[sneak]

You are wrong. Despite some recent movements to produce iPhones in other places, approximately 100% of all iPhones are made in China.

Without China, there is no iPhone, and there is no Apple. Apple, presently, needs to operate in China. They have them by the balls.

Compliance with CCP demands is non-optional.

This may change in the future. Today it is 100% true.

[Alupis]

So you're claiming it's not possible to produce an iPhone in any other country besides China?

That seems incredibly dubious.

Who forced Apple to manufacturer iPhones in China?

Nobody.

[sneak]

It's not possible to make 25,000 iPhones per hour anywhere else on Earth right now. There are over a hundred thousand people who work on manufacturing the iPhone and you can't just clone them (and their skills and experience and knowledge) in a week, or a month, or even a year.

That's not dubious, that's obvious.

[ben_w]

> Who forced Apple to manufacturer iPhones in China?

> Nobody

Ironically correct: the absence of alternatives — nobody else could do it — is what forced them in the first place.

The recent pressure from the US government to "bring it home" is because the US government finally started to realise that was both true and bad (doesn't matter if Huawei was really spying, Washington believed they were); similarly for equivalent EU pressure.

[j16sdiz]

> That seems incredibly dubious.

Check out the global battery supply chain

[xnyan]

Are you asking if the west could make phones? Almost certainly. Have they chosen to do so? Not at all. Apple may be big enough today to possibly operate without china in 10-20 years, but no chance in 2007 or today.

[User23]

US and European political leadership who made manufacturing unaffordable domestically.

It will take about five years optimistically to build that capability.

[jongjong]

It's the global debt-based fiat monetary system. It squeezes workers hard and turns every industry into a winner-takes-all industry since workers are so poor they can only afford the cheapest of the cheap. In the old days, a business could afford to continue to operate and thrive even if they weren't necessarily number one at everything... People had enough surplus income to not worry about spending a bit more for some local product even if it wasn't necessarily the best value for money. Also consumers were not so insanely well attuned to squeezing every penny as they are today (due to lower financial stress levels) and this created more room for new businesses to compete with incumbents.

It's the effect of the monetary system squeezing the masses hard which forces everyone to buy the cheapest things and it created a kind of technological shrinkflationary race to the bottom.

[User23]

You’re correct of course. Even so it’s worth noting that you could also call it the global asset based monetary system. Credits and debits are just two sides of the ledger.

In my mind, and definitely informed by my attraction to medieval Catholic philosophy, the problem isn’t really debt but rather usury.

[jongjong]

Kind of interesting that the definition of usury became about 'unreasonably high' interest rates as opposed to merely any interest. I think the harm of usury can happen at any interest rate level depending on the specific details of debt contracts.

I actually think that if it's one's own money, they should be allowed to loan it at any interest rate since they're taking the risk upon themselves. If they can find a willing borrower at such high rates, then good for them. If the borrower agrees to a bad deal, then it's the borrower's own fault.

What I most strongly oppose is the idea of public institutions loaning citizens' money through the issuance of new currency (which dilutes the value of previously issued money). It's especially harmful when the interest rate is low.

For example, if the interest rate is 0%, then it's unjust for a government institution to dilute citizen's currency and shift the risk of borrower default onto currency-holding citizens (savers) without offering any upside to those savers; in that case, the central banks turn regular citizens (savers) into suckers by loaning out their money for free for the benefit of reckless borrowers who borrow it for free.

[FirmwareBurner]

>US and European political leadership who made manufacturing unaffordable domestically.

Manufacturing consumer goods in the west was never unaffordable, just that insane corporates profits weren't possible while keeping manufacturing in the west, as they were in China.

A lot of consumer electronics were made in the west before the mass exodus to China. Nokia phones was made in Finland and Germany, Siemens phones were made in Germany, Ericsson phones were made in Sweden, etc.

It was all possible and they also didn't cost an rm and a leg, but companies saw the allure of ultracheap labor and loose environmental regulations in China to jack up their profits.

[User23]

Right. And governments failed to establish public policies to make that unattractive when they certainly could have.

[FirmwareBurner]

Exactly. Tariffs on Chinese made goods would have prevented this but everyone saw only shareholder value increasing opportunities so it was decided to offshore all electronics manufacturing.