RT @WhalePanda: "Bitmain is Suffering from the 27.6% US Tariffs on Their Antminer S9"
That must suck after building a $500 million facility in the US and the fact that you're already selling the miners at a loss.
"Bitmain is Suffering from the 27.6% US Tariffs on Their Antminer S9"
That must suck after building a $500 million facility in the US and the fact that you're already selling the miners at a loss.
The tariffs are likely temporary, until Chinese tariffs on US goods are reduced. If the rest of the world wants a US that is more internally focused - on things like manufacturing - than externally focused - on things like empire management - they will come around. If Americans want to help they can produce goods that the rest of the world actually wants (like non GMO food items).
Lambda59Redditor for less than 30 days5 months ago
I guess you have to have almost free electricity to make buying an S9 *anywhere* worthwhile.
The boss of the HK ~~stock exchange~~ Chamber of Commerce says it would be inappropriate for Bitmain's IPO to proceed at this time. Bitmain's IPO document laid out their negative cashflow situation: If they're not selling S9s their cashflow must look even more dire now - and they have a big tax bill to pay soon. How long before they have to start selling crypto to pay the bills?
The $400M they got from the August funding round isn't going to last for ever.
EDIT. Source: [Bitmain IPO Listing on Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE) Continues to Delay Amidst Crypto Drama](https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitmain-ipo-listing-on-hong-kong-stock-exchange-hkse-continues-to-delay-amidst-crypto-drama/)
> Now the boss of the HK stock exchange has said it would be inappropriate for Bitmain's IPO to go ahead at this time
Lambda59Redditor for less than 30 days5 months ago
[Bitmain IPO Listing on Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE) Continues to Delay Amidst Crypto Drama](https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitmain-ipo-listing-on-hong-kong-stock-exchange-hkse-continues-to-delay-amidst-crypto-drama/)
Incredibly unlikely. The U.S. simply does not have the same tech product manufacturing infrastructure China has. Bitmain relies on other Chinese companies to fabricate parts, so even if they assembled their ASICs in the U.S., they'd have to import most or all of the parts from China and so would still get slapped by the tariffs.
Also, there's a good likelihood the tariffs will be lifted 2 years and 3 months from now when Trump gets kicked out of the White House. Bitmain's U.S. based fabrication plant won't even be complete by then.
Tariffs are the dumbest and most fickle tool to try and shape an economy. The net effect for Bitcoin and ASICs is even fewer mining companies will set up base in the U.S. (for now).
Discriminating on race vs discriminating in general.
The intention here is discriminating, in general, the reality is discriminating on nationality.
It's just a little stretch to call it racial discrimination.
They don't work. Every dollar that it costs more to build an S9 in the US compared to the ones build in China, is a dollar the could have been spent elsewhere in the American economy. Every tariff moves a market away from the equilibrium between demand and supply.
Except tariffs makes US production more competitive, so instead of China having a monopoly on supply, more goods will be produced in the US. You will pay slightly higher prices for the products sure, but in return you get manufacturing expanding domestically creating jobs and economic benefits to Americans.
I can see why internationalists, who care nothing for the US economy or US citizens don't want tariffs though. Free trade surely benefits the Chinese.
And how does your completely arbitrary statement have anything to do with the trade imbalances between two independent, competing, sovereign countries? Tariffs are to protect US economic interests, not China's, as well as correct trade imbalances between the two countries. That's kind of the point.
Trade imbalance is caused by meddling which is net less efficient. Benefiting the part (America) is at the expense of the whole (the world) by meddling to artificially support subpar production. Why should some enjoy disproportionate quality of life without producing goods and services competitive in a global and free market?
You are essentially arguing for the abolition of countries. The duty of a sovereign country is to protect their own economic interests. This is done through trade and trade agreements that are mutually beneficial and giving access to each other's markets on fair terms that are beneficial to both parties. The regulatory and economic environment in China is very different than that in the US, so they can never compete on the same terms as if they were two businesses competing in the same market. They are two sovereign nations each taking care of their own economic interests.
>Benefiting the part (America) is at the expense of the whole (the world)
You are saying that America should accept massive trade imbalances by giving away their manufacting base to China, as an act of charity? That is ludicrous. American trade policy should protect the interests of Americans, and China's trade policy should benefit the Chinese. The optimal trade deal is the one where both parties benefit to their liking. In the current scenario, the US trade policy massively benefits the chinese at the expense of the US (370+ billion trade deficit). Hence, tariffs is a tool that can be used to protect US economic interests. I mean China uses tariffs, but the US can't? Double standard. The US taxpayer is not the world's welfare office.
I am advocating to not manipulate currencies or trade conditions so working conditions balance out and are based on the merits of the quality of services being provided. I don’t care much for people interfering with voluntary trade. If a trade between two parties is not mutually beneficial, one of the parties will not trade. My interest is in fair standards for people directly providing goods and services. If additional cost is needed to provide a good or service (e.g. adherence to and enforcement of safety rules), then that cost should be built in to the good or service and incurred by the consumer at the time of purchase. That keeps things simple and economically true.
> If a trade between two parties is not mutually beneficial, one of the parties will not trade
Why stop trading entirely? You can simply reduce or restrict access to your markets, or impose a tariff, which does the job as well. This gives you leverage in a negotiation until both parties are satisfied with the agreement. Easy.
I think you are simply attached to the cliche of "free trade". It sounds nice in the abstract, but it doesn't work out well for both parties in reality. What you really are for, according to your argument, is **fair** trade. Mutually beneficial agreements between two consenting parties (in this case nation states). The US has tremendous leverage due having the biggest consumer market in the world, that China wants access to. They have gotten a free ride for a long time due to sloppy trade agreements, which hurt the US economy tremendously. Of course this is great for China. Not so great for the US. Tariffs are a way to exert leverage and even out imbalances so trade its fair for both parties and there wont be these massive trade deficits on one side.
In theory, but companies are transnational no reason to support US industry when they don't have a big consumer base for your product.
Free trade benefits those who have value to trade with each other.
>no reason to support US industry when they don't have a big consumer base for your product.
The US is the biggest consumer market in the world though, and by a huge margin. China makes a killing selling their cheaply manufactured products on a tariff free US market. So I don't really understand your argument.
>The US is the biggest consumer market in the world though, and by a huge margin.
not for ASIC mining equipment.
BTW have you seen China has a huge - bigger consumer market? The only thing curbing their ubiquitous consumption is they just can't print USD out of thin air.
Free trade benefits everyone. It doesn't make US production more competitive, it subsidizes producers who can't compete as well on the free market and encourages sub-optimal resource allocation. What if everything was produced by the country or people capable of doing it most efficiently?
Free trade doesn't benefit "everyone", it only benefits those with the competitive advantage. Do you think the US can compete with China on wages? What essentially amounts to slave labor?
If I am a US based company producing goods, why would I not want to move my factory to China so I can hire workers for a fraction of the wages in the US, and operate in a less restrictive regulatory environment? Then I sell these goods back into the US with no tariffs. Fantastic deal for me as a factory owner, who can operate at a fraction of the costs, and a good deal for China who expands their manufacturing base and economic growth, but it completely annihilates US manufacturing by outsourcing entire industries out of the US. Do you think this benefits the US labor market in any way? How many US manufacturing jobs are lost this way?
I see your name is Beijing Bitcoins, would it be daring for me to assume you are from China and are in favor of no US tariffs because your country benefits immensely from not having tariffs on exported goods to the US? Perhaps you might be a bit biased as you gain enormous economic benefit from so called "free trade" (nevermind China having tariffs on US imported goods, which of course is ignored)
I'm American and in favor of free trade for all. If a country has a competitive advantage then it's probably for a good reason. I was reading about the [Norwegian Butter Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_butter_crisis) earlier. The shortage was exacerbated by import tariffs on dairy that were intended to protect Norwegian farmers by keeping prices artificially high:
> Shortages persisted as a result of high import tariffs on butter to protect the domestic dairy industry against foreign competition, which meant that 90 percent of the butter on sale in Norway was produced domestically.
> Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.
> There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.
> Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 50,000 persons might be employed in a woolen sweater industry, 50,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.
> The tariff has been described as a means of benefiting the producer at the expense of the consumer. In a sense this is correct. Those who favor it think only of the interests of the producers immediately benefited by the particular duties involved. They forget the interests of the consumers who are immediately injured by being forced to pay these duties. But it is wrong to think of the tariff issue as if it represented a conflict between the interests of producers as a unit against those of consumers as a unit. It is true that the tariff hurts all consumers as such. It is not true that it benefits all producers as such. On the contrary, as we have just seen, it helps the protected producers at the expense of all other American producers, and particularly of those who have a comparatively large potential export market.
> On the subject of the tariff we must keep in mind one final precaution. It is the same precaution that we found necessary in examining the effects of machinery. It is useless to deny that a tariff does benefit—or at least can benefit—special interests. True, it benefits them at the expense of eveiyone else. But it does benefit them. If one industry alone could get protection, while its owners and workers enjoyed the benefits of free trade in everything else they bought, that industry would benefit, even on net balance. As an attempt is made to extend the tariff blessings, however, even people in the protected industries, both as producers and consum ers, begin to suffer from other people’s protection, and may finally be worse off even on net balance than if neither they nor anybody else had protection.
>I'm American and in favor of free trade for all. If a country has a competitive advantage then it's probably for a good reason.
Yes, I already explained it to you. The advantage is less restrictive regulatory environment and extremely low labor wages, in some countries what essentially amounts to slave labor. You can't offer this in the US. You are essentially putting US workers against Chinese workers in a wage competition. No American will work for 200-500 dollars a month, which is what you are up against for a chinese factory worker. The tradeoff for Americans is lower prices on certain goods, but a completely wiped out manufacturing sector. It's an economic dead end.
Here's a highly relevant quote from Ross Perot:
>”In the second 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot argued:
>“We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
> “...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.”
Exactly the same argument applies to China.
Your post didn't really address any of my central arguments, except this fallacious statement:
>In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. **In order that 50,000 persons might be employed in a woolen sweater industry, 50,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.**
This would assume that the jobs lost to overseas manufacturing are magically replaced somewhere else. That isn't the case, all you get is simply higher unemployment as low skilled factory jobs are no longer available.
US farm subsidies are making unsubsidized farmed goods more expensive to produce. The net cost is paid by poor developing countries.
There is no free lunch when you start manipulating the balance of trade. Only exacerbated wealth inequality.
>The net cost is paid by poor developing countries.
What do you mean exactly, please elaborate on this statement. We have over a 370 billion dollar trade deficit with China. They are making an absolute killing at our expense. So much for "free trade".
Don't buy for China, The only reason the US has a deficit is because the US industries and people are unproductive relative to the over-inflated USD value.
Enforcing rules that make US industries less productive by taxing productive industries outside the US can't help make the US more productive.
The US pays relatively no interest on its deficit in comparison to the deficit of poor developing countries, the net beneficiary is the US.
>The only reason the US has a deficit is because the US industries and people are unproductive relative to the over-inflated USD value.
False, the reason the US has a trade deficit with China is due to having terrible trade policies that benefit the Chinese disproportionately. China has access to the US consumer market, and I repeat, the largest in the world, and they have not granted the same free access to their own markets in return. China has just taken advantage of weak US leaders, which of course is in **their** best interest but luckily no longer.
>Enforcing rules that make US industries less productive by taxing productive industries outside the US can't help make the US more productive.
Every country has a right to protect their own citizens from damaging trade policies. The US manufacturing base has been destroyed due to bad trade policy. This is not a gain for the US economy. The US market has no responsibility to provide Chinese workers with jobs, they do however have a responsibility to strengthen US economic growth.
>The US pays relatively no interest on its deficit in comparison to the deficit of poor developing countries, the net beneficiary is the US.
False, in this case the net beneficiary is China. Do I need to cite the trade deficit again? 370 billion dollars plus. Look at their explosive economic growth. Turns out, that a big part of that was being subsidized by the US taxpayer due to bad trade policy.
The US taxpayer has been the world's piggybank for a long time. It is the largest and most productive economy in the world, give the most foreign aid of any country, pays disproportionate amounts for NATO, UN and other internationally funded projects, and allows access to the most valuable consumer market in the world almost unrestricted.
Now there's a new sheriff in town, bad trade policies are revised and the US economy is booming again. In fact, the current US economy is the strongest economy there's ever been in the history of mankind, and it is only getting better.
[Wall Street Journal - U.S. Is World’s Most Competitive Economy for First Time in a Decade](http://archive.is/b1dLN)
Free trade is an apolitical ideal. You learn this in highschool economics. Free trade lifts all boats. Trump is ultimately hurting Americans AND world citizens by imposing tariffs. Punitive trade measures aren't going to make anyone change their behaviour. Just like drug prohibition doesn't stop people from producing, buying, and using drugs.
>Free trade is an apolitical ideal. You learn this in highschool economics. Free trade lifts all boats. Trump is ultimately hurting Americans AND world citizens by imposing tariffs. Punitive trade measures aren't going to make anyone change their behaviour. Just like drug prohibition doesn't stop people from producing, buying, and using drugs.
That can only come from someone who is politically left! it's ok if china demands 25%, if trump does the same thing, it harm the world's citizens? lol what a nonsense!!
free trade brings peace! if elon musk sells a tesla to china the car is taxed at 25%, if china sells a car to the us, then they can only demand 2% otherwise it harms the world's citizens? No, it does not work like that, both tax equally, otherwise it's not fair! just because you learn something at school, it does not have to be true or fair for both parties! what will happen if both countries tax 25%? Both will go down to 5%, then both will be competitive and the better product will be sold.
btw. you can change the drug use, in some islamic states there is the death penalty for it. I bet people would use 90% less drugs! certainly not if you get $ 100 punishment or 2-3 months in jail that is clear!
If the new chip even works! They have to compete with about half a dozen new chips too. Come on... this company has been mis-managed. Jihan is not the guru some want him to be.
The crypto space is full of over rated hoaxes who believed their own bullshit while the market was going up. Jihan is one of them. Vitalik is another.
For fucks sake, we witnessed the one of the greatest bubbles in all of history and these imposters think it is because they are clever. Gimme a break!
That said some of it will survive and Bitcoin cash has the best chance if it can evict do-gooder developers
1.They had little competition in a bull market
2. They got rid of the designer of their best chip.
3. He has gone to a rival chip maker.
Seriously dumb shit.
Competition is coming in and it will be shown they were lucky.
Lot's of people made lot's of money in crypto last year without being competent. Or did you miss that?
You see, making money in one of the greatest bull markets in history is not a sign of competence. Competence is when you can keep that going when things get tough.
Are you getting it?
I think a more likely result is that they open a mine here. Aluminum factories utilize a HUGE amount of electricity so a former factory will have all the power you'd need for an industrial crypto mine.
Edit: yup, [it's a mine](https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/07/19/coal-gone-texas-town-going-bitcoin-mining)
Okay so look at their financial statements, not only did they have extreme growth in 2017 and still growing extreme in 2018, they were also allready having more pressure from competitors not due to tariffs but due to patents and pressure to innovate faster. The tariffs imposed are US only and most large competitors "suffer" the same tariffs. Overall it would impact them only a few percent and for a company that even exceeds profits compared to Nvidia I wouldn't call anything that impacts them in such a small way "suffering" It would be like saying *"If Apple added a headphone jack, they would suffer from dongle profits"*
What a joke.
If anything, I'd argue a downside would be even more centralization of mining in China due to cheaper hardware. Bitmain missing out on some additional juicy cash sure, but "suffering" is clickbait nonsense.
>and still growing extreme in 2018
What the Fuck. They are not still growing in 2018. First quarter they grew now they are in steep decline, just look that IPO document. They are now experiencing HUGE losses!
They lost somewhere between $400 M and $800M in the second quarter. Third quarter could be worse. They will most likely lose money in 2018.
Have you any idea how to read a report from a company ..lol
>Have you any idea how to read a report from a company ..lol
Do you? You do realize other companies like Tesla have been running net losses for years while still growing? You should try to understand finance a bit more yourself, reading the report should tell you Bitmain has still grown in 2018, only stagnated growth compared to 2017. Net profit ≠ company growth.
Bitmain is not suffering anything at all.
These losses are obviously calculated in and foreseen... Also, if Bitmain is losing out, about every other company in hardware and chip production is equally losing out or worse, as they dont have the market dominance buffer Bitmain has...
In a race to the bottom Bitmain will be the last man standing... its all about relativity to the rest when it comes to profits and losses
Also for the 800M loss that Bitmain will write off, 2 Billion in clean profits are still realized since 2016... Lastly, Bitmain is one of the few companies in the world pumping out next gen mass produced chips for AI computing.... as Roger likes to say: ''not all eggs in one basket''.. mining eventually might become secondary to their AI aspirations
>In a race to the bottom Bitmain will be the last man standing
They haven't produced a new chip that works in 2 years. They have one "in the lab". they will not be last man standing if that doesn't measure up. Doesn't matter what you say
Antminers are only 50% of the market.
waaaaait I think I misunderstood the parent comment.
If there are import taxes on miners, then that IS gonna reduce the amount of mining going on in the US.
Shit am I wrong? Sorry /u/Steven81
Is there anybody at this point that doesn't suspect Bitmain machines of being stuffed full of Chinese gov't hacking hardware? They are currently at 38%, and I'm sure if you include all bitcoin mining hardware made in China, it would be above 51%.
If malicious hardware got into Apple and Amazon stuff, it is almost certainly in all mining rigs. There is a reason Intel isn't allowed to make their chips overseas.
the country who impose the tarrif shots itself in the foot. In this cass since China is responding with tarrifs of its own both countries are going down together. Idiots americans vs reactives chineses
Doesn't most other countries apply some type of import tax? You can't ship an iPhone from the US to India without paying almost half the cost of the iPhone (~$440), and yet all these other countries bitch when they were importing at almost no additional cost. I don't support tariff, but I do support fair trade.
People say that it isn't fair that all these countries impose import taxes and then expect the US not to do the same. But what most people don't understand is that the United States empire doesn't come from selling its goods and services, it comes from forcing the world to sell all of the world's goods, services, products, and labor to the US for next to nothing. The goal of any empire is to force the subjugated to work and toil for your enrichment, and that is what the US has achieved, not through war, but through the power of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. The fact that the US is now indicating that this power is coming to an end is not because of unfair trade policies, it is because the US is admitting that the American empire is coming to an end.
Fiat currencies get their value from the fact that they are required in order to buy goods and services in their respective countries. This means that central banks can only print as much currency as is justified by the demand for goods and services in the underlying economy lest they risk inflation. But with the US, this has not been the case because the demand for the US dollar did not come only from demand for US goods and services, but also from its status as the world's reserve currency. This allowed the US to consume much more than the actual underlying productive economy justified. Like empires of the past who consumed far beyond their base means by subjugating the labor and resources of others, the US has been able to live beyond its means because of the world's insatiable demand for the dollar.
But to a large degree, the US dollars status as reserve currency is quid pro quo. It is in the interest of most developing nations, including China, that the US be extended a huge credit line so it can continue to buy what these countries produce. As long as these countries are most interested in having export driven economies, they want there to be a consumer of last resort, as it were. Now the US is saying it doesn't want to be the consumer of last resort, and that begs the question: if the US isn't willing to buy and wants to compete as a producer, who is everyone going to sell to? And moreover, why should the US dollar remain the reserve currency and why should the US be given an unlimited credit line that it will use to compete with against the world? Up until now, the US dollar's status has been favorable in many regards to the rest of the world, but if the US intends to shift from being the consumer of last resort to being a competitor on the productive end, it no longer makes sense to encourage such privileged status to the dollar.
The US empire is over, that is what Trump is declaring to the world, and that is why the world feels so chaotic today.
Well, we did vote. Our president, assuming you are from the US, won through electoral votes. When he was campaigning, he did say he will be tough on biased trades (although I didn't think he would pull this off in his first two years). We can't be voting for every little issues. There's no such thing as a true democracy. I don't have time to read every God damn bills Senate propose everyday. I go and vote for someone that represents majority of my priorities and views.
Like I said, I am on the side of fair trade. It will certainly impact our economy, but I hope in the long run, it improves. Acts of our current President (I'm a registered Democrat, btw), will surely help to delay or impact China's expansion into Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and other countries in Middle East or South Asia. China is a big bully with that extra trade money from all around the world.
I'm not american. What you have in the US is not democracy. But I'm not for democracy anyway, democracy is the tyranny of the majority which is usually wrong anyway. I'm anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist so I don't believe in goverment, be it Trump or any other president in any country. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense from an economic stand point.
China has gotten away with it because they heavily tax goods made by american companies so the chinese knock offs are that much more competitive.
An iphone in china costs more than in the US because of taxes even though it is made in china. The iphone clones are dirt cheap.
Trump technically is just doing the same thing to china that china does to us. The problem is that we don't have cheap US made alternatives, so trump is fucking over the US economy because he doesn't understand this.
It's going to be a waiting game at this point. The question is, who will cave first, USA or China? My money or China. Sure, this holiday season will suck balls, but China needs us more than we need them.
China has the upper hand because they build everything there. The US doesn't have access to electronics without china. If apple shut down it's iphone factory, they just start making iphone clones instead for all markets outside the US in the same factory. It doesn't actually shut down.
Meanwhile all the US companies that require cheap parts and raw materials from china are closing up shop. We might temporarily save 1k steel mill jobs, but everything is going to topple one by one until all US manufacturers are gone.
It would be nice if china stopped taxing out stuff more than their stuff, but putting a gun to the head of the american consumer and threatening to pull the trigger isn't going to get china to change a damn thing. And unlike the US, china will happily take that saudi oil money.
Why is this reasoning supposed to be the "truth"? The US rarely imposes import tarifs and taxes on goods but everybody else from europe to china have always tacked taxes and tariffs on US imports, but now that trump responded to tariff for tariffs all hell is supposed to break loose.
lol do you think that american consumers will actually be forced to buy foreign goods or something? If you can't afford the tariff you can't afford the good
a high enough tariff would kill certain imports completely
Yes and who would lose thoses imports? american consumers and buisnesses. the average american is actually BENEFITING from the huge trade defecits with china and many other countries. It gives american consumers and buisnesses cheaper stuff when they produce nothing in value in return. Eventually what will happen is the US dollar will go down in value, therefore making every american poorer and making capital investment in factories profitable since the price of the workforce will be lower. That is the only way to reduce the trade defecit in the US.
You assume the demand for those imported items would diminish. I believe the intended effect is that to satisfy the demand for those items, companies would start producing them in the US, creating jobs in the process.
Demand will diminish because price will be higher because of tariff. US could start making some products but usually when talking about China US won't be competitive. The reality is that tariff against China will benefit countries like India the most and American citizens will pay a little bit more for the same products. No job will be created.