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

Lafiel said:
epicurean said:
Hopefully this is all over by the time next gen consoles come out....Trump isn't going to want this lasting while he is up for re-election...

why not? if he can't get a real war going an economic war is his best chance to present himself as tough and manly

In practice, the Trump is a war monger narrative isn't coming to fruition.

To the contrary, he's surrounded by people on both sides that seem to encourage invasions.



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)

Around the Network
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.

Are any electronics made in Africa? South Africa maybe?



Mr Puggsly said:
KManX89 said:

Nope, you always hear Republicans decry taxes as the next coming of Satan, how the government should leave millionaires/billionaires/mega corporations and their piles of cash alone.

It'll be interesting to see them try and DEFEND raising taxes now that their orange overlord is waging war with China and will be effectively slapping a $600 price tag on next-gen consoles, which I'm willing to bet has happened already. The hypocrisy there will be fucking hilarious to see.

Me thinks democrats actually like the trade war just as an excuse to attack Trump. Dems brag about wanting to raise taxes which affects everybody, rich and poor. Meanwhile republicans like to talk about cutting taxes and spending, but are ironically are big spenders as well.

I don't deny the irony at all, that's the great thing about being in the center. But maybe there is also irony in left wingers mocking Trump for higher taxes when his opposition is objectively huge proponents of higher taxes on everybody.

On a side note, its not like the people mocking Trump have solutions to dealing with the threat that is China. Instead people on the left seem to deny China is even a problem which is odd when you take everything into consideration.

And that's just silly.  First, no..we don't want some stupid, avoidable trade war just so we can attack Trump.  He does plenty of stuff for that already.  However, we want taxes that can be utilized for social programs, infrastructure, education, etc...  But instead, these tariffs are ironically going to be used to pay the industries hit by this trade war.  Hence we do not endorse tariffs.

I'll break this down.

US importers are taxed (the tariff) X% on certain imported goods.
They pay that tariff to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection which is then transferred to the Treasury.
US importers increase the cost to consumers at a rate approx equal to the tariff (offsetting their costs) meaning consumers pay the tariff overall.
US exporters are losing money because China retaliated with tariffs of their own and/or sourced those product from other countries.
Trump creates fund to offset industry loses from the trade war via the very tariffs the trade war takes in.

So yes, we call him stupid for doing this but no we don't want him to do just so we can call him stupid and no we don't support trade war tariffs.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

The Americans voted for it. - No point worrying about spilt milk.
Pricing might actually fall in line with AUD for next-gen hardware? (Though our dollars monetary value is less, so technically we might pay less.)

They are pretty much delaying the inevitable though, China will overtake the USA, only a matter of when, not if. - But it will be interesting to see how the trade war affects things economically, it will provide the empirical evidence to other countries if they consider a similar path in the future on whether it is a good or bad thing.



fatslob-:O said:
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 ... 

Environmental regulations are not a slog for economic growth. They are an insurance policy to stave off massive environmental disasters, and other external costs of pollution. If I dump raw sewage into the town's local water supply, and everybody gets sick, is that not a massive drain on the local economy? The dust bowl was one of the main causes of the great depression. Chernobyl nearly poisoned half of Europe in the 80's. The economics of currency is ultimately dependent on the economics of ecology. Destroy the world's ecology so that crops can't grow, and fish can't be caught. Then see how important environmental regulations are. 

Yes, low pay can be good in some instances, and bad in others. The government regulations on low pay were mainly aimed at stopping the bad effects. But that's a whole other can of worms. Don't get me started on how much I hate these stupid "$15 an hour for minimum wage" types. 

As far as Ericsson and Nokia falling victim to Chinese competitors like Huawei... Who's to say that this is a result of those policies? Correlation =/= causation after all. 

Oh, no I completely agree that China needs to be reeled in. Tariff's are just not the way to do it. Buying our defense tech from China would be a military disaster. Honestly we should have never started trading with China in the first place. Any country that has that level of human rights problems shouldn't be a trade partner. They should be like North Korea IMO. Left on their own to rot, until they decide to join the rest of the world. 

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

Right, but you said that government research only helps when playing catch-up. The examples I gave were to show instances where government research helped, while we were already the market leader. USA being the market leader was a crucial part of my argument. 


"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 ..."

ARPANET was not just a concept. It was built, and actually existed. A concept is something that only exists as an idea. https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/

Bell Lab's UUCP came after ARPANET pioneered computer networks. The first router was built before Cisco was a public company. It was made by a team of people at Stanford. http://pdp10.nocrew.org/docs/cisco.html

Packet Switching, TCP/IP, Email, and Hypertext were all the result of government agencies, or people employed by them. Ethernet was invented at Xerox. Stanford (a private university) came up with the router (not Cisco). So yes, it was largely the government. I'm more than willing to give Xerox/Stanford fair credit, for their contributions, but to say it wasn't mostly the government is simply revisionist history. 

"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 ..."

The point is that government research does help technology move forward even if we are a market leader (or technological leader in this case).

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 ... 

But you were the one arguing that prices increased due to increased enrollment. Did you change your mind? As long as we can agree that more people going to college isn't what drove prices up, we're good.

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 ... 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I am not saying we should model ourselves after China. I'm saying we should go back to how things operated in the 60's with government/corporations working together to grow the economy. 

I'm not sure why we need to foster, and then hold onto monopolies in order to be competitive. Aren't monopolies bad for the overall economy as a whole? Or are you talking about a monopoly in the sense that every major corp is located in the US? I think that would be very hard to hold onto. China isn't the only country with cheap labor, and little value for human rights. Corps will always look for the cheapest place to build goods, and the USA will never be that place again. USA should be for inventing things, and upkeep of services. 3rd world countries should be the manufacturing base. 

But I do see the problem with China. They have the cheap labor AND the tech. Or enough of the tech to be able to compete unfairly, when combined with their labor. 



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

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
The Americans voted for it. - No point worrying about spilt milk.
Pricing might actually fall in line with AUD for next-gen hardware? (Though our dollars monetary value is less, so technically we might pay less.)

They are pretty much delaying the inevitable though, China will overtake the USA, only a matter of when, not if. - But it will be interesting to see how the trade war affects things economically, it will provide the empirical evidence to other countries if they consider a similar path in the future on whether it is a good or bad thing.

No us Australians will pay more even if you add 25% to US rrp for the PS5 there are two reasons the first is the dollar difference is around 30% the other is price  gouging the accc have stated in the past that console and games rrp sits well  above the conversion rates and that's factoring in import costs for the consoles and peripherals, something that the actual games don't have since Sony's has one of the worlds largest blu-ray plant's in Sydney that covers Oceana and parts of SouthEast Asia.



If Trump is successful with his tariffs, I wonder if other countries will copy the model, I think most countries have suffered thanks to the cheap Chinese exports, so this is not just an American problem, if other big economies copy Trumps model I think the Chinese will be in major trouble.



gamingsoul said:
If Trump is successful with his tariffs, I wonder if other countries will copy the model, I think most countries have suffered thanks to the cheap Chinese exports, so this is not just an American problem, if other big economies copy Trumps model I think the Chinese will be in major trouble.

1. He won't.  If China gets pissed off enough, they will start calling in some of the US debt they own.  That's a 'trump' card that we won't have an answer for.

2. Other countries don't have the import market value to fight a tariff war.

3. China has a fast growing middle class which means they can migrate from an export market to a domestic market over time. And if China's economy does move in that direction, it will dwarf the US and EU economies....combined.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
gamingsoul said:
If Trump is successful with his tariffs, I wonder if other countries will copy the model, I think most countries have suffered thanks to the cheap Chinese exports, so this is not just an American problem, if other big economies copy Trumps model I think the Chinese will be in major trouble.

1. He won't.  If China gets pissed off enough, they will start calling in some of the US debt they own.  That's a 'trump' card that we won't have an answer for.

2. Other countries don't have the import market value to fight a tariff war.

3. China has a fast growing middle class which means they can migrate from an export market to a domestic market over time. And if China's economy does move in that direction, it will dwarf the US and EU economies....combined.

Let’s wait and see

there’s no perfect solution but I think Trump is doing what should have been done 15 years ago, no single country has the economic power of the US but if multiple big economies tax the Chinese it will hurt them bad, I would like to see how China prospers without their cheap exports.



gamingsoul said:
SpokenTruth said:

1. He won't.  If China gets pissed off enough, they will start calling in some of the US debt they own.  That's a 'trump' card that we won't have an answer for.

2. Other countries don't have the import market value to fight a tariff war.

3. China has a fast growing middle class which means they can migrate from an export market to a domestic market over time. And if China's economy does move in that direction, it will dwarf the US and EU economies....combined.

Let’s wait and see

there’s no perfect solution but I think Trump is doing what should have been done 15 years ago, no single country has the economic power of the US but if multiple big economies tax the Chinese it will hurt them bad, I would like to see how China prospers without their cheap exports.

If you have the time, please go back and read my posts in this thread.  I think you may be under the false impression that we are taxing China.  We are not.  That is not what a tariff is or how it works.

A tariff is a tax levied against imports from another country BUT that tax is applied to the import side.  That means US companies that import any tariff targeted goods will be required to pay that tax.  For instance, if a US company wants to buy neodymium for magnets (required for a ton of electronics, medical devices, etc...) from China (who mines ~90% of global supply), they will have to pay an extra 25% to our government.  This was only an example and I'm hearing that neodymium may no longer be on the final list.  We won't know for certain until September though.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."