Here’s a link to the $100 price.

https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/

Or here if you prefer to have MIT parse it. Naturally there answer is more technical.

As long as Apple buyers are willing to pay Apples inflated prices, it won’t affect innovation. Would another $100 be the tipping point? Possibly, don’t know.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601491/the-all-american-iphone/

Now as to oil price supports or tariffs as a way to stabilize prices.

The boom and bust cycle of oil is disruptive to the America economy. If we could stabilize prices around $60, the majority of American oil producers would make money, and the economy could absorb the increase without disruptions to most other sectors. I say most, because you will no doubt find a energy sensitive sector that can’t pass on the increased costs.

Even the Saudis, I think, recognized in the last bubble that there is a maximum oil price the world can tolerate and it was exceeded. Blert thinks the price Saudis need long term is $100.
They are in financial straits with the current price of oil, which makes you wonder why they don’t cut production if they are desperate for increased revenue.

And if you think we should sit helplessly by because we’re waiting for the market to correct, the Saudis are doing something akin to dumping. Punitive tariffs are a normal form of penalizing a company for that practice.

We recently placed a 500% tariff on Chinese steel when they were found to be dumping. We certainly didn’t sit around waiting for the market to correct.

I’m sitting in a former B-52 hanger, in an arid region of the state, all because of government intervention.

It’s hard to be an economic purist. What should be the limits of intervention?
When Eisenhower pushed the interstate road system, he was met with criticism.

It’s messy, but currently industries have redress when there is direct evidence of unfair market practices. Some though are more subtle and hard to police.

We’re on the same page that some of the over-regulation by past administrations can be rescinded and have a positive effect on the economy including the rust belt. Lowering the corporate income tax (or doing away with it entirely) would help.

I would reserve punitive tariffs on the most egregious examples. I do think we could establish a list of sectors that are vital to our national interests / survival that would be worth protecting, if necessary.

Also, you may be thinking of today’s snapshot to arrive at your $100, but that misses a big aspect of the point. How the product comes to be to begin with.

What about how this affects a future innovation, as innovative as the iPhone has been?
.

So, you are advocating “some” tariffs, or “some” other trade barriers to curb “unfair trade practices”, which includes “reciprocal market access”.

Is this a fair statement?
.

Yes, let’s get real, and tone down the hyperbole – until you get a little more targeted in what you mean, it is hard to argue anything but the general idea.

Please explain your limiting principle on tariffs and/or barriers?

Don’t be so general that any industry could argue that they are facing “unfair” trade practices. What industries wouldn’t be able to make such a case?

What do the rust belt voters get out of it, if the jobs go to these “lower cost of living regions of the country”?
.

I believe that it wouldn’t take us going much deeper into this before it starts to sound like a leftist argument, yet, that is one of the key things we hate about the dems!?

Estimates are it would raise the price $100 to be domestically produced. Yes Apple could still profit. Apple could also sell the product for less money and be profitable, though it’s stock price would be lower. Skeptics say it wouldn’t add that many jobs since much of it is automated.

I don’t think anyone is saying there shouldn’t be trade, and trade isn’t going to end if NAFTA is re-negotiated. Same with China. A tariff on Chinese imports wouldn’t stop imports from China, and I suspect the goal would be to lower trade barriers to China, rather than punitive tariffs on Chinese goods.

I know Japan places trade barriers to imported goods that are subtle, but make entry difficult.

So let’s keep the debate on actual facts, not hyperbole. I’ll try and dial it down also.

The 15% corporate income tax would be a good first start helping American manufacturers competitive.

Unions have not helped their workers by negotiating wage/benefit packages that make them uncompetitive globally. Where should that wage be? Japanese have found it profitable to manufacture some cars here and offer good wages in non-union areas of the company.

We can’t, nor should we, save all jobs in the rust belt. I’d rather see those jobs move to lower cost of living regions of the country, rather than overseas.

Vehemently disagree.

What is not being “globalist”? Must be a world of huge trade barriers, then.

Closing up our borders to trade makes about as much sense as a farmer being completely self sufficient – neither selling his goods, nor buying any goods with anyone else.

Think just how much would that farmer be able to produce without the tools, chemicals, etc, and without the time, as they’d need to make their own clothes and tools.

It’s not hard to see that the farmer and his family would be rather impoverished.

Maybe it is not “globalist” to want businesses to offer up to us citizens the cheapest goods they possibly can, in a competitive (i.e. capitalist) society – we are all measurably far better off than that thoroughly self-sufficient farmer.
.

It is infinitely easier to “see” the downside of trade vs the benefit to trade.

Why?

Because we see jobs that may have been lost (though much has been mis-attributed to free trade rather than the real cause – technological change), but can never see the other world of the absence of trade.

Ask yourself, how much would an iPhone cost if it was 100% domestically produced? Could it be produced at a price that Apple could even profit at – IOW would Apple even still exist, let alone be in any way the economic size (and high paying job producer) that it is?

Multiply that out trillions of times to get a picture of what trade restrictions mean (i.e. the opposite of “globalist” free trade)?

It is extremely unlikely to help anyone but a few, and the most well connected to DC.

The good folks in the rust belt won’t see one bit of benefit, unless they are lucky enough to be where a crony gets some special deal from DC to place an operation nearby.

For all the rest, if taken to the extreme, they will pay through the nose.
.

The REAL issue is that in a dynamic economy change is bound to happen and will have uneven impacts (Notice the rust belt are also areas where dems have had heavy influence in governing – e.g. Detroit).

The REAL question is do we take the hard line that people should be personally responsible for themselves and should, on their own, seek the training, or move to qualify for the new jobs, etc.?

Or, should government be involved to help them transition? If so, what should that be?

OK, he’s no conservative. Was George Bush a conservative? His agenda was a mix of conservative to very liberal.

Trump is showing all signs that he will promote policies from the traditional conservative to liberal, or at least not traditional conservative positions.

I think you can make the case they are very conservative if viewed in the context that free trade is a very globalist/internationalist/one world position.

What is very bizarre is that Trump is a president that doesn’t owe allegiance to Wall St. I can only hope draining the swamp includes placing a dyke around Washington to keep some of Wall St. out money out.

What exactly is the evidence that the “Alt Right” – whatever that means – has that much influence?

Any candidate would have been capable of that with propaganda support from the Alt Right, equaling 5-10 pts.

The Left can elect rapist Clinton, twice, as well as Hussein, twice, using similar methods, plus fake votes.

Based on what, the same kind of polling methodology Nate Silver and the other MSM propagandists use?

Why is one accurate but not the rest?

Still, Trum making gains amongst White Women and White Men, isn’t that hard to believe. They are, after all, Democrats who would have voted Yellow Dog Democrat even a year ago. O Care and all these riots, probably scared them into voting Republican. The way Southerners voted for Reagan over Carter.

If HRC had won, I dare say some Trump voters would have been equally as depressed although not quite as hysterical.

The problem with people who take on faith their own victory due to predictions such as the false Adventist proclamations of the Rapture, is that when it does not happen, their faith and belief is crushed. To sustain a war, however, people can’t merely give up on minor setbacks like that.