4 ms·

No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local ma

No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency. The company that moves (or starts) manufacturing here today might get run out of business when/if tariffs are repealed and their competitor already has production lines in other countries ready to go. Heck, the factory might not even open before the winds shift. No one can accurately plan with the uncertainty. All the big names like Apple are just paying lip service to this. They are throwing, quite literally, pocket change or funds from the government (like CHIPS, which was less ham-fisted than the tariffs IMHO but still not something that's going to change the landscape overnight) at these endeavours to appease the current admin in favor of reduced/removed tariffs on _their_ products and good PR. If congress wanted to actually do their jobs instead of both them and the judiciary abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch then _maybe_ we'd have a chance in hell. Until then you can look forward to more flip-flopping as the government changes and the smaller companies continuing to be ground under the heel of large corporations who can weather (or bribe) their way out of the tariffs.

bluGill 3mo ago
That isn't 100% true, maybe 99% though. Anyone paying attention to politics for the last 40 years would have seen that there has always been an undercurrent of people unhappy with imports. This is the most power those people have had, but they have always been there and got significant political attention. There have thus been signs to be aware of, and those signs are things a smart company will take into consideration - they may or may not act, but they should know and consider them.
- spwa4 3mo ago
  But that's the current dollar-based system. Like the gold-based system before it, today countries as a whole have to have long-term balanced trade, as measured in dollars. That's what a great many countries demanded to keep the system fair. If need be, some temporary imbalances can be forgiven by the world bank, but not much. Outlawing or taxing imports (=tarriffs) of course helps with this. However, if you look at economic history this always slowly lead to problems that only got resolved by fresh loans (that's what the move to dollar effectively did), hyperinflation or wars.
fragmede 3mo ago
Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead.
- joe_mamba 3mo ago
  >Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Apple invested 3x that because they got 30x in return from the savings versus US manufacturing. >Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead. Then iPhones would either have to be 10x more exsolve to keep the same profit margins or Apple would be broke trying to compete with Chinese made goods using US manufacturing.
- selectodude 3mo ago
  Probably not much. The US doesn’t have the capacity for high volume manufacturing. We cost too much.
  - Danox 3mo ago
    It can be done. It just takes time. But most of America and Wall Street think in the short term every time. (not all but most).
- joering2 3mo ago
  Easy to imagine - phones would be 1.5x more expensive than they are now, from get go. The cheap electronics (and goods in large part) have been hallmark of "quality of life in USA" for decades; I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe. However, it seems that Americans are so tired of growing prices that they are getting used to paying them. Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price? I think we will see the same happening with electronics - Apple breaking news on $500B factory spending in USA is mostly because they believe Apple owners will keep buying Apple regardless of the price. They may be right... will see.
  - 3mo ago
znpy 3mo ago
> No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency. Indeed, but the role of a government is to steer/push private initiative in a certain direction. Tariffs and stuff are steering private companies towards building stuff in-house (as in: "in the us"). Future initiative inconsistent with this directions will essentially be a sabotage of the US economy.
- joshstrange 3mo ago
  Tariff introduced by congress? Sure. Tariffs introduced by fiat? No. The fact that a president can create them out of thin air means they can be removed just as easily. I'm not anti-tariff or anti-re-homing-production (where it makes sense) but the _way_ it was done is my problem. Additionally there was no ramp, it was 0->100 immediately. A bill passed by congress to slowly ratchet up tariffs or similar over a period of time would have a much larger impact IMHO. It would give companies the ability to plan instead of just react. The tariffs were enacted in a timespan that made it impossible to move production local before they went into effect. Additionally, tariffs being applied unequally is terrible, it just means whoever has the biggest bribes (solid gold plaque holders anyone?) or can pretend they are moving manufacturing back to the US gets an advantage. The amount of power held in the executive branch is unacceptable. Just look at how they raided/repurposed the CHIPS act money to force Intel (which I have no real love for) to sell a stake to the government. Authoritarian governments are bad for business.
  - isleyaardvark 3mo ago
    > means they can be removed just as easily. Some of them were removed. And then put back. Then increased, then decreased, or otherwise changed depending on what Trump was thinking at 3am while making social media posts
  - sidereal1 3mo ago
    Additionally, tariffs should be targeted for the specific goods (e.g. CHIPS Act). To do blanket tariffs on entire countries doesn't make sense. Why move manufacturing to the US when importing raw materials also costs more?
FuriouslyAdrift 3mo ago
Any company should definitely be planning for the inevitable decline or elimination of China as a production and/or trading partner. If not caused by politics, then by demographic crash.
- mywacaday 3mo ago
  I'm curious why you think China will decline or be eliminated, I always thought that China was a reliable as a production/trading partner and that they planned for decades ahead with programs like Belt and Road Initiative unlike western politics that only looks as far as the next election. Very open to correction on this though, thinking about it not sure what formed my opinion on this.
  - jorts 3mo ago
    Their aging population will pose an extremely serious problem in the coming decades.
    - dhx 3mo ago
      If demographics are a problem for chipmaking in China, then it's good to compare against key chipmaking countries. To compare, 2024 (UN) fertility rates (highest-lowest):[1] US: 1.62 Japan: 1.23 China: 1.02 ROC: 0.86 ROK: 0.75 (where an increase to 0.8 in 2025 was cause for celebration, as is a predicted increase to 0.85 by mid 2026)[2] Alternatively (and perhaps accounting for migration etc), UN 2024 forecasts population differences in these countries between 2024-2050 as:[3] US: +10% Japan: -16% China: -8% ROC: -6% ROK: -12% [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_by_international_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer... [2] https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/01/24/IVHGRTNWXBHH3DNZRE4UNVBC4U/ https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/01/24/IVHGRT... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_future_population#UN_Forecast_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...
      - 3mo ago
specialist 3mo ago
What's the received wisdom for the USA to (re)build it's own chip supply chain? I dimly recall $500b, 30 years, invest in domestic educational pipeline. I'm 100% on board with federal industrial policy, public-private partnership, etc. So while I favor the idea of CHIPS act, I have no idea what's realistic. (And it kinda pisses me off that Intel shunts taxpayer money to their investors. Seems like they don't even want to succeed.)

bluGill 3mo ago

That isn't 100% true, maybe 99% though. Anyone paying attention to politics for the last 40 years would have seen that there has always been an undercurrent of people unhappy with imports. This is the most power those people have had, but they have always been there and got significant political attention. There have thus been signs to be aware of, and those signs are things a smart company will take into consideration - they may or may not act, but they should know and consider them.

spwa4 3mo ago
But that's the current dollar-based system. Like the gold-based system before it, today countries as a whole have to have long-term balanced trade, as measured in dollars. That's what a great many countries demanded to keep the system fair. If need be, some temporary imbalances can be forgiven by the world bank, but not much. Outlawing or taxing imports (=tarriffs) of course helps with this. However, if you look at economic history this always slowly lead to problems that only got resolved by fresh loans (that's what the move to dollar effectively did), hyperinflation or wars.

fragmede 3mo ago

Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead.

joe_mamba 3mo ago
>Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Apple invested 3x that because they got 30x in return from the savings versus US manufacturing. >Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead. Then iPhones would either have to be 10x more exsolve to keep the same profit margins or Apple would be broke trying to compete with Chinese made goods using US manufacturing.
selectodude 3mo ago
Probably not much. The US doesn’t have the capacity for high volume manufacturing. We cost too much.
- Danox 3mo ago
  It can be done. It just takes time. But most of America and Wall Street think in the short term every time. (not all but most).
joering2 3mo ago
Easy to imagine - phones would be 1.5x more expensive than they are now, from get go. The cheap electronics (and goods in large part) have been hallmark of "quality of life in USA" for decades; I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe. However, it seems that Americans are so tired of growing prices that they are getting used to paying them. Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price? I think we will see the same happening with electronics - Apple breaking news on $500B factory spending in USA is mostly because they believe Apple owners will keep buying Apple regardless of the price. They may be right... will see.
- 3mo ago

znpy 3mo ago

> No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency. Indeed, but the role of a government is to steer/push private initiative in a certain direction. Tariffs and stuff are steering private companies towards building stuff in-house (as in: "in the us"). Future initiative inconsistent with this directions will essentially be a sabotage of the US economy.

joshstrange 3mo ago
Tariff introduced by congress? Sure. Tariffs introduced by fiat? No. The fact that a president can create them out of thin air means they can be removed just as easily. I'm not anti-tariff or anti-re-homing-production (where it makes sense) but the _way_ it was done is my problem. Additionally there was no ramp, it was 0->100 immediately. A bill passed by congress to slowly ratchet up tariffs or similar over a period of time would have a much larger impact IMHO. It would give companies the ability to plan instead of just react. The tariffs were enacted in a timespan that made it impossible to move production local before they went into effect. Additionally, tariffs being applied unequally is terrible, it just means whoever has the biggest bribes (solid gold plaque holders anyone?) or can pretend they are moving manufacturing back to the US gets an advantage. The amount of power held in the executive branch is unacceptable. Just look at how they raided/repurposed the CHIPS act money to force Intel (which I have no real love for) to sell a stake to the government. Authoritarian governments are bad for business.
- isleyaardvark 3mo ago
  > means they can be removed just as easily. Some of them were removed. And then put back. Then increased, then decreased, or otherwise changed depending on what Trump was thinking at 3am while making social media posts
- sidereal1 3mo ago
  Additionally, tariffs should be targeted for the specific goods (e.g. CHIPS Act). To do blanket tariffs on entire countries doesn't make sense. Why move manufacturing to the US when importing raw materials also costs more?

FuriouslyAdrift 3mo ago

Any company should definitely be planning for the inevitable decline or elimination of China as a production and/or trading partner. If not caused by politics, then by demographic crash.

mywacaday 3mo ago
I'm curious why you think China will decline or be eliminated, I always thought that China was a reliable as a production/trading partner and that they planned for decades ahead with programs like Belt and Road Initiative unlike western politics that only looks as far as the next election. Very open to correction on this though, thinking about it not sure what formed my opinion on this.
- jorts 3mo ago
  Their aging population will pose an extremely serious problem in the coming decades.
  - dhx 3mo ago
    If demographics are a problem for chipmaking in China, then it's good to compare against key chipmaking countries. To compare, 2024 (UN) fertility rates (highest-lowest):[1] US: 1.62 Japan: 1.23 China: 1.02 ROC: 0.86 ROK: 0.75 (where an increase to 0.8 in 2025 was cause for celebration, as is a predicted increase to 0.85 by mid 2026)[2] Alternatively (and perhaps accounting for migration etc), UN 2024 forecasts population differences in these countries between 2024-2050 as:[3] US: +10% Japan: -16% China: -8% ROC: -6% ROK: -12% [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_by_international_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer... [2] https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/01/24/IVHGRTNWXBHH3DNZRE4UNVBC4U/ https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/01/24/IVHGRT... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_future_population#UN_Forecast_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...
    - 3mo ago

specialist 3mo ago

What's the received wisdom for the USA to (re)build it's own chip supply chain? I dimly recall $500b, 30 years, invest in domestic educational pipeline. I'm 100% on board with federal industrial policy, public-private partnership, etc. So while I favor the idea of CHIPS act, I have no idea what's realistic. (And it kinda pisses me off that Intel shunts taxpayer money to their investors. Seems like they don't even want to succeed.)