Trump's China trade tariffs to weigh on US GPU buyers

[HEXUS]

An MSI GeForce 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio price will rise from $1231 to $1310, for example.

Read more.

[Spud1]

I tend to agree that we won't feel the impact of this immediately - partly as we've already had a hit following Disaster Day 2016, but partly as we still have another few months left before March 2019. After that who knows how much higher the prices will climb!

As usual though, its unfortunate to be an American non-trump voter in this situation. Anyone who voted for him should have expected this kind of thing as to be fair to the guy - he promised he would do it and here we are. I feel sorry for the vast majority of Americans who didn't vote for him, but who will have to take the pain of his protectionist anti-consumer sense policies :*(

[Saracen]

A bit short-termist there, Spud.

While I detest Trump, the reasons he gives for tariffs are entirely true, and have bern for years. Well, decades really. China is NOT, and never has, competed on a level pkaying field. That might have been bearable when they were a heavily agrarian economy trying to did about 1.4 billion people out of 16th century pre-industrial lives, but it sure is not any more.

So the issue is really whether tariffs work, and China starts treating thecrest of the world fsirly, or not. It's about far more than, and frankly vastly more important than, short term consumer pain, be it GPU or anything else.

And so is disa .... sorry, Freedsy Day, 2016.

Is that going to cause short-term disruptions? Sure. It was never not going to. But it's also about far, far more than short term changes in exchange rates, consumer prices or whatever.

It's about our country for 10, 20, 50 years or more.

And so are many, many decisions made by governments. Or in this case, made by the people, though apparently not accepted by a good chunk of those that voted and lost.

Will it prove to be a disaster, or a huge success? Nobody, and I mean nobody knows. Absolutely everybody, on both sides, is making a whole shedload of assumptions about what the future holds, before they can even start making economic predictions, and that's JUST the economy.

For instance, will the EU 3ven exist in 20 years, or will it have been torn apart by Greek-style d3bt pressures, or the rise of ultra-right parties?

Answer? Who knows? Nobody. My guess? It'll survive. But nobody knows.

Assume (and remember that word) Trump's tariff war with China succeeds in getting major reforms. What protectionist economic block will he go after then? Hint .... he already started.

So, UK in EU gets hit by that. UK outside EU doesn't. And what does that do for UK ecports to US, or for UKP to Euro exchsnge rates?

Will it happen? I don't know, and nor co the "experts" making predictions about how bigca disaster Brexit will be.

Anybody with any decent ecinomuc knowledge kn8ws full well that economic models csn only tell you so much, especially gravity models, and they are UTTERLY dependent on the assumption you bake in, at the start. And even then, they're entirely dependent on vastly complex systems (like, oh, a nation's economy) behaving in a way suggested using past reactions ascs precfictor a future reactions. They are ever only s guide, andceven then, pretty mych useless in predicting unprecedented events. And BREXIT is about as unprecedented as unprecedented gets.

Will it be a disaster? Will it be a monumental success? Show me someone claiming they know, and I'll shiw you someone that's either a liar or an idiot, because short of a time machine, it's impossible to know.

It is, however, entirely possible, to big up either the downside ir the upside, in order to scare or bribe, the sheeple.

[Spud1]

Short termist to a degree yes - but ultimately I'd argue the opposite. I am someone who thoroughly believes in the concept of a United States of Europe (heck ultimately the world) and that although that itself would take another few generations before we're truly ready for it imo it would be a good thing for everyone. The further we grow apart whether that's USA vs the world or UK vs EU, the more problems we cause in the world as a whole.

I also don't believe that putting up tariffs like this will have any impact on China and their policy. Maybe I am wrong

I really take a strong dislike to over protectionist, short term inward facing policy like this. Sure putting up tariffs like this may give a short term boost to the economy of the USA - but looking at the world as a whole it's a net negative effect. America prospers whilst others begin to suffer again.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert or top even have a detailed knowledge of the issues, but I do have an opinion

[Saracen]

Short termist to a degree yes - but ultimately I'd argue the opposite. I am someone who thoroughly believes in the concept of a United States of Europe (heck ultimately the world) and that although that itself would take another few generations before we're truly ready for it imo it would be a good thing for everyone. The further we grow apart whether that's USA vs the world or UK vs EU, the more problems we cause in the world as a whole.

I also don't believe that putting up tariffs like this will have any impact on China and their policy. Maybe I am wrong

I really take a strong dislike to over protectionist, short term inward facing policy like this. Sure putting up tariffs like this may give a short term boost to the economy of the USA - but looking at the world as a whole it's a net negative effect. America prospers whilst others begin to suffer again.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert or top even have a detailed knowledge of the issues, but I do have an opinion

On the USE, if you believe in it, then like being a socialist or not, catholic or not, vegetarian or not, that's your right.

It's a bit like noses - we've all got one. And a good thing, too.

I don't agree, as it happens.

Or rather, to narrow it down, I don't believe in the UK being in it, and to narrow it down even more, I have no conceptual problem with a USE, or the UK being in it. I just don't want any part of being in a USE that looks anything like the current EU, and because of repeated attempts, over decades, to defkect the directionbof the EU, I don't want to be in what a USE coming out of the distant, overly-beaurocratic and undemocratic EU we currently have.

So if you see us leaving the EU because we won't be in some future USE as enough to call it a disaster, fair enough.

But I'd suggest that the vast bulk of 'remainers' call it a disaster on economic grounds. Ir at least, that's the constant refrain we all hear from talking heads.

And on those grounds, I refer back to my previous post - nobody knows whether, financially and economically, it'll be a disaster, a rip-roaring success or, most likely, somewhere in-between.


As for Trump, my point was rather that the long-term aim of equalising trading conditions, of getting IP recognition and respect, of stoping righrs grabs, puts BOTH sides on an equal footing and, longer term, is right for both. But getting there may take the pain of a tariff war because, feankly, nothing short of that has worked.

It is, if you like, short term pain for long-term gain. For both.

Oh, and I doubt there'll be much short-term gain for the US economy. The game, I think, is rather different. The US will suffer, but China will suffer a lot more. Time will tell if it works out that way.

I'd also argue that a United World, while laudabke, can't work with the overtly protectionist stsnce of China. That's rntirely WHY there's a tariff war .... to get China to drop its protectionusm and open up.


Oh, and BTW, you are aware that a very major pkank of the EU is protectionism, yes? It's what much of our current arguments are about - the Custons Union. That, emphaticalky and deliberately, is about pritecting anyone inside the customs union against anyone outside it. It was one very fontentious point wheb we joined the Common Market - we were a major teading partner with, for example, Australus and New Zealand and they suddenly found one of their msjor expirt matkets us) inside a orotectionist barrier that they were outside, and it hurt them hugely.

[Corky34]

*opens door*..Is this the Trump's China trade tariffs support group?
*backs away slowly and closes door*

[Saracen]

*opens door*..Is this the Trump's China trade tariffs support group?
*backs away slowly and closes door*

Not hardly.

But, like chemotherapy, medicine can be really foul, have horrible affects but ultimately, be in the patient's best interests.

Just because it's unpleasant doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be done.


However, like chemo, it also won't necessarily work.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its a good thing my mate told me this generation of graphics cards had a massive increase in price-performance. This means despite the increases they are much better value than older cards since performance per dollar is obviously much better.Phew.







Wait,he told me I got confused. It was literally a massive increase in price for the performance. Oh,thats a bit crap and now the price will go up further. What a blow for them. Oh well.

[TeePee]

Wait, are tariffs good or bad? Because we all know the EU loves a good tariff. Or is this one of those 'everything Trump does is evil, while everything the EU does is wonderful' moments.

That Trump is really doing is renegotiating trade agreements. His approach to negotiations is aggressive, hostile and damaging to the reputation of the US. On the other hand, he's getting results. He's like a petulant child who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram, but granny still gives him lollypops.

[Corky34]

It's a matter of perspective as like all taxes (tariffs are basically taxes) their effect is entirely subjective, if you're a drinks manufacture the sugar tax is probally seen as a bad thing, if you're a dentist or struggle to keep the pounds off it's probably a good thing.

[Iota]

That Trump is really doing is renegotiating trade agreements.

Pretty much, China doesn't like it though. So I'm not sure who is being petulant? Trump for imposing tariffs to try to even the trade deficit (and he has far more scope for tariffs than China in this regard), or China for refusing to sit at the table and come to some form of compromise, when the balance of trade has been in their favour for decades?

Short term, it'll effect world trade growth, longer term he is trying to protect the longer term growth of the USA, so for that he has my respect. Being honest, it's probably the only choice he really has. The EU will be the next target, so in the regard of future trading relationships we're probably better off out of that club (and would be anyway due to the complexity of 27 other nations all competing for their own interests in trade agreements).

On the subject of "that which shall not be named", it's entirely debatable if it'll ever happen, mainly due to the sycophants marching to their own agenda, as well as the likely dawning realisation from our own ministers and Members of Parliament that they'll actually become accountable for their actions (instead of blaming it on the EU policies they've had a hand in). Time will tell if our Prime Minister has half the backbone of President Trump. I doubt it.

[Fogoldgaming]

Electronic stuff has been insanely cheap for decades really. That's probably about to change.

[kompukare]

Electronic stuff has been insanely cheap for decades really. That's probably about to change.

While we (certainly people who frequent websites aimed at tech enthusiast) have gotten used to that, there is a very obvious cost to all that:

Increased prices might make a difference but what would also help would more re-usability and exacting standards on interoperability especially for things like batteries. Problem is big corporation run the show and despite some hypocritical PR statements, they'd much rather sell us new widgets with planned obsolescence and purposefully poorly designed repairability.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

While we (certainly people who frequent websites aimed at tech enthusiast) have gotten used to that, there is a very obvious cost to all that:

Increased prices might make a difference but what would also help would more re-usability and exacting standards on interoperability especially for things like batteries. Problem is big corporation run the show and despite some hypocritical PR statements, they'd much rather sell us new widgets with planned obsolescence and purposefully poorly designed repairability.

Well not me at least - I tend to try and get as much use out of the things I have lol,and find secondary uses for my older tech.

BTW a lot of that waste is sent to Asia and Africa where a lot of stuff is made. Our export of production to the rest of the world was not just to make more money but was also exporting the pollution too.

Edit!!

Agreed about things like phones were the obsession with thinness means they are hard to repair.

[kompukare]

Agreed about things like phones were the obsession with thinness means they are hard to repair.

Well, a certain fruit logoed company with a very prominent environmental policy has been driving the thinness obsession and of course their products are notoriously hard to repair. Especially nowadays as back in their 68k and PPC days they produced quite serviceable stuff (although for expansion they overcharged for decades).

[Saracen]

Well, a certain fruit logoed company with a very prominent environmental policy has been driving the thinness obsession and of course their products are notoriously hard to repair. Especially nowadays as back in their 68k and PPC days they produced quite serviceable stuff (although for expansion they overcharged for decades).

While broadly not disagreeing, "overcharged" is subjective.

What policy or principle should determine price? Bear in mind, executives in large and especially public quoted companies have a set of kegal requirements mandated by law that they MUST follow .... or risk being sued, prosecuted or both. One of those is actingvin the shareholders best interests. While that certainly diesn't impky maximising prices, or even necessarily profits, it does place a clear imperative. Some strategies other than maximum profits are in shareholders interests too, like maximising growth, which can imply sacrifining short-term profits for company growth, and hence share price growth.

One example of maximising growth would be Amazon, and another would be Microsoft.

Also, of course, any company reinvesying wny profits in rapid growth is goingvto minimise it's corpieation tax bill as itcends up making lutyle or no profit on massive turnover. Ring any bells?


HOWEVER .... another perfectly plausible strategy is to go high-end, "exclusive" and/or "designer". Such a strategy suggests, or even demands, that prices are high because to maintain exclusivity, you don't want high volumes of production. An example would be very high end watches, or true designer clothes .... by which I mean the real stuff, not mass-produced tat with a "designer" label on it targetted at the especially gullible in high-street stores.

You can even find it in mass producers. I don't know whether it's still true, but some years ago I was told BMW set annual maximum production levels for M-series cars, and that it was about restricting supply, not ibability to manufacture.
So, sure enough, about an hour after I ordered mine, orders were closed for the year and no more taken for about 5 or 6 months.

The net result, of course (and this does vary year to year) is laughter when you ask about discounts.


In any event, "overcharged" is subjective, because if a seller can convince you to pay1.2x, or 3x, ir 10x (where x is a competitive product's price) it will only be because they can. If product A from 'Fancybrand' is significantly more than product B ftom 'Embarrassingbrand', and both products are wqually capable, then is product A overpriced if it sells like hotcakes,,andcwgen you release it, people will queue for hours in the middle of the night to get it?

What it really tells us is that lots and lots of people will pay for world-class product marketing. I did for that BMW M, and was I overcharged? Obviously not, as I wanted it and was prepared to pay to get it.

Was it worth it?

Hell, yes.

To me.

I wouldn't pay for a certain fruit-branded phone, but is it overpriced to those who woukd and do? Obviously not, or they wouldn't buy it. Indeed, the price is part of why such goods sell - to prove users can afford to buy. If you hslve the price and everybody csn justify one, yoy destroy lart of the appeal.

Manufacturers aren't social enterprises seeking to sell at the lowest pissoble cost. Some, fruit-branded and otherwise, target a particular market segment, and in that fruit-branded example, I'd call them 'aspirational'. The ssme stunt works, for exsmple, with certain "must-be-seen-in" sunglasses, trainers, jeans, and so on.