Quantcast
Trump's new tariff proposals include a 25% tax on video game consoles

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Trump's new tariff proposals include a 25% tax on video game consoles

Dulfite said:
Here's my take. It will only be temporary, and China cannot win a trade war with the U.S. so they will eventually break and then prices will be lower again and the U.S. will reap the benefits of having done it in the first place by having American made products purchased more because the tarrifs increase the cost of foreign imports and make them less of a steal. We import far more from China than they import from us, so they cannot win this fight. It's just a matter of time.

In that sense, yes but it is more complex than that. When China hit back with their tariffs, they went after key parts of Trump's base, like farmers. There are way they can hit back in a disproportionate way. Also, they hold a lot of US government debt. If push comes to shove, it likely they'll be able tomuse that debt against Trump.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
We wouldn't need a trade war if we went back to being the well oiled mixed economy we were in the 50's, and 60's. It was a mix of government and capitalism at its best. The government regulated industries, and funded research that few corporations would bother with (due to a high risk to profit ratio, or no profits for decades). Then once the research was complete the government would give this research and/or tech away for free to american companies. Example: Microsoft, Amazon, and Google wouldn't be billion dollar companies if not for the invention of the internet.

Also, the government would fund schools, so that people didn't have to go into massive student loan debt.

But guess who gutted the mixed economy in the 70's, 80's, and 90's? The Republicans.

If China beats us economically, it is because they have a better mixed economy than we do. Pure communism failed with the soviet union. China is Communist with just enough capitalist features to make it not all fall apart.

Doubt it, America then was dominant because of surrounding circumstances during that time and not down to policies ... (the entire world suffered massively from the after effects of WWII in comparison to the US only seeing pearl harbour getting attacked) 

Government funding for research has only ever proven to be effective at the large scale when attempting to reverse engineer goods from current market leaders to be able to catch up to them but even with state subsidies it has been a huge undertaking by the Chinese government to recreate/rediscover every bit of western technology and sometimes it's a success to the point where Huawei is the leading edge carrier equipment provider and other times like we see with Fujian Jinhua who's been trying to make DRAM with results that have been less than impressive so far despite pouring in billions from the government itself ... (government subsidies do very little once you're the market leader)

People didn't get student loan debts back then because there was a smaller market for post-secondary education so the schools charged less and there were less enrollments as well ... 

If China beats America, it'll be because what they've reverse engineered isn't much behind the leading market leader and they provide abundant high quality labour as well. Mixed economy ? LOL, you must be kidding ... 

China has a 996 hour working hour system, no freedom of movement even within their own country, far worse income inequalities than the western world, anti-union laws, far less generous subsidies/employee benefits and if there was ever a scale from 1-10 rating just how capitalistic each nation is with the US rating at 10 then China would be rated at 11 because that's just how competitively ruthless their system is ... 

A trade war is necessary to curb stomp China's ascent because if one nation has the ability to truly bankrupt America then it's China and only China ...

You are right that the US was helped a lot by the fact that the rest of the world was hurt badly by WWII. Other things also helped a lot though such as... 

1. Women started entering the workforce, which meant less people sitting around doing nothing. 

2. Interstate highway system (authorized in 1956) made transportation of goods, and building materials easier. 

3. Regulation of markets to help protect against things like pollution, low pay, and a ton of other things that can slow down an economy. 

4. Heavy government investment in R&D. 

5. More people going to college thanks to the government subsidizing education. (G.I. Bill and the like)

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how much of it was a result of the rest of the world being bombed out, and exactly how much of it was a result of the above 5 things. But to just say it was all just a result of the rest of the world being bombed out is not the whole picture. 

"Government funding for research has only ever proven to be effective at the large scale when attempting to reverse engineer goods from current market leaders to be able to catch up to them."

We were the current market leader in computer technology when ARPANET was being built, and that research eventually gave fruition to the internet as we know it. When we landed on the moon, we didn't just catch up to Russia in space tech, we blew right by them. Same goes for when we developed nuclear bombs. Government research didn't merely allow us to catch up. We passed current market leaders. Russia didn't have the bomb until 1949. 

In 1989 there were 13.54 million people attending college in the US. In 2018 there were 19.83 million people attending college in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ The population of the United States was 246.8 million in 1989. So that makes the college enrollment rate about 5.4% in 1989. Using the same math the enrollment rate was almost exactly 6% in 2018. That's an 11% increase in almost 30 years. Now look at the  following graph. 

And, yes that graph is adjusted for inflation. It's all in 2018 dollars. Why has the cost of public four year schools nearly tripled, while enrollment hasn't grown all that much? Why has price exploded, but demand has not? 

Yes, all those things out listed about China suck. Slave level working hours, no ability to move in country, income inequality, anti-union laws, etc. But that doesn't make them not a mixed economy. Mixed economy simply means the government, and businesses work together to sustain or grow the country's economy. You can be a mixed economy, and still be anti-freedom, high poverty, no workers rights etc. 

P.S. Trump's overall policies are extremely damaging to the U.S. economy as a whole. Even if he managed to reel in China, we'd still be going down the toilet fast thanks to his other policies. But let's not make this thread about that. That would be a whole other thread topic. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Well thanks Trump... Now I HAVE to start on my backlog..



 

Cerebralbore101 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Doubt it, America then was dominant because of surrounding circumstances during that time and not down to policies ... (the entire world suffered massively from the after effects of WWII in comparison to the US only seeing pearl harbour getting attacked) 

Government funding for research has only ever proven to be effective at the large scale when attempting to reverse engineer goods from current market leaders to be able to catch up to them but even with state subsidies it has been a huge undertaking by the Chinese government to recreate/rediscover every bit of western technology and sometimes it's a success to the point where Huawei is the leading edge carrier equipment provider and other times like we see with Fujian Jinhua who's been trying to make DRAM with results that have been less than impressive so far despite pouring in billions from the government itself ... (government subsidies do very little once you're the market leader)

People didn't get student loan debts back then because there was a smaller market for post-secondary education so the schools charged less and there were less enrollments as well ... 

If China beats America, it'll be because what they've reverse engineered isn't much behind the leading market leader and they provide abundant high quality labour as well. Mixed economy ? LOL, you must be kidding ... 

China has a 996 hour working hour system, no freedom of movement even within their own country, far worse income inequalities than the western world, anti-union laws, far less generous subsidies/employee benefits and if there was ever a scale from 1-10 rating just how capitalistic each nation is with the US rating at 10 then China would be rated at 11 because that's just how competitively ruthless their system is ... 

A trade war is necessary to curb stomp China's ascent because if one nation has the ability to truly bankrupt America then it's China and only China ...

You are right that the US was helped a lot by the fact that the rest of the world was hurt badly by WWII. Other things also helped a lot though such as... 

1. Women started entering the workforce, which meant less people sitting around doing nothing. 

2. Interstate highway system (authorized in 1956) made transportation of goods, and building materials easier. 

3. Regulation of markets to help protect against things like pollution, low pay, and a ton of other things that can slow down an economy. 

4. Heavy government investment in R&D. 

5. More people going to college thanks to the government subsidizing education. (G.I. Bill and the like)

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how much of it was a result of the rest of the world being bombed out, and exactly how much of it was a result of the above 5 things. But to just say it was all just a result of the rest of the world being bombed out is not the whole picture. 

"Government funding for research has only ever proven to be effective at the large scale when attempting to reverse engineer goods from current market leaders to be able to catch up to them."

We were the current market leader in computer technology when ARPANET was being built, and that research eventually gave fruition to the internet as we know it. When we landed on the moon, we didn't just catch up to Russia in space tech, we blew right by them. Same goes for when we developed nuclear bombs. Government research didn't merely allow us to catch up. We passed current market leaders. Russia didn't have the bomb until 1949. 

In 1989 there were 13.54 million people attending college in the US. In 2018 there were 19.83 million people attending college in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ The population of the United States was 246.8 million in 1989. So that makes the college enrollment rate about 5.4% in 1989. Using the same math the enrollment rate was almost exactly 6% in 2018. That's an 11% increase in almost 30 years. Now look at the  following graph. 

And, yes that graph is adjusted for inflation. It's all in 2018 dollars. Why has the cost of public four year schools nearly tripled, while enrollment hasn't grown all that much? Why has price exploded, but demand has not? 

Yes, all those things out listed about China suck. Slave level working hours, no ability to move in country, income inequality, anti-union laws, etc. But that doesn't make them not a mixed economy. Mixed economy simply means the government, and businesses work together to sustain or grow the country's economy. You can be a mixed economy, and still be anti-freedom, high poverty, no workers rights etc. 

P.S. Trump's overall policies are extremely damaging to the U.S. economy as a whole. Even if he managed to reel in China, we'd still be going down the toilet fast thanks to his other policies. But let's not make this thread about that. That would be a whole other thread topic. 

Just look at who works in those colleges.

I would have to dig deep to find it again, but in one state, the report was that in 1990 they had about 12000 Teachers and 3500 other staff. 2018 they had 11000 Teachers and 12000 other staff, especially tons of accountants and the like.

So yeah, colleges are hiring tons of people they actually don't need at all, and that makes the tuition fees explode - besides the obvious attempt at greed, of course.



Cerebralbore101 said:

You are right that the US was helped a lot by the fact that the rest of the world was hurt badly by WWII. Other things also helped a lot though such as... 

1. Women started entering the workforce, which meant less people sitting around doing nothing. 

2. Interstate highway system (authorized in 1956) made transportation of goods, and building materials easier. 

3. Regulation of markets to help protect against things like pollution, low pay, and a ton of other things that can slow down an economy. 

4. Heavy government investment in R&D. 

5. More people going to college thanks to the government subsidizing education. (G.I. Bill and the like)

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how much of it was a result of the rest of the world being bombed out, and exactly how much of it was a result of the above 5 things. But to just say it was all just a result of the rest of the world being bombed out is not the whole picture. 

1 and 2 had an effect but not so much for 3, 4, and 5 ... 

Environmental regulations are just a slog for economic growth and depending how employees are paid less, it can actually increase productivity. You need to stop pretending that the so called scandinavian 'dream' of getting tons of state aids and strong employee unions are somehow viable when corporations in those countries like Ericsson and Nokia are falling victim to Chinese competitors like Huawei ... 

Most of the America's golden age was due to a world in turmoil but now with strong competition from China, America can't afford to slip up anymore because the moment it does is the moment that China will seek to monopolize all high-end technology ... 

Can you imagine a world one day where America and it's allies buys all of it's defense equipment from China ?! Do you not somehow see the conflict of interest this poses ?

Cerebralbore101 said:

We were the current market leader in computer technology when ARPANET was being built, and that research eventually gave fruition to the internet as we know it. When we landed on the moon, we didn't just catch up to Russia in space tech, we blew right by them. Same goes for when we developed nuclear bombs. Government research didn't merely allow us to catch up. We passed current market leaders. Russia didn't have the bomb until 1949. 

The US was nearly ALWAYS the market leader regardless because the rest of the world was too busy recreating their own physical infrastructure ... 

ARPANET was nothing more than a concept. The internet as we know it today is largely thanks to the contributions of many private investments and work from large corporations such as Bell Laboratories and Cisco but many of them had very few state subsidies work with as well. The internet wasn't created mostly by some government funding like you seem to believe but it was created in collaboration with many corporations all over the world ... 

Yeah, I'm not sure if making a comparison between military technology like nuclear bombs to consumer technology is a great idea when the former has to face no market competition ... 

Cerebralbore101 said:

In 1989 there were 13.54 million people attending college in the US. In 2018 there were 19.83 million people attending college in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ The population of the United States was 246.8 million in 1989. So that makes the college enrollment rate about 5.4% in 1989. Using the same math the enrollment rate was almost exactly 6% in 2018. That's an 11% increase in almost 30 years. Now look at the  following graph. 

*snip*

And, yes that graph is adjusted for inflation. It's all in 2018 dollars. Why has the cost of public four year schools nearly tripled, while enrollment hasn't grown all that much? Why has price exploded, but demand has not? 

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in the real world ... 

increased enrollments =/= proportionally increased prices 

And not to mention, post-secondary schools were far less advanced back then but they also had fewer facilities as well ... 

Cerebralbore101 said:

Yes, all those things out listed about China suck. Slave level working hours, no ability to move in country, income inequality, anti-union laws, etc. But that doesn't make them not a mixed economy. Mixed economy simply means the government, and businesses work together to sustain or grow the country's economy. You can be a mixed economy, and still be anti-freedom, high poverty, no workers rights etc. 

P.S. Trump's overall policies are extremely damaging to the U.S. economy as a whole. Even if he managed to reel in China, we'd still be going down the toilet fast thanks to his other policies. But let's not make this thread about that. That would be a whole other thread topic. 

They're a "mixed economy" for the right reasons, you have the wrong reasons to implicate why America should model it's mixed economy like China's for totally different reasons. China's system is optimized for growth and self sufficiency. Trump realizes a weakness with America's system is that it's not optimized for holding on to global monopolies and he's trying to fix this but it's proving to be very hard to prevent the transfer of power to China ... 

Trump NEEDS to reel in China otherwise silicon valley as we know it may deindustrialize like the rust belt did and we won't see American brands like Apple, Google, Facebook or the others out there anymore in the future if they get ousted by Chinese competitors ... 

Silicon valley performing well is good for America's interests but performing badly threatens American interests and to a lesser extent their allies interests as well ... 



Around the Network

I know how it is to fake that you're working so you don't get fired, but at least I'm not hurting a whole country with it.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

KManX89 said:
These "taxation is theft!" GOPers have no leg to walk on now.

That's more of libertarian thing.

I'm kinda indifferent about this because democrats admit they want raise taxes significantly. So its not like the alternative is a better scenario per se. Frankly, they want people to have less buying power.

So... lets see how this ends I guess.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Locknuts said:
I wonder whether it's feasible to have them built in a country other than China?

I think Venezuela is a good choice.

Countries destroyed by communism are always great for producing crap.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
Locknuts said:
I wonder whether it's feasible to have them built in a country other than China?

I think Venezuela is a good choice.

Countries destroyed by communism are always great for producing crap.

Or Africa! Countries destroyed by capitalism are always great for producing crap.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think Venezuela is a good choice.

Countries destroyed by communism are always great for producing crap.

Or Africa! Countries destroyed by capitalism are always great for producing crap.

Don't forget about the Eskimos!  They might not be able to hunt seals anymore due to climate change but they sure as hell can make the next xbox.

I thought it was colonialism that destroyed Africa.  Colonialism capitalist?

Last edited by sethnintendo - on 27 May 2019