Economics Thread

nsacpi said:
competition by producing better and cheaper products is what drives growth....there are other forms of competition that are predatory and run afoul of antitrust law...the distinction is worth keeping in mind
Click to expand...

Growth for whom?

How many people can actually enter this arena and compete with apple? There are naturally tremendous costs to enter the market but it is even greater because of the size of apple.
 
thethe said:
Growth for whom?

How many people can actually enter this arena and compete with apple? There are naturally tremendous costs to enter the market but it is even greater because of the size of apple.
Click to expand...

Actually Jobs and Wozniak started it in their garage. Very little startup cost. Do you have a better example?
 
nsacpi said:
Actually Jobs and Wozniak started it in their garage. Very little startup cost. Do you have a better example?
Click to expand...

You are going to compare the current climate to the mid 70's? Come on man - This is not an intellectually honest counterargument.
 
Bloomberg economist Tim Mahedy: "This is the strongest employment report of this economic cycle -- hands down."

Are we still talking recession?
 
thethe said:
You are going to compare the current climate to the mid 70's? Come on man - This is not an intellectually honest counterargument.
Click to expand...

I started my business with very little startup costs ten years ago. Not yet an apple but one can dream.
 
thethe said:
You're the champion of apples to oranges today my friend.
Click to expand...

I just have a different view of apple than you do. I'm not a champion of their products by any means. But their success does not represent some sort of blemish on capitalism. They make products that are valued by a huge number of people. I see that as a good thing, even though I've never personally bought an apple product for myself. I have family members who like their products and have bought their products as gifts for those family members.
 
nsacpi said:
I just have a different view of apple than you do. I'm not a champion of their products by any means. But their success does not represent some sort of blemish on capitalism. They make products that are valued by a huge number of people. I see that as a good thing, even though I've never personally bought an apple product for myself. I have family members who like their products and have bought their products as gifts for those family members.
Click to expand...

Of course their products are good - That isn't in dispute at all. The whole point is that when a company gets as large as apple competition is naturally stifled. If you don't think their main goal is to eliminate their competition then I'm not sure what to say. The objective from their side is fine. I don't blame them. When it actually happens though we need to consider how good is that for everyone.
 
Are we going to get any comments on the jobs report? I see a lot of commentary on bad signs in the economy posted. When will the community at Chop Country finally admit that the levers being pulled by this administration are having a positive impact on the economy?
 
thethe said:
Of course their products are good - That isn't in dispute at all. The whole point is that when a company gets as large as apple competition is naturally stifled. If you don't think their main goal is to eliminate their competition then I'm not sure what to say. The objective from their side is fine. I don't blame them. When it actually happens though we need to consider how good is that for everyone.
Click to expand...

Every company wants to crush the competition. That actually results in a socially good outcome for the most part. There are exceptions (for example what economists call predatory pricing) and antitrust laws that seek to prevent and penalize that sort of behavior. But it is inevitable that some companies will get very big and powerful even without violating antitrust laws. They get that way by making products that lots of people want to buy. That's part of being successful. Don't pine too hard for the 1970s. There were big and powerful companies back then too. One of them even got sued by the Justice Department essentially for being too big. Needless to say DoJ lost that one.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
It was a demand issue in their projections. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with costs to create or projected sales price. The sheep line up for days to spend whatever it costs. Finally the fad of the smart phone is starting to fade.
Click to expand...

Again - Apple grew EVERYWHERE but China.
 
thethe said:
Are we going to get any comments on the jobs report? I see a lot of commentary on bad signs in the economy posted. When will the community at Chop Country finally admit that the levers being pulled by this administration are having a positive impact on the economy?
Click to expand...

It’s a great jobs report. It’s unfortunate that this China nonsense has the potential to overshadow all the positive benefits.
 
chop2chip said:
It’s a great jobs report. It’s unfortunate that this China nonsense has the potential to overshadow all the positive benefits.
Click to expand...

But what are the prospective future benefits of these tariffs if it brings China to the table to put an end to their actions? Obviously the tariffs aren't crippling the nation. The investor class and those that are close to retirement are sweating it out right now but people who are looking for work and those that haven't had jobs in a while are not being impacted that much at all and the potential benefit to those people may be tremendous.
 
thethe said:
Was their growth in line with their expectations though? We aren't talking about historical figures. That isn't what caused a downturn in the market.
Click to expand...

That’s entirely possible and I don’t inherently disagree with you that Apple has some core business related issues that they need to work through. But that isn’t what caused them to miss guidance numbers. They correctly forecasted non-China demand just fine from all accounts.

I’m speaking simply to the tangible consequences of a tariff war with China. Of course China imposing a tariff on American goods is going to hurt US companies. You can make an argument that the long term benefit is worth it (I disagree), but you can’t ignore the short term consequences and blame capitalism.
 
chop2chip said:
That’s entirely possible and I don’t inherently disagree with you that Apple has some core business related issues that they need to work through. But that isn’t what caused them to miss guidance numbers. They correctly forecasted non-China demand just fine from all accounts.

I’m speaking simply to the tangible consequences of a tariff war with China. Of course China imposing a tariff on American goods is going to hurt US companies. You can make an argument that the long term benefit is worth it (I disagree), but you can’t ignore the short term consequences and blame capitalism.
Click to expand...

When you say they correctly forecasted non-china demand I assume you are talking about their Q4 performance. The downturn in the market was the revision of revenue guidance on Q1 19 and I believe that was caused based on world wide downturn in demand for apple products. I could be wrong on that and would need to read further on the release.

Further, there is absolutely no way to bring China to the table using the status quo. This was always going to happen but we needed leadership to have the courage to do it. I think a vast majority of hte country agrees that something needs to be done with China its just that big business that lines the pockets of our government is pushing an agenda that the 'world is going to end' because of these tariffs. I think the most recent jobs report is showing that is clearly not the case.

What are the short term consequences? The investor class is losing money? Those close to retirement may have to wait just a tick longer for their 401ks to get back to where they were 12 months ago? Who is actually being hurt here? Christmas demand was as strong as its been in a decade? Where are these huge price increases we were promised because of tariffs?

The investor class wants to scare the rest of us into thinking that we need to keep cheap labor from China and illegal immigrants if we want to maintain our style of life and the facts thus far show anything but that. The market is not the economy as you know.
 
J Crowley
‏ @jdcrowley
3h3 hours ago

If we taxed everything between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 at 70%, and everything above $5,000,000 at 90%:

• Median CEO take-home pay would be ~$2,000,000
• The highest CEO take-home pay would be ~$10,000,000

Now tell me with a straight face that would be "punishing success".
 
57Brave said:
J Crowley
‏ @jdcrowley
3h3 hours ago

If we taxed everything between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 at 70%, and everything above $5,000,000 at 90%:

• Median CEO take-home pay would be ~$2,000,000
• The highest CEO take-home pay would be ~$10,000,000

Now tell me with a straight face that would be "punishing success".
Click to expand...

Who is J Crowley? I’d be happy to tell him that with a straight face
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top