Trump Signs Deal to keep Carrier in the US

[Michael Hardner]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/29/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html?adkey=bn

 

Quote

n response to a CNBC report that Carrier will receive "new inducements" from Indiana, trade attorney Scott Lincicome, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, criticized the deal.

"'New inducements'" = Subsidies," Lincicome wrote, adding "CONGRATULATIONS INDIANA TAXPAYERS! YOU INVOLUNTARILY BOUGHT AN INEFFICIENT AC FACTORY."

 

 Follow

Scott Lincicome @scottlincicome

And there it is. "New inducements" = Subsidies. Spearheaded by fmr. Indiana Governor Pence. #draintheswamphttps://twitter.com/CNBC/status/803754383204818944 …

7:19 PM - 29 Nov 2016

•  
•  
•  
   7777 Retweets
•  
•  
   6262 likes

 

 

Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, commented that the deal could set a troubling precedent.

"Every savvy CEO will now threaten to ship jobs to Mexico, and demand a payment to stay," Wolfers wrote on Twitter, adding "great economic policy."

This is the brilliant strategy to keep jobs in the U.S.  Trudeau would be proud !

[bush_cheney2004]

Government subsidies and tax breaks are standard methods to keep and attract jobs in states, not just countries.

[Michael Hardner]

Is your response patriotic or amoral ?  How does practicality play into this ?  Does it ?  Do you care ?  At what point, if ever, will you say 'this is a bad decision for America' ?  And, sincerely, I am curious as to whether this is politics as usual (as with military production for example) or if there is a new approach at play here.  Specifically from the article:

"Carrier did not elaborate on the terms of the deal, but it is on the record, as are most other major multinational businesses, as wanting to see a cut in corporate tax rates, especially as it applies to cash earned overseas."

 

Does this mean that the real work is still going to happen overseas, with the profits there subsidizing make-believe make-work jobs stateside ?  That seems like a new thing to me, but I'm not sure.  And where are the expenditure cuts going to happen to balance the loss in tax revenue ?  I know neither of us know the answers here but a best guess would suffice.

My guess is that Trump is going to be writing cheques as his Congress tries to cut expenditures, kind of like a married couple that can't get on the same page with their household budget.

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is your response patriotic or amoral ?  How does practicality play into this ?  Does it ?  Do you care ?  At what point, if ever, will you say 'this is a bad decision for America' ?  And, sincerely, I am curious as to whether this is politics as usual (as with military production for example) or if there is a new approach at play here.  Specifically from the article:

 

My response is just a response...don't post topics if responses are not desired.   Nagging me for some personal agenda is off topic.

The approach is not new and has been widely employed by many states, counties, and cities in the United States.

Why, I bet if you look hard enough, you can even find the same approach in Canada (sometimes to keep American owned subsidiaries in provinces).

 

Quote

Does this mean that the real work is still going to happen overseas, with the profits there subsidizing make-believe make-work jobs stateside ?  That seems like a new thing to me, but I'm not sure.  And where are the expenditure cuts going to happen to balance the loss in tax revenue ?  I know neither of us know the answers here but a best guess would suffice.

 

There is no guesswork at all...I had a brand new Carrier natural gas furnace installed last week, and it  was manufactured in the U.S. (Indiana - The Hoosier State) with a mix of domestic and foreign parts.   Lots more tax revenue is lost when thousands of jobs and property taxes go bye-bye.   See "cost benefit analysis".

 

Quote

My guess is that Trump is going to be writing cheques as his Congress tries to cut expenditures, kind of like a married couple that can't get on the same page with their household budget.

 

Trump can't do any worse than Bush or Obama in that regard.   Interest rates are low so...charge it !

Edited November 30, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

My response is just a response...don't post topics if responses are not desired.   Nagging me for some personal agenda is off topic.

The approach is not new and has been widely employed by many states, counties, and cities in the United States.

Why, I bet if you look hard enough, you can even find the same approach in Canada (sometimes to keep American owned subsidiaries in provinces).

 

 

There is no guesswork at all...I had a brand new Carrier natural gas furnace installed last week, and it  was manufactured in the U.S. (Indiana - The Hoosier State) with a mix of domestic and foreign parts.   Lots more tax revenue is lost when thousands of jobs and property taxes go bye-bye.   See "cost benefit analysis".

 

 

Trump can't do any worse than Bush or Obama in that regard.   Interest rates are low so...charge it !

No one 'just responds'.   You have stated principles which are diametrically (and some may say absurdly) opposed, which beguiles me as much as any American sh**show/reality show would entertain the average Canadian.  It's not off topic to ask why you think what you think and believe it or not I find your responses intelligent and substantial.  I can learn not only from your opinions but your process.  If I ask my cat why it likes Fancy Feast it just looks at me.  If I ask the monkey in the zoo why it likes bananas, it throws feces.  I expect more from you.

The 'approach' is new because it asks for a tax cut on offshoring to subsidize... onshoring.  Do you think this is a good approach or not ?  It seems like you do.

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No one 'just responds'.   You have stated principles which are diametrically (and some may say absurdly) opposed, which beguiles me as much as any American sh**show/reality show would entertain the average Canadian. 

 

Meh...you have a long history of badgering me for personal reasons that only you understand.   I just play the game like everyone else, even if/when a moderator steps over the line.

 

Quote

It's not off topic to ask why you think what you think and believe it or not I find your responses intelligent and substantial.  I can learn not only from your opinions but your process.  If I ask my cat why it likes Fancy Feast it just looks at me.  If I ask the monkey in the zoo why it likes bananas, it throws feces.  I expect more from you.

 

I don't owe you anything more than a response to the topic within forum rules.  As previously advised, if you need an American friend, get an American dog....or cat.

 

Quote

The 'approach' is new because it asks for a tax cut on offshoring to subsidize... onshoring.  Do you think this is a good approach or not ?  It seems like you do.

 

The approach may be new to you, but subsidies are commonplace for many scenarios, including professional sports teams and stadiums.

For the record, I hope Trump spurs more repatriation and retention of American jobs, including the ones coveted by Canadians.

Edited November 30, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The approach is not new and has been widely employed by many states, counties, and cities in the United States.

Why, I bet if you look hard enough, you can even find the same approach in Canada (sometimes to keep American owned subsidiaries in provinces).

Agreed, that was my initial reaction to the thread as well. Happens all the time. In this case certainly not as bad as auto bailouts, or banks "too big to fail". At least somebody is getting jobs here. Canada has done things far worse with companies like Bombardier, who take the money and start with the massive layoffs a few months later.

Quote

I had a brand new Carrier natural gas furnace installed last week, and it  was manufactured in the U.S. (Indiana - The Hoosier State) with a mix of domestic and foreign parts.   Lots more tax revenue is lost when thousands of jobs and property taxes go bye-bye.   See "cost benefit analysis".

One of the best furnace brands on the market. Corporate taxcuts and incentives to keep production in your home country make complete sense, as does doing the reverse. This is likely how President-Elect Donald Trump is going to make America great again. It won't happen in a few weeks though.

Edited November 30, 2016 by OftenWrong

[Topaz]

Many products coming out of Mexico are not good quality, I know because I have one of those products and had to have it fixed many times  by Sears.  So if consumers start to boycott products coming out of Mexico, Companies ,may come back to North America,

[?Impact]

45 minutes ago, Topaz said:

Many products coming out of Mexico are not good quality, I know because I have one of those products and had to have it fixed many times  by Sears.  So if consumers start to boycott products coming out of Mexico, Companies ,may come back to North America,

They used to say the same thing about Japan, South Korea, China, etc.

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

They used to say the same thing about Japan, South Korea, China, etc.

The reality is modern manufacturing techniques ensure the same quality no matter where the product is produced. The main question for factory builders is the civil infrastructure (including a pool of parts suppliers) to support a large factory which exists in Mexico and China but not places in Africa or India.  

[sharkman]

I'm waiting to see what the left's response will be to this because it's good news with no blow back.   The US economy is going to need lots more of this kind of activity.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The approach is not new and has been widely employed by many states, counties, and cities in the United States.

But hardly the sort of thing a conservative is supposed to approve of.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

One of the best furnace brands on the market. Corporate taxcuts and incentives to keep production in your home country make complete sense, as does doing the reverse.

It's corporate welfare. It drives up both prices and taxes.

You know, when I was young we couldn't afford air conditioning. We finally were able to rent a window air conditioner at some point, but certainly couldn't buy one. Now you can buy one for a hundred bucks. Everyone can afford air conditioning. That's because these air conditioners are all made elsewhere.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

Everyone can afford air conditioning.

Then they run the hydro bill through the roof and complain about the cost of power. Of course new power plants at billions apiece need to be built to support their air conditioning habit.

[OftenWrong]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Now you can buy one for a hundred bucks. Everyone can afford air conditioning. That's because these air conditioners are all made elsewhere.

That's the problem. And I'm sure you've noticed how prices continue to rise, not just for air conditioners but for everything, food etc. while wages are not. A well, people who are unemployed because the factory moved elsewhere can't afford to buy one. It's a problem that's grown to the point we are at today, most employers offering menial jobs for low pay, many of them part time only. We are competing with third world countries that have minimal overhead costs because they rape the environment. That gives the 100 dollar a/c, but it's a short term gain. We can only lose this game in the long run. We can't allow these countries to play the game unfairly simply because they don't need to comply with what we call acceptable workplace standards.

The only other option is to BECOME like them, poor uneducated workers working in dangerous workplaces for minimal pay, so you can buy a $20 pair of pants. Unacceptable.

[overthere]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

That's the problem. And I'm sure you've noticed how prices continue to rise, not just for air conditioners but for everything, food etc. while wages are not. A well, people who are unemployed because the factory moved elsewhere can't afford to buy one. It's a problem that's grown to the point we are at today, most employers offering menial jobs for low pay, many of them part time only. We are competing with third world countries that have minimal overhead costs because they rape the environment. That gives the 100 dollar a/c, but it's a short term gain. We can only lose this game in the long run. We can't allow these countries to play the game unfairly simply because they don't need to comply with what we call acceptable workplace standards.

The only other option is to BECOME like them, poor uneducated workers working in dangerous workplaces for minimal pay, so you can buy a $20 pair of pants. Unacceptable.

Actually, I have noticed more that prices don't rise much.  Inflation has been pretty low for a very long time

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Topaz said:

Many products coming out of Mexico are not good quality, I know because I have one of those products and had to have it fixed many times  by Sears.  So if consumers start to boycott products coming out of Mexico, Companies ,may come back to North America,

 

Mexico is part of North America.  

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

But hardly the sort of thing a conservative is supposed to approve of.

 

Not necessarily.....if taxation and government regulations imposes high costs on manufacturing, then the very common subsidy approach can be an excellent offset.   I'll take Donald Trump's approach over Kathleen Wynne's any day.

Edited November 30, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, TimG said:

The reality is modern manufacturing techniques ensure the same quality no matter where the product is produced. The main question for factory builders is the civil infrastructure (including a pool of parts suppliers) to support a large factory which exists in Mexico and China but not places in Africa or India.  

 

Agreed....my "German" auto make was manufactured in Mexico and is clearly competitive or better quality than similar products made in the U.S. or Canada.

 

[betsy]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 

Why, I bet if you look hard enough, you can even find the same approach in Canada (sometimes to keep American owned subsidiaries in provinces).

 

Like the Bombardier, as an example.

 

Quote

Bombardier and Canada's corporate welfare trap

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/bombardier-and-canadas-corporate-welfare-trap

Edited November 30, 2016 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

But hardly the sort of thing a conservative is supposed to approve of.

This is the obvious point.  Let's see how many so-called conservatives support this plan.  I don't feel comfortable subsidizing industries, in general.  It's effectively a tax on the taxpayer to reward those who are stakeholders in that industry.  But let's see who here likes both Trump AND Wynne.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, overthere said:

Actually, I have noticed more that prices don't rise much.  Inflation has been pretty low for a very long time

Well I don't know about that. They don't rise "much" unless you look over a longer time interval. Two years or more. Certainly in terms of a generation, my parents had far more buying power than I do. They had only one income but owned a car and a house. They even had a cottage and a boat. Dad's job wasn't even that great, as a welder. Today it takes two professional incomes just to live in a comparable setting, and forget about the cottage and boat.

That was before globalization of course.

[Michael Hardner]

Inflation is tracked, you don't have to wonder about that.  Many of us grew up in the era of double digit inflation.  It is lower now.

 

'Buying power' comprises a lot of things - wages, and prices.  My parents grew up in an era where house prices were only a few multiples of annual income, but groceries and electronics took a larger percentage of your income.  Go check it.  

 

Globalization is a pretty complex topic compared what inflation was in the past versus today.

[kimmy]

17 hours ago, betsy said:

Like the Bombardier, as an example.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/bombardier-and-canadas-corporate-welfare-trap

It's typical that the kind of people who criticize and ridicule Canadian subsidies for businesses like Bombardier are now hailing American subsidies for businesses as the way to "Make America Great Again."  Much the same way that people who criticize the idea of government spending on infrastructure as wasteful and ineffective now believe that building a wall in the desert will stimulate America's economy.

 -k

[betsy]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

It's typical that the kind of people who criticize and ridicule Canadian subsidies for businesses like Bombardier are now hailing American subsidies for businesses as the way to "Make America Great Again."  Much the same way that people who criticize the idea of government spending on infrastructure as wasteful and ineffective now believe that building a wall in the desert will stimulate America's economy.

 -k

Actually, it's the other way around.  I'm just pointing out the "holier-than-thou" hypocrisy.  Here, let's re-phrase your comment:

 

It's typical that the kind of people who criticize and ridicule American subsidies for businesses like Carrier are  hailing Canadian subsidies for businesses like Bombardier as the way to create, and keep jobs! 

 

How many times did Bombardier got bailed out????  

 

 

Quote

 

Bombardier's strange chokehold on the public purse

Has anyone noticed how the word "spend" vanished at some point from the political vocabulary?

Governments simply don't spend anymore, they "invest" on behalf of grateful taxpayers who put up the capital.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-bailout-neil-macdonald-1.3300764

 

 

And you guys criticize subsidies for Carrier?

 

 

 

Quote

Much the same way that people who criticize the idea of government spending on infrastructure as wasteful and ineffective now believe that building a wall in the desert will stimulate America's economy.

 

I assume the criticisms of wasteful spending over infrastructure is......criticisms for paying for something that's below standard, and severe lack oversight (if not downright corruption).  On the other hand, the building of the wall hadn't even started yet.....given the reasons for building it, it most likely could stimulate the US economy! 

 

 

How can you compare something that's not even started yet to something that's already been investigated and criticized by the AG?  Really, you're not making any sense!

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy