Last week, the Financial Times reported that Nintendo shifted half of its production capabilities for the upcoming Switch 2 to Cambodia and Vietnam, in part to avoid Donald Trump’s trade war on China. Wednesday morning, Nintendo formally announced the Switch 2, and its $449 price, which is $150 more than the Switch. A few hours later, Trump announced tariffs on the entire world, with particularly large fees on China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. 

There are going to be far more important and damaging impacts of Trump’s unilateral trade war on everyone than the price of an already expensive game console likely going up. The U.S. stock market has already plunged. But the timing and narrative around the Switch 2—the successor to one of the most popular games consoles of all time—highlights how destabilizing this is likely to be, the interconnectedness of the global economy, and the fact that Trump cannot just snap his fingers and onshore manufacturing to the United States without massive pain. Gamers, understandably, are pissed, and award-winning economists say they are right to be. I thought it'd be useful to discuss the broader impact of the tariffs with leading economics by focusing on the Switch 2, because it's such a high-profile item.

“The policy announcement is astonishing for its stupidity,” Gene Grossman, a global trade expert and Princeton professor who won the Onassis Prize in International Trade, told 404 Media. “It seems like a joke!” He added that it is hard to know exactly what will happen given the overall “sea of idiocy” brought on by the tariffs. 

Since Trump’s announcement, it has become clear that the administration calculated the tariffs for each country based on a crude formula that takes each country’s trade deficit with the United States, divides it by two, and sticks a percent sign at the end. This means new tariffs on Vietnamese-made goods will be 46 percent and new tariffs on Cambodian-made goods will be 49 percent.

“If [the Switch 2] is something that consumers are dying to have ‘at any price,’ then the price will go up. If consumers can readily switch to something else, then if Nintendo wants to sell these things, it will have to lower the price,” Grossman said. “Yes, I think it is quite possible that the price will go even higher than $449.99. Some expectations of a tariff may have been built into this price, as you suggest, but I don’t think anyone expected a 46% tariff on Vietnam, not even close.”

Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at UCLA School of Law, told 404 Media that “the tariffs announced will definitely increase prices further over what is baked into price levels currently,” and that Nintendo will “have other markets they can sell to tariff-free, so they have no reason to sell at a special low price in the United States, certainly not enough to offset the full tariff.” 

Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University, told 404 Media it can be costly for companies to change their publicly announced prices. 

"I think two things are true at the same time: 1. It is likely that Nintendo did not expect the tariff on Vietnam to be 46%," Tintelnot told 404 Media. "2. It is costly for firms to change prices, particularly after publicly announcing one. So I would think it is somewhat uncertain what they will do. One possibility would be for the price to remain unchanged, but the price of complementary goods to increase, such as games." 

Jason Cherubini, an executive in residence of finance at Loyola University Maryland, said it’s possible Nintendo had already priced in some unknown level of tariffs prior to the announcement, and that he thinks the price for the Switch 2 is unlikely to change because video game companies have historically sold consoles at a loss and then made money back on the sale of games. 

“Nintendo started to diversify their manufacturing away from China with the impending threat of tariffs but also to move away from geopolitical concentration in China. But these tariffs were not wholly unexpected,” he said. “I think the price they announced is the price that’s going to stick, because with consoles a lot of pricing is strategic pricing as opposed to being based on the true cost of manufacturing it … especially Nintendo, who really keeps all of their IP, their games, so much of that is in-house, it’s probably even more important for Nintendo to get people to have the console, so that way they're buying Zelda, they're buying Mario, they're buying all of these IP that Nintendo then profits off of. Getting people to purchase it is more important than them making money on the console itself.”

We don’t know what is actually going to happen with the Switch 2 yet, but prices are almost definitely going to go up for almost everything across the entire economy, Grossman said. 

“While I can’t say confidently about this item, I can say that prices will go up for a whole range of goods, starting with cars and right on down to clothing,” he said. 

Trump has announced these tariffs with the nominal goal of moving manufacturing to the United States. Reshoring manufacturing—especially of high tech goods—has been a goal of various administrations over the years, and was a goal of Joe Biden’s CHIPS Act, which the Trump administration has sought to gut. 

There are numerous practical problems with trying to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. They include the fact that lots of factory work is so underpaid and grueling that people in China don’t even want to do it anymore; the average age of factory workers in China is rising and companies there have begun shifting jobs to more developing nations like Vietnam and Cambodia. 

Many of the raw materials and components needed for tech manufacturing are not mined or made in the United States, meaning those components and rare earth metals are going to be subject to tariffs. American companies do not have the expertise or ability to build lots of products in the United States, and setting up factories and supply chains to do so is not going to be an overnight process, it will be one that takes years or decades depending on the product. 

“Nintendo would need to spend billions to open a factory in the US,” Daniel Ahmad, director of research and insights at Niko Partners and a video game market analyst, tweeted. “It'd probably take 4-5 years to complete this. Not to mention the time and cost to rebuild supply chain infrastructure and source components (which would be subject to tariffs because they're made outside the US). Nintendo would have to pay each worker about 10x to 15x more than they would for a worker in Vietnam. Then after you add up the initial capital expenditure, labor cost, supply chain cost, operational costs etc... you'd be able to buy a US manufactured Nintendo Switch 2 in 5 years for a significantly higher price than $450. And the kicker is that by the time they've done all that, the US will have a new president who most likely removes all the reciprocal tariffs anyway.”

Cherubini said that reshoring electronics manufacturing is “not something you can just flip a switch on. Optimistically you’re looking at a year for simpler manufacturing, but a lot of it is a multi-year process.” 

I have covered attempts by the electronics industry to create high tech factories and mining operations in the United States; many of them are not going particularly well. The United States has only one rare earth minerals mine (in California), which has been mining for less than 10 years. Foxconn and TSMC factories in the United States have had a mixed record and do not have anywhere near the sophistication or capacity as their factories in Taiwan and China.

This is all to say that, based on where things stand this morning, we are in for a world of economic pain. 

Apple’s AirPods Max are undoubtedly the pinnacle of Apple’s headphone lineup, delivering exceptional sound quality. However, their battery life isn’t exactly stellar – especially if you’re not in the habit of slipping them into their Smart Case after every use, which helps preserve battery life by putting them in an ultra-low power mode. Fortunately, Paris-based design brand Bionic has introduced a minimalist solution that takes the hassle out of keeping your AirPods Max charged and ready to go – the Bionic Magnetic Charging Stand.

The Bionic charging stand isn’t just a resting place for your AirPods Max – it’s a dual-purpose dock that ensures your headphones remain charged without any extra effort. Simply placing the headphones on the stand initiates charging, making it easy to ensure they’re always powered up when you need them.

What sets this charging stand apart is its intuitive design. Unlike traditional docks where you might expect to fiddle with aligning a Lightning or USB-C connector to fit into the ear cup, Bionic has streamlined the process. The stand comes with a small magnetic adapter that remains plugged into your AirPods Max. When you place the headphones onto the stand, the adapter automatically aligns with the magnets in the dock, initiating the charging process seamlessly. This smart design means less wear and tear on your connectors and a more effortless charging routine. The stand is compatible with both Lightning and USB-C versions of the AirPods Max, ensuring broad usability regardless of your model.

Crafted in three sleek finishes – Silver, Space Grey, and Midnight – the Bionic Charging Stand feels as premium as the headphones it supports. While it’s unclear what the weighted body is made from, it exudes a modern, minimalist aesthetic that complements any desk or bedside table. The dock is also designed with a soft rubber buffer where the headphones rest, preventing any potential scratches or damage to your AirPods Max.

While the Bionic Charging Stand color options don’t cover the full range of AirPods Max colors, they provide enough variety to find a match that suits your personal taste and setup.

The Bionic Magnetic Charging Stand is globally available in Silver, Space Grey, and Midnight for €175, or approximately US $189, directly at bioniclabs.org.

Photography courtesy of Bionic.

In the heart of Austin’s Travis Heights neighborhood, the afternoon sun streams through the vast north-facing glass addition of the Travis Heights Historic Home by architect Michael Hsu Office of Architecture. Light casts geometric shadows across limestone floors embedded with ancient fossils – 145-million-year-old remnants of giant clams that once inhabited this land, now preserved alongside 19th-century horseshoes and indigenous arrowheads. This juxtaposition forms the conceptual foundation of this renovation project, highlighting how time and place can be interpreted.

James Gibson Swisher, Texas Ranger and signatory of the Texas Declaration of Independence, built the brick home in 1851 using materials fashioned from a kiln he constructed along the Colorado River. Today, it stands as the second oldest brick residence in Texas, its original foundation now serving as the first floor – a testament to the resourcefulness of frontier craftspeople working with local resources and traditional techniques.

The current owner, driven by a deep appreciation for Austin’s architectural heritage, approached the renovation with reverence. They wanted to be sure the addition would not mimic or be confused with the rare original structure, and instead, it should be true to its time. This philosophy manifests in the contemporary glass structure that frames downtown views and creates an intimate connection with the surrounding landscape.

The landscape design extends onto a rare 1.25-acre urban plot. Native gardens, a prairie roof meadow atop the cabana, and thoughtfully integrated recreational spaces create a sustainable backdrop that spotlights Texas’ natural surroundings while providing contemporary amenities.

When craftsmen discovered charred wood remnants from a 1920s attic fire, rather than discarding these damaged elements, they repurposed them as ceiling material for the ground floor spa bathroom – transforming damage into design. As such, the interiors create a dialogue between different eras. The preserved historic sections embrace a lounge-like atmosphere with rich textures and ambient illumination, while the modern addition offers bright, airy spaces ideal for gathering. A grand spiral staircase connects these four distinct levels.

Visit Michael Hsu Office of Architecture’s website for more information.

Photography by Chase Daniel.

Frage für einen Freund!

Die sind nicht zimperlich und nehmen auch Bürgerkriegsländer mit Hungersnot wie Somalia und den Südsudan.

Begründet hat er das mit unfassbaren Strafzölle, die ja alle die anderen bösen Länder gegen die USA erheben!1!!

Es hat natürlich nicht lange gedauert, bis Wirtschaftsexperten (dass ich DAS Wort hier noch mal unironisch verwenden würde!) herauszufinden versucht haben, wo diese Zahlen herkommen, die er sich da aus dem Arsch gezogen hat.

Stellt sich raus: War ganz einfach. Sie haben einfach das Außenhandelsdefizit genommen zum jeweiligen Land, haben das dann durch die US-Importe von dort geteilt, und behauptet, das seien die Zölle, die dieses andere Land gegen die USA erhebt, und daher müsse man jetzt in die Gegenrichtung nachkorrigieren.

Wartet. Geht noch weiter.

Also haben sie einen Funktionär losgeschickt, der in die Kameras lügen sollte, dass das gar nicht stimmt mit der Formel da. Der hat dann ein paar Screenshots mit Formeln mit griechischen Buchstaben gezeigt, damit keiner versteht, was da vor sich geht. Aber nicht alle Leute sind dumm, nicht mal in den USA, und so haben natürlich einige Leute doch verstanden, was da stand, und es war nicht nur kein Dementi, es war eine Bestätigung der reverse engineerten Formel.

Das Internet ist jetzt natürlich voller Spott und Hohn. Einer meiner Lieblingssprüche ist:

"It's essentially #CriticalTradeTheory. Any trade imbalance between two countries is de facto evidence of systemic unfair trade practices."

Wartet. Geht noch weiter. Da passt noch ein Die-"KI"-verschluckt-sich-am-korrekten-Typesetting-Joke rein!

Ich fühle mich ja bei solchen Nummern in meiner Intelligenz beleidigt. Ich meine, ok, der Donald mit seinem ganzen vergoldeten Fake-Glitter-Scheiß, war klar, dass da der erste Eindruck wichtiger ist als der Inhalt. Aber wenn sich die Politiker, die mir ins Gesicht lügen, nicht mal genug Mühe geben dabei, dass das nicht innerhalb der ersten zwei Stunden auffällt, dann fühle ich mich persönlich beleidigt.

Update: Oh warte, geht noch weiter. Die haben nur den Warenverkehr genommen, nicht Dienstleistungen. Wenn man Dienstleistungen reinrechnet, ist der Handel zwischen EU und USA nämlich ausgeglichen.