Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]bluesbassman
(19,379 posts)118. Oh don't bring THAT up cali...
Apple was just clever to use the resources available to them.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Good link! I missed that one, though I remember that particular bunch of lobbying!
Pholus
Mar 2012
#8
So that they can continue to have access to our copyright/TM and legal protections
leveymg
Mar 2012
#5
They should definitely let the Chinese protect their intellectual property rights.
shcrane71
Mar 2012
#15
It's potential leverage over the multinationals, and should be used as such by the federal gov't
leveymg
Mar 2012
#19
Why should they , if tarrifs for moving someting into China is 20% and moving someting into the U S
RDANGELO
Mar 2012
#6
Doing Apple's work for free is probably the only way to repatriate their manufacturing.
Liberal Veteran
Mar 2012
#18
I dunno. It's cheaper if you work em to death for free then harvest their organs too.
Pholus
Mar 2012
#65
Don't forget to take a bonus if you take out "Dead Peasants Insurance" first.
Liberal Veteran
Mar 2012
#70
With free trade policies currently in place, the answer is most definitely no.
Selatius
Mar 2012
#24
This is why I favor competitive tariffs, as opposed to exorbitantly high ones.
Selatius
Mar 2012
#34
That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff')
pampango
Mar 2012
#87
I would say gross income inequality was due to a lack of market regulation, not tariffs.
Selatius
Mar 2012
#129
It is a single source, indeed, but playing with the numbers sounds kind of reasonable...
Pholus
Mar 2012
#69
I assume you will now stop posting and using the internet because the machine
former9thward
Mar 2012
#39
If they want to continue to lay claim to being the first viable PC, they should make stuff here.
HopeHoops
Mar 2012
#31
OK, fine. Move the company to China and slap a huge fucking import tariff
Dreamer Tatum
Mar 2012
#56
I'll tell you why, because basically your question was asked in order to defend Apples's activities.
bluesbassman
Mar 2012
#117
Why? Because it was, in significant part, built on taxpayer provided infratstructure
cali
Mar 2012
#104
They can build wherever the hell they like. Just don't expect generosity from the tax man.
2ndAmForComputers
Mar 2012
#112
Because they moved out of the US while we were their biggest market, that's why.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#119
Chinese growth compared to "the decline of American Exceptionalism" right Tesha?
Pholus
Mar 2012
#127
Until fair wages, fair profits and fair trade become the rule, not the exception for the world
JCMach1
Mar 2012
#130
500% was hyperbole, but it is no joke with some Chineses products sold in America...
JCMach1
Mar 2012
#142
You're good, but Hannah still managed these kinds of things better. Practice makes perfect!
apocalypsehow
Mar 2012
#137