own company and all your suppliers (and their suppliers, ad infinitum) have enough black ownership is quite contentious (and a form racial of discrimination in my books) has resulted in many international investors simply walking away, Starlink amongst them, and I don’t blame them. But It’s exactly the kind of thing Musk would no doubt have heard about with Starlink and if I were Musk it would have peeved me quite a bit, possibly enough to point us out to Trump who’s always looking for a punching bag to reinforce his existing world views on injustices.
    - blackqueeriroh 2y ago
      > Our BBBEE laws which dictate that you can’t do business with the government unless your own company and all your suppliers (and their suppliers, ad infinitum) have enough black ownership is quite contentious (and a form racial of discrimination in my books) Wait, you think that barely 30 years of laws that require a minimum percentage of Black ownership after FORTY THREE years of white apartheid is racial discrimination? Cry me a river.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    > Have previous administrations been as aggressive against other countries due to their policies? For example with South Africa Yes! And in fact, funny your example is South Africa because in the past there was action against South Africa when it was run by the apartheid government! Including but not limited to Congress passing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which called for an end to apartheid and placed economic sanctions on South Africa. The bill prohibited the import of South African goods, the sale of arms and military equipment to the nation, and any new investment. I believe Europe wasn’t as activist against the South African apartheid government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the...
apwell23 2y ago
"The original decision covered the period from 1991 to 2014. The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the US." how is this not trade war by EU. They are making apple pay taxes from 3 decades ago?
- bigyabai 2y ago
  Apple sold devices in the EU without paying the requisite local taxes by misrepresenting sales figures and lobbying for exemption through Irish law. They knew that their accounting was dishonest and continued with it anyways. Simply having to pay the taxes you owe isn't a trade war. The FT article is much more clear about why exactly it is harmful: https://archive.ph/gGC2C https://archive.ph/gGC2C
- vkou 2y ago
  Since ~January of this year, international law doesn't mean anything anymore. But if you think it's still relevant, tariffs against Canada violate international law, perhaps you should get in touch with the US government to have them lifted. Lead by example, and all that.
  - apwell23 2y ago
    > perhaps you should get in touch with your government to have them lifted. Lead by example, and all that. ok i will reach out to Indian govt about usa's canada tariffs
- potatototoo99 2y ago
  They broke the law, Apple and Ireland. Just because Ireland is a country it doesn't mean it can't be subject to laws. > "Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is required to recover". The European Commission found that corporate tax rates as low as 0.005% paid by the tech giant represented an unlawful subsidy. Specifically because other companies were not permitted to obtain the same tax arrangements. As a consequence Apple must pay €13 billion, excluding interest, to the Irish Treasury.
dybber 2y ago
They will only get a financial benefit if Trump is successful in convincing EU to change their policies, but I think it is pretty little chance of that happening. EU policies will be decided by the europeans, and if the US tries to coerce EU e.g. with tariffs, EU will use it’s “economic bazooka” the Anti-Coercion Instrument which will target some of the same US tech companies. https://www.ft.com/content/7303e57e-67ca-477a-8d00-8d5213f7120c https://www.ft.com/content/7303e57e-67ca-477a-8d00-8d5213f71...
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Yep. In the US, we kind of worked ourselves into a box. More hostile action from Trump will only deepen European resolve. I don't understand what we were thinking? There's like 600 million people in Europe. All of whom were perfectly content to sleep in the then current global order. Why take a stick and poke a sleeping lion like that? For the life of me I'll never figure that out?
  - graeme 2y ago
    This is one of the guiding documents of the current administration. https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...
    - thfuran 2y ago
      I've only just started reading that, but right in the first few paragraphs it says that the main problem is that USD is overvalued, and their proposed solution isn't inflationary. I'm kind of confused.
      - dybber 2y ago
        That’s because it doesn’t make sense. From Paul Krugman: > The document simply doesn’t hang together. Part 3 makes the case for tariffs by arguing that they won’t be inflationary because they’ll lead to a stronger dollar, reducing import prices. Part 4 then calls for an all-out effort to weaken the dollar, using emergency powers if necessary. https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trumps-team-of-economic-yes-men https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trumps-team-of-economic-y...
jimnotgym 2y ago
It doesn't work if Trump has already put tarrifs on the EU though. When you fire a gun, it ceases to be a deterrent.
NotPractical 2y ago
> This would result in tech companies supporting Republicans People often forget that these companies care about nothing but money. This isn't an anti-capitalist rant or anything; that's just how the world works. As publicly traded corporations, they are obligated to their shareholders to always make decisions that are best for the company, no matter what. That would include supporting Republicans, if necessary. It doesn't matter how many angry engineers vent on Twitter about how their favorite megacorps are now Trump supporters. These decisions come from the very top.
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  “Best for the company” is not equivalent to “increase profit no matter what,” and in fact, multiple court cases have upheld the idea that corporations hold duties to other stakeholders like employees, the public, and more, which are equal if not even superseding to a duty to the shareholder.

nonethewiser 2y ago

> What happens if tech companies, long seemingly supporting Democrats are wooed by Trump with promises of bullying Europe with more tariffs to stop them from going after American companies. This has already happened. There is just friction between executives and company culture.

Braxton1980 2y ago
Have previous administrations been as aggressive against other countries due to their policies? For example with South Africa " “The United States won’t stand for it, we will act,” Trump added. “Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!” https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-understanding-the-south-africa-land-reform-law-that-provoked-trumps-ire/ https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-underst... Even if tech companies wanted this and previous admins tried diplomatic pressure or discussions I don't believe it was to the level that we are seeing now.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  Im sorry, I dont understand your point. I'm talking about Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, etc. all appealing to Trump to fight back against EU regulation and continuing to advance their interests globally. They are all very much in favor of Trump's view of EU regulation on US tech companies.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    I made a mistake and misinterpreted your comment as about past administrations. Sorry
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
      Ah gotcha. I agree with what you’re saying then - its definitely a shift.
- jonathanlydall 2y ago
  Speaking as a South African, that article was very interesting and didn’t seem to misrepresent anything that I’m aware of, but I’m also not especially knowledgeable in these areas. I don’t support this law myself, but as mentioned by the article it’s not as bad as Trump makes out. However, there is some context which I feel is missing from your post, in particular how it’s a bit strange that Trump even cared to politically attack South Africa. We’re pretty small fry from an economic output point of view, not nothing, but a pretty small market which although it has great potential, has been somewhat stagnant largely due to incompetence and corruption by our government. Something that would have however gotten notice in the US is that we formally filed a case in ICC against Israel for human rights violations (for the record, I would not personally speak in support of Israel or Palestine). Something else that is also likely a factor (and is mentioned in the article) is that Musk was born here. Not mentioned in the article is that he has unequivocally stated he has no love for South Africa. If I recall correctly, his family left the country while he was still in school, where he was bullied. It would be pretty natural that he has some emotional connection to here and would pay some attention to what’s happening, at the very least to things which would reinforce his existing world view on us. Another interesting thing that happened in the last couple of years is that Starlink looked into operating here, but decided not to when the government said a precondition was that a significant percentage be black owned (in practice many companies who adhere to this essentially view it as a form of tax where they’re obligated to give a portion of their company away). Our BBBEE laws which dictate that you can’t do business with the government unless your own company and all your suppliers (and their suppliers, ad infinitum) have enough black ownership is quite contentious (and a form racial of discrimination in my books) has resulted in many international investors simply walking away, Starlink amongst them, and I don’t blame them. But It’s exactly the kind of thing Musk would no doubt have heard about with Starlink and if I were Musk it would have peeved me quite a bit, possibly enough to point us out to Trump who’s always looking for a punching bag to reinforce his existing world views on injustices.
  - blackqueeriroh 2y ago
    > Our BBBEE laws which dictate that you can’t do business with the government unless your own company and all your suppliers (and their suppliers, ad infinitum) have enough black ownership is quite contentious (and a form racial of discrimination in my books) Wait, you think that barely 30 years of laws that require a minimum percentage of Black ownership after FORTY THREE years of white apartheid is racial discrimination? Cry me a river.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  > Have previous administrations been as aggressive against other countries due to their policies? For example with South Africa Yes! And in fact, funny your example is South Africa because in the past there was action against South Africa when it was run by the apartheid government! Including but not limited to Congress passing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which called for an end to apartheid and placed economic sanctions on South Africa. The bill prohibited the import of South African goods, the sale of arms and military equipment to the nation, and any new investment. I believe Europe wasn’t as activist against the South African apartheid government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the...

apwell23 2y ago

"The original decision covered the period from 1991 to 2014. The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the US." how is this not trade war by EU. They are making apple pay taxes from 3 decades ago?

bigyabai 2y ago
Apple sold devices in the EU without paying the requisite local taxes by misrepresenting sales figures and lobbying for exemption through Irish law. They knew that their accounting was dishonest and continued with it anyways. Simply having to pay the taxes you owe isn't a trade war. The FT article is much more clear about why exactly it is harmful: https://archive.ph/gGC2C https://archive.ph/gGC2C
vkou 2y ago
Since ~January of this year, international law doesn't mean anything anymore. But if you think it's still relevant, tariffs against Canada violate international law, perhaps you should get in touch with the US government to have them lifted. Lead by example, and all that.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > perhaps you should get in touch with your government to have them lifted. Lead by example, and all that. ok i will reach out to Indian govt about usa's canada tariffs
potatototoo99 2y ago
They broke the law, Apple and Ireland. Just because Ireland is a country it doesn't mean it can't be subject to laws. > "Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is required to recover". The European Commission found that corporate tax rates as low as 0.005% paid by the tech giant represented an unlawful subsidy. Specifically because other companies were not permitted to obtain the same tax arrangements. As a consequence Apple must pay €13 billion, excluding interest, to the Irish Treasury.

dybber 2y ago

They will only get a financial benefit if Trump is successful in convincing EU to change their policies, but I think it is pretty little chance of that happening. EU policies will be decided by the europeans, and if the US tries to coerce EU e.g. with tariffs, EU will use it’s “economic bazooka” the Anti-Coercion Instrument which will target some of the same US tech companies. https://www.ft.com/content/7303e57e-67ca-477a-8d00-8d5213f7120c https://www.ft.com/content/7303e57e-67ca-477a-8d00-8d5213f71...

bilbo0s 2y ago
Yep. In the US, we kind of worked ourselves into a box. More hostile action from Trump will only deepen European resolve. I don't understand what we were thinking? There's like 600 million people in Europe. All of whom were perfectly content to sleep in the then current global order. Why take a stick and poke a sleeping lion like that? For the life of me I'll never figure that out?
- graeme 2y ago
  This is one of the guiding documents of the current administration. https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...
  - thfuran 2y ago
    I've only just started reading that, but right in the first few paragraphs it says that the main problem is that USD is overvalued, and their proposed solution isn't inflationary. I'm kind of confused.
    - dybber 2y ago
      That’s because it doesn’t make sense. From Paul Krugman: > The document simply doesn’t hang together. Part 3 makes the case for tariffs by arguing that they won’t be inflationary because they’ll lead to a stronger dollar, reducing import prices. Part 4 then calls for an all-out effort to weaken the dollar, using emergency powers if necessary. https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trumps-team-of-economic-yes-men https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trumps-team-of-economic-y...

jimnotgym 2y ago

It doesn't work if Trump has already put tarrifs on the EU though. When you fire a gun, it ceases to be a deterrent.

NotPractical 2y ago

> This would result in tech companies supporting Republicans People often forget that these companies care about nothing but money. This isn't an anti-capitalist rant or anything; that's just how the world works. As publicly traded corporations, they are obligated to their shareholders to always make decisions that are best for the company, no matter what. That would include supporting Republicans, if necessary. It doesn't matter how many angry engineers vent on Twitter about how their favorite megacorps are now Trump supporters. These decisions come from the very top.

blackqueeriroh 2y ago
“Best for the company” is not equivalent to “increase profit no matter what,” and in fact, multiple court cases have upheld the idea that corporations hold duties to other stakeholders like employees, the public, and more, which are equal if not even superseding to a duty to the shareholder.