Why not Google too?
You mean like tariffs on the Google Pixel, Nest devices, and such? That could be done but the volume isn't large. He could threaten 25% tariffs on Samsung, but that's actually lower than the currently-suspended "reciprocal" tariff on South Korea (49%).
Manufacturing in the US would be far more than 25% more expensive. Hence Apple will simply raise the prices by 25%, especially as all the other phone makers will face the same problem. Get f***** US customers, a lot of you voted for this crap.
What will be even cheaper is to bribe Trump; buy some DJT stock and some $TRUMP memecoins.
It appears that one million in inauguration money isn't enough an appeasement for the King.
What you gonna do now?
He should probably buy $100M worth of DJT and $100M worth of $TRUMP. Maybe buy Trump a jet, too. We seem to have decided that naked bribery of the president is fine, and it's clearly far cheaper than the billions it would cost to move manufacturing to the US or the cost of paying a 25% tariff.
VMware has support in lots of other ecosystems, which other hypervisors lack. [...] If you are running Cisco ACI on your network, you are basically stuck with VMM
Unless VMWare has done something to prevent those other ecosystems from supporting other hypervisors, that doesn't seem like VMWare's fault. It just seems like a big opportunity for competitors of Cisco to add support for other hypervisors in order to beat out Cisco, as well as an opportunity for third party vendors to figure out how to integrate Cisco with non-VMware hypervisors. And of course, Cisco will need to add support for other hypervisors in order to fend off its competitors.
It would be different if Broadcom also owned Cisco and was using Cisco's market dominance to entrench VMWare, but that's not what's happening here.
VMware is a de facto monopoly
Perhaps, but it's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's only illegal to abuse your monopoly to enhance your business in other product spaces, or to collude with other businesses to maintain your monopoly. It doesn't seem like any of that is happening.
Rounding happens only on the total transaction amount, not the per-unit price. This has been a solved problem in Canada for years.
Sure. I don't think anyone will propose that gas prices must be a multiple of a nickel.
You pay for your "fuel"?
Luddite!
Signed, a happy owner of both an EV and rooftop solar
:-)
You just prepaid for your fuel. Which isn't a bad idea, and is something I'll get around to.
Well, when you're filling the 50-gallon fuel tank in your 7 mpg truck, those per-gallon prices all get whacked with a nasty multiplier. That 20-cent difference costs you an additional $10.
But, all the more reason I love paying $0.05 per kWh for my "fuel".
As a general rule, when the British pronounce something different than the Americans, the American English pronunciation is closer to the original pronunciation. Either the British would Anglicize a foreign word that Americans would attempt to pronounce in its original form (e.g., "jaguar"), or the British English dialect drifted further from its original form (for example, when they forgot what the letter "R" meant).
The same happens in Spanish. Many of the Latin America dialects are far closer to how a Spaniard of, say, 1700 sounded than how a Spaniard of today sounds. I understand this is a pretty common phenomenon; colonies tend to preserve the language more carefully, while people in the original country feel more free to let it evolve. Its surprising how well this holds up even when the colonies are subject to more immigration and contact with other languages.
It's not universal, of course. People are complicated.
More recently I've been writing a lot more Python than C/C++/Java that I'd have been writing previously, so fewer semicolons is to be expected...
If you'd like to find a middle ground between the two, try Rust.
That you completely missed both his error and the joke, yet still felt the need to make a snide comment, is even funnier!
What illiterate morons modded your comment insightful?
Er... you missed the error and the joke. Note the "colleague".
Apple sent $600 and the design for the phone. Not just $600. "IP doesn't really enter into it" is the same thing they are saying in the post you are replying to. They are saying if it did, there wouldn't be much of a trade deficit.
Their argument is that the full retail value of the iPhone is counted as part of the US/China trade deficit. I don't think that's correct.
The imported item, the $1,000 iPhone, is counted in our trade deficit as the full $1,000 going to China.
I don't think that's correct. When you buy that phone you pay Apple, not Foxconn, and Applet doesn't send the full amount to China.
Do you have a citation for your assertion that the full retail price is considered as the imported amount?
The problem I see is that the way we measure trade deficits don't account for the flow of wealth due to the value of American intellectual property.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it makes sense.
Consider, for example, that in the trade deficit metrics, China gets full credit for the $500-ish import cost of an Apple iPhone. That, despite the fact that most of that $500 winds up in the pockets of a California company rather than in China itself.
No... none of the money Apple pays to China for the manufacturing of the device goes into Apple's pockets. Let's suppose the iPhone costs $1000 and has a 40% profit margin (and assume that all cost is manufacturing). Apple sends $600 to China and gets a phone, which it then sells for $1000. If the phone is sold to an American, then from a trade deficit perspective it's just -$600 on the China/US balance of trade. If the phone is sold to a person in a foreign country, then it's -$600 on the China/US trade balance and +$1000 on the balance of trade with the buyer's country, meaning a $400 net trade surplus for the US.
The question of IP doesn't really enter into it.
So all this finger pointing over trade deficits, all the actions taken by the Trump Administration, all the hand-wringing over how the US is somehow being 'bled dry'--is all based on a faulty metric
If it were that simple and that impactful, economists would surely have adjusted the metric.
Dear Mr. Thomas Klitgaard: I understand that the subject of trade deficits is of interest to *You*. But to try and elevate this to a national concern is premature. The BIG problem is overspending by the Federal government. Once *that* gets solved, then maybe, maybe it'll be time to worry about trade deficits.
This is a common fallacy, though surprisingly I can't find a widely-accepted name for it. I call it the "one thing at a time" fallacy. In the case of individual humans it's valid to want to focus solving one problem before addressing another, but in large organizations it doesn't make sense. Some degree of focus is good, but large organizations not only can but must work to solve multiple problems at the same time, because their size means that they have too many problems to address them serially.
If both the federal debt and the trade deficit are real problems, then we absolutely should work toward solving both of them at the same time. If one is more important than the other then it makes sense to put more effort into the larger one, but under no circumstances does it make sense to simply ignore one problem until another is solved.
In this particular case, I agree with your conclusion -- that we should focus on the federal debt -- because high government debt is risky, and I don't think trade deficits are a problem at all (though they may be symptoms of other problems). This isn't because we should solve one problem at a time, but because only one of the two things is a problem.
Unfortunately, we have an administration that not only has this backwards, but is making aggressive moves toward solving the non-problem that are exacerbating the actual problem. Trump's tariffs are doing damage to the global perception of our economy's stability and to its actual strength, both of which are boosting debt servicing costs, making our existing high levels of federal debt more dangerous. At the same time the GOP wants to make big tax cuts that will add $6T+ to the debt that must be serviced at those higher rates.
status quo method that was working previously is reinstated
Not quite... from what we've seen so far, the "negotiated" outcome is objectively worse for the US -- but Trump ends up personally wealthier. And it's the personal benefit to Trump that is really what he's after. Partly self-enrichment, mostly the feeling that he can make the world grovel.
You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.
