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

mjk45 said:
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.

The price in the US should have a minimal effect here as we import direct from China rather than China > USA > Australia.
China also imports a large swathe of our resources as well, which has given us some favorable trade in the past.

Where things get tricky is on resources/components/technology that China imports from the USA.

The fact we already have high prices is another whinge session I could have but won't go into...



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
gamingsoul said:

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.

Yes you are correct its the American companies, that are paying the tax. One can't blame gamingsoul for this error. We hear constantly from Trump the bullshit about who's actually paying eg

Trump “Tariffs are NOW being paid to the United States by China of 25% on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods & products,”

Which is a total lie, as its as your said the USA companies that are paying this 25% not chinese companies.

Though this can also hurt Chinese companies as well as the americn ones, as if everything costs an extra 25% from china they are more likely to buy from another country instead of China

Trump is going about this the wrong way, its like he has no idea of whats going on.

One of the first things he done when he got into power was to pull the USA out of the TPP, I think chiefly because it was an Obama thing.

Didnt the moron know the TPP was created specifically to combat China in business, it was a collection of countries bordering the pacific, excluding China to work together to combat Chinese shady business practives eg with IPs etc

No wonder the guy's companies have been bankrupt 6 times, now hes trying to do that but on a larger scale

Classic Dunning Kruger

Last edited by GProgrammer - on 29 May 2019

Cerebralbore101 said:

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. 

Case in point, China keeps environmental regulations to a minimum and they are experiencing a boom in productivity plus keeping it that way allows China to dictate the supply of rare earth metals worldwide. Environmental regulation ONLY serve to get in the way if it unreasonably forces austerity and China is taking this advantage to heart. A 'sustainable' future is not worth sustaining if your citizens end up being jobless ... 

China especially defies the idea of low pay somehow having bad effects. In more ways than I could imagine the Chinese are the most ideal employees possible. They aren't entitled to any rights, work long hours, are paid relatively low, and all this is fueled purely with nationalism ... 

Ericsson and Nokia ARE falling victim to Huawei. Have you not seen their losses or declines over the years ? Huawei is the most dominant corporation in the carrier business equipment ... 

What exactly do you suggest would be a better way to rein in China other than tariffs ? Do we just flat out call a sanction from the entire western world against them or what ? 

Cerebralbore101 said:


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. 

That was far into the past. Today, most of the breakthroughs we see DON'T come from government funded research. The space age will likely be brought about because of some large corporation instead of NASA ... 

This ISN'T the sputnik moment anymore for America where they heavily invested in a technological race against the Soviet Union. The biggest problem with government 'managed' research is that in the case of a democracy there's no guarantee that the manager in that project would be a 'specialist'. We don't need politicians in technical projects, we need the 'specialists' and we're unlikely to get that with American leaders ... 

The reason why state subsidies for research in China work so well as it does is that the CCP are full of technocrats and if you can prove that you're a qualified 'specialist' to them in a specific field of high need then you'll automatically be granted a lot of power from the party to further pursue technical progress. This feedback process is ideal for reverse engineering and sometimes it works at the leading edge but without applying a similar model of govenrnance in America, they won't be able to see the same benefit since government funding would be a waste ... 

Cerebralbore101 said:


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. 

ARPANET was NEVER sold to consumers so it was pretty much just a concept outside of labs! 

IMO ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile, Vodafone, etc are the true creators behind the internet because they were the ones who made the backhauls which is extremely important infrastructure and then we have hardware companies like Cisco. The 'internet' that we see today is not a government creation but it is a corporate collaboration ... 

The internet is more than just predated hardware, it's an idea that can't be solely government funded and in fact the closest predecessor to the internet was NSFNET which had tons of private funding from ISPs rather than ARPANET which ended up being a dead end since the government wasn't interested in developing the backhual or maintaining their network technology ... 

Cerebralbore101 said:

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

Name me one very important technology that was created during this millennium by government funded research ... 

Pretty sure government funded research didn't give us AI, wireless communications technology, automation, or the latest medical technology so what exactly did they do so far recently that makes them so 'essential' to research like you imply ?

Cerebralbore101 said:

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.

I didn't specifically argue that a linear increase in enrollment meant a linear increase in prices as well. In the case of post-secondary schools it seems when demand increases linearly, the price increases exponentially ... 

Tuition free post-secondary school is NOT an entitlement! If it were that simple then just about every program including the likes of Art History would be a ROI but that's not so in the real world. Schools CAN'T keep running if their students aren't profitable ... (money is important to maintain the school)

Cerebralbore101 said:

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. 

Maybe but nearly no American politicians today understand the importance of technological leadership so there's no political will for it ... 

America needs to foster monopolies because it gives the Americans a competitive edge against other nations. Monopolies are bad for the opposing country's economy but it's good for the domestic economy since it stands to make more money. I'm not arguing that the US should hold every monopoly but just the most essential ones and yes it's hard to compete with China on just pricing alone since just about everyone would fail ... 

America indeed should be inventing things but now it is China who is starting to invent important technology as well so can you imagine a future where it is SOLELY China that invents ALL important technology in the future ? 

Can you imagine just how annoying it would be if China successfully 'colonized' the moon and claimed it for themselves just because they somehow invented superior aerospace technology ? 



Locknuts said:
vivster said:

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

Are any electronics made in Africa? South Africa maybe?

Not at the top of the list but they're up and coming. Shows how countries destroyed by capitalism need a lot more time than countries that only had to deal with communism.



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

Pemalite said:
mjk45 said:

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.

The price in the US should have a minimal effect here as we import direct from China rather than China > USA > Australia.
China also imports a large swathe of our resources as well, which has given us some favorable trade in the past.

Where things get tricky is on resources/components/technology that China imports from the USA.

The fact we already have high prices is another whinge session I could have but won't go into...

 Sorry about the confusion. the even if you add 25% to US rrp for the PS5 was a reference to a US pricing increase not ours, my take on the situation is even with the US getting a potential 25% increase, historical pricing of imported gaming hardware in Australia shows that the US PS5 will still be cheaper than any AUS PS5.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Agreed, he does do plenty of stuff worth attacking. But I guess its not juicy enough, so we waste time with Russia.

Anybody know how much is actually being spent on subsidies? People always say they hate them, but how much is it really. I suspect its not really that much in the grand scheme but I could be wrong. Based on the figures I see, we spend significantly more making people fat with food stamps.

Just out of curiosity, I did a search Bing search on, "Obama tarrifs." I wouldn't say that democrat was opposed to tariffs.

I wasn't suggesting dems want high taxes for nothing per se. They want to crush the private sector in many cases, throw MORE money at things with little results, etc. I mean education for example, we spend more money educating children than almost any other country with little to show for it. Many of our social services just seem to make people lazy and fatter, that's most prevalent among groups who take advantage of these entitlements. For what its worth, I think there are better ways to dole out social services/welfare but our government is just terrible at it. The solution isn't throw more money at bad programs and bad spending.



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)

vivster said:
Locknuts said:

Are any electronics made in Africa? South Africa maybe?

Not at the top of the list but they're up and coming. Shows how countries destroyed by capitalism need a lot more time than countries that only had to deal with communism.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on how capitalism destroyed Africa.

War torn countries recovered rather quickly thanks to capitalism. The communist countries of the world improved by embracing capitalism, the communist aspect is mainly just to keep a party in power.

Also, not all African countries are equally shitty which suggest some have unique problems (like Islamic problems).



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)

A trade war benefits nobody, the difference is that China understands that and the orange narcissist doesn't. USA has a debt of 22 trillion USD and counting and he is going to make his citizens pay more for goods in the hope it will stimulate US industries..... That's a hell of a risk with all the data saying it will only hurt the US economy. The republicans are meant to be less government, less tax and more freedoms.... This guy is a protectionist it doesn't make sense to the party ethos but it looks like plenty of southerners have drunk the kool aid...



fatslob-:O said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

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. 

Case in point, China keeps environmental regulations to a minimum and they are experiencing a boom in productivity plus keeping it that way allows China to dictate the supply of rare earth metals worldwide. Environmental regulation ONLY serve to get in the way if it unreasonably forces austerity and China is taking this advantage to heart. A 'sustainable' future is not worth sustaining if your citizens end up being jobless ... 

China especially defies the idea of low pay somehow having bad effects. In more ways than I could imagine the Chinese are the most ideal employees possible. They aren't entitled to any rights, work long hours, are paid relatively low, and all this is fueled purely with nationalism ... 

Ericsson and Nokia ARE falling victim to Huawei. Have you not seen their losses or declines over the years ? Huawei is the most dominant corporation in the carrier business equipment ... 

What exactly do you suggest would be a better way to rein in China other than tariffs ? Do we just flat out call a sanction from the entire western world against them or what ? 

Cerebralbore101 said:


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. 

That was far into the past. Today, most of the breakthroughs we see DON'T come from government funded research. The space age will likely be brought about because of some large corporation instead of NASA ... 

This ISN'T the sputnik moment anymore for America where they heavily invested in a technological race against the Soviet Union. The biggest problem with government 'managed' research is that in the case of a democracy there's no guarantee that the manager in that project would be a 'specialist'. We don't need politicians in technical projects, we need the 'specialists' and we're unlikely to get that with American leaders ... 

The reason why state subsidies for research in China work so well as it does is that the CCP are full of technocrats and if you can prove that you're a qualified 'specialist' to them in a specific field of high need then you'll automatically be granted a lot of power from the party to further pursue technical progress. This feedback process is ideal for reverse engineering and sometimes it works at the leading edge but without applying a similar model of govenrnance in America, they won't be able to see the same benefit since government funding would be a waste ... 

@bolded: That would have been true until 2014, but since then China tightened up their environmental policies a lot.

And it was high time for them, as the Water was both getting rare and slowly undrinkable with high amounts of cancer-causing NDMA; over 15% of the soils is strongly polluted, severely affecting farming and lending to the water problem mentioned above; overgrazing made the Gobi desert grow by about 1000 square miles per year; the air became unbreathable in certain cities during certain times (which is probably why China changed course on environment in the first place); and had the largest algae bloom ever in the Chinese sea, threatening their fisheries.

Or in short, the unchecked exploitation of their ressources started to threaten their own economy and the lives of their inhabitants. So, they had to change their ways.

Huawei is, sorry, was certainly dominant in the US, especially in rural regions, which relied very much upon them. But outside of there, their domination is much smaller. In bigger cities, it's normally either Ericcson or Nokia who are behind the carriers, not Huawei.

@underlined: Well. there is a new space race, and more exactly a new race to the moon, with the US, China and now also Russia again trying to get there first, and this time to stay there. So a push from governmental research might be exactly what is needed to push the US faster forward.



Well, there was a thread recently where many were advocating and hoping to pay for higher cost consoles, so all of those people should be elated by this news.