The policy and politics of Trumpism

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,076
1,000
178
We have one grand thread on the campaign and another on Trump's personnel. I feel like we need a separate space devoted to his policy decisions, since he's already making some.

WSJ slams Trump's Carrier negotiation

Everyone—even the Obama White House—is hailing the move as a great political victory, and in the short term it is for those Indianapolis workers, who make more than $20 an hour on average. But as U.S. auto workers have learned the hard way, real job security depends on the profitability of the business. Carrier wanted to move the production line to Mexico to stay competitive in the market for gas furnaces. If the extra costs of staying in Indianapolis erode that business, those workers will lose their jobs eventually in any case.

This isn’t to fault Mr. Hayes’s decision, since Mr. Trump made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. The state of Indiana threw in $7 million in tax incentives, but those weren’t decisive. Mr. Trump’s real hammer is his threat to impose a tariff on Carrier imports to the U.S. Carrier has a 30% share of the U.S. gas-furnace market, and a 35% tariff could kill the business. That’s the same sword Mr. Trump previously held over Ford Motor Co.

[UTC, which owns Carrier] is no corporate scofflaw. It pays $2 billion a year in taxes and offers to finance four years of college for every employee. Its exports are worth $10 billion a year, mostly in aerospace products, which support some 40,000 American jobs.

A mercantilist Trump trade policy that jeopardized those exports would throw far more Americans out of work than the relatively low-paying jobs he’s preserved for now in Indianapolis. Mr. Trump’s Carrier squeeze might even cost more U.S. jobs if it makes CEOs more reluctant to build plants in the U.S. because it would be politically difficult to close them.

Mr. Trump has now muscled his way into at least two corporate decisions about where and how to do business. But who would you rather have making a decision about where to make furnaces or cars? A company whose profitability depends on making good decisions, or a branding executive turned politician who wants to claim political credit?

The larger point is that America won’t become more prosperous by forcing companies to make noneconomic investments. A nation gets rich when individuals and business are allowed to take risks as they see fit in a competitive economy. Politicians are rotten investors. Mr. Trump would help the economy, and his Presidency, far more if he focuses on getting the pro-growth parts of his agenda through Congress.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,321
1,880
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
I only read the part you quoted. I'm not creating an account to read the article. But I saw one of my democrat voting friends post something similar on FB last night about this topic. So basically the article says the government (which is about to be Mr. Trump and his cabinet) needs to stay out of private business because they know nothing about how to run a business? That's the fundamentals of what I'm reading. I completely agree. As I asked my democrat voting friend who posted about this same topic. "What made you start thinking this way? Because any other time you want government asserting regulations and policies that basically force private companies to do what you think they ought to. Now you want less governmental involvement? The smell of irony or should I say hypocrisy?"


The larger point is that America won’t become more prosperous by forcing companies to make noneconomic investments. A nation gets rich when individuals and business are allowed to take risks as they see fit in a competitive economy. Politicians are rotten investors.
LOL! I can't stop laughing. LOL!
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Trump is promising to make it cheaper for companies to operate in the United States. He may not keep that promise and/or the promise may not even be achievable, but he is promising reduced costs to companies like Carrier.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
I only read the part you quoted. I'm not creating an account to read the article. But I saw one of my democrat voting friends post something similar on FB last night about this topic. So basically the article says the government (which is about to be Mr. Trump and his cabinet) needs to stay out of private business because they know nothing about how to run a business? That's the fundamentals of what I'm reading. I completely agree. As I asked my democrat voting friend who posted about this same topic. "What made you start thinking this way? Because any other time you want government asserting regulations and policies that basically force private companies to do what you think they ought to. Now you want less governmental involvement? The smell of irony or should I say hypocrisy?"




LOL! I can't stop laughing. LOL!
Obama...cough, cough...care. Minimum...cough, cough...wage hikes. New...cough, cough...overtime rules. Dodd...cough, cough...Frank. If I keep going I may just choke to death.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,076
1,000
178
I only read the part you quoted. I'm not creating an account to read the article.
Odd. It wasn't blocked when I posted it, but now my link throws the article behind a paywall. Yet if you google the title "Trump’s Carrier Shakedown" and click the WSJ link, you can read the entire op-ed for free. Just FYI.

But I saw one of my democrat voting friends post something similar on FB last night about this topic. So basically the article says the government (which is about to be Mr. Trump and his cabinet) needs to stay out of private business because they know nothing about how to run a business? That's the fundamentals of what I'm reading. I completely agree. As I asked my democrat voting friend who posted about this same topic. "What made you start thinking this way? Because any other time you want government asserting regulations and policies that basically force private companies to do what you think they ought to. Now you want less governmental involvement? The smell of irony or should I say hypocrisy?"
My view is that completely non-regulated capitalism is better for business, while modest regulation is better for the consumer. I linked the WSJ since I figured it would resonate with more of the board and start a discussion, but that doesn't mean I agree with every point it raises. For those who oppose business regulation, do you support Trump's threat of imposing import tariffs on American goods manufactured outside the country? Or using the power of the presidency to threaten companies that are considering moves overseas?

That said, I think this Carrier deal is very shortsighted with little gain. They're still sending jobs to Mexico, and Indiana taxpayers now get to subsidize the company for $7 million in what amounts to a political stunt. If I'm a big American company, I'm probably now more likely to threaten moving jobs overseas so that Trump swoops in and throws me some sweet, sweet tax breaks. If this is an example of his negotiating prowess, I'm not impressed.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,076
1,000
178
Trump is promising to make it cheaper for companies to operate in the United States. He may not keep that promise and/or the promise may not even be achievable, but he is promising reduced costs to companies like Carrier.
True, and I'm sure they're banking on that actually happening. We'll see.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,252
7,095
278
51
East Point, Ga, USA
Odd. It wasn't blocked when I posted it, but now my link throws the article behind a paywall. Yet if you google the title "Trump’s Carrier Shakedown" and click the WSJ link, you can read the entire op-ed for free. Just FYI.


My view is that completely non-regulated capitalism is better for business, while modest regulation is better for the consumer. I linked the WSJ since I figured it would resonate with more of the board and start a discussion, but that doesn't mean I agree with every point it raises. For those who oppose business regulation, do you support Trump's threat of imposing import tariffs on American goods manufactured outside the country? Or using the power of the presidency to threaten companies that are considering moves overseas?

That said, I think this Carrier deal is very shortsighted with little gain. They're still sending jobs to Mexico, and Indiana taxpayers now get to subsidize the company for $7 million in what amounts to a political stunt. If I'm a big American company, I'm probably now more likely to threaten moving jobs overseas so that Trump swoops in and throws me some sweet, sweet tax breaks. If this is an example of his negotiating prowess, I'm not impressed.
i was going to suggest the google route on wsj (works for nyt too i have heard).

on the trail, trump implied he would "make" companies keep jobs here by being a tough negotiator. sounds like his idea of "making" them is just giving them a sweetheart deal to keep a few of their jobs here. so like you say, now it's set up where there is an incentive companies threaten to move jobs overseas unless they get a sweetheart deal. sounds a lot like some of those pro sports stadium deals. i expect to see lots of shiny objects like this in the next few years. i also expect many of our fellow countryfolk, especially the ones that consistently rail against federal government overreach, especially in the executive branch, to extol the virtues of said shiny objects.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,689
5
48
While I agree with your statement about unrestricted capitalism I don't think we can agree on what unrestricted capitalism means. For that to be accomplished we would have to limit the power of regulations. For instance the EPA to prevent US companies from burning coal but are fine with selling it to China so they can use it the same way. Aren't we all under the same sky?
 

tidegrandpa

All-American
Odd. It wasn't blocked when I posted it, but now my link throws the article behind a paywall. Yet if you google the title "Trump’s Carrier Shakedown" and click the WSJ link, you can read the entire op-ed for free. Just FYI.


My view is that completely non-regulated capitalism is better for business, while modest regulation is better for the consumer. I linked the WSJ since I figured it would resonate with more of the board and start a discussion, but that doesn't mean I agree with every point it raises. For those who oppose business regulation, do you support Trump's threat of imposing import tariffs on American goods manufactured outside the country? Or using the power of the presidency to threaten companies that are considering moves overseas?

That said, I think this Carrier deal is very shortsighted with little gain. They're still sending jobs to Mexico, and Indiana taxpayers now get to subsidize the company for $7 million in what amounts to a political stunt. If I'm a big American company, I'm probably now more likely to threaten moving jobs overseas so that Trump swoops in and throws me some sweet, sweet tax breaks. If this is an example of his negotiating prowess, I'm not impressed.
I know you surely have done the math on the measly $7 million(vs, the $500 million Solyndra guarantee) over 10 year subsidy. The average job that this keeps pays over $20.00 per hour or over $41,000 per year for 800-1000 jobs. The subsidy amounts to roughly $700.00 per job per year.
 

BamaInMo1

All-SEC
Oct 27, 2006
1,800
121
73
50
Cumming, GA
I really love how all of the liberals (not necessarily calling out anyone on this board but just speaking in general) now want the president elect to stay out of things. It's especially funny when trying keep jobs in America instead of letting them flitter away to other countries - mostly due to EPA over regulation and Union Strong arming (both of which seem to be tenets of he left). But now the gvt needs to butt out.............
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,252
7,095
278
51
East Point, Ga, USA
I really love how all of the liberals (not necessarily calling out anyone on this board but just speaking in general) now want the president elect to stay out of things. It's especially funny when trying keep jobs in America instead of letting them flitter away to other countries - mostly due to EPA over regulation and Union Strong arming (both of which seem to be tenets of he left). But now the gvt needs to butt out.............
the op is about the wsj wanting the president-elect to stay out of things.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
I know you surely have done the math on the measly $7 million(vs, the $500 million Solyndra guarantee) over 10 year subsidy. The average job that this keeps pays over $20.00 per hour or over $41,000 per year for 800-1000 jobs. The subsidy amounts to roughly $700.00 per job per year.
We should compare that cost to the welfare benefits that might be provided otherwise. I assume $700 would be the better deal.
 

sabanball

All-American
Jan 4, 2006
2,337
0
46
51
High Cotton
Another WSJ piece not an op ed piece

Carrier Will Receive $7 Million in Tax Breaks to Keep Jobs in Indiana

“I called Greg and I said, ‘It’s really important we have to do something because you have a lot of people leaving,’” Mr. Trump said Thursday, adding that he dismissed the CEO when Mr. Hayes responded that he had already built a new facility in Mexico. “Rent it. Sell it or knock it down. I don’t care.”

The deal that emerged this week is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement. In exchange for $7 million in tax breaks, Carrier will invest $16 million in its facilities in the state.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,321
1,880
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
i was going to suggest the google route on wsj (works for nyt too i have heard).

on the trail, trump implied he would "make" companies keep jobs here by being a tough negotiator. sounds like his idea of "making" them is just giving them a sweetheart deal to keep a few of their jobs here. so like you say, now it's set up where there is an incentive companies threaten to move jobs overseas unless they get a sweetheart deal. sounds a lot like some of those pro sports stadium deals. i expect to see lots of shiny objects like this in the next few years. i also expect many of our fellow countryfolk, especially the ones that consistently rail against federal government overreach, especially in the executive branch, to extol the virtues of said shiny objects.
Of course that's what will happen. It will be no different than Obamacare. Those who were "for it" will go out of their way to put on front street of how many people it has "helped" and how much money it has "saved" people. Yet completely ignoring the stories of people it has financially crippled in the process.

And I have no doubt that is exactly what will happen with dyed in the wool Trump folks. Any little "success story" they can conjure up they will parade it around in front of everybody to "prove" to the "haters" they were wrong. Yet completely ignore the damage it did on the other end. It's what people do. That's what people who are married to political parties do. They refuse to admit that what they "rooted" so hard for, screamed from the mountain tops of how great it was going to be, didn't work as great as they proclaimed it would. Welcome to politics, you must be new here. :wink: :biggrin:
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-taiwan/index.html

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Taiwan's President Friday, threatening to ignite a diplomatic showdown with China even before he takes office.

"President-elect Trump spoke with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, who offered her congratulations," Trump's transition team said in a statement. "During the discussion, they noted the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States. President-elect Trump also congratulated President Tsai on becoming President of Taiwan earlier this year."

Trump's conversation marks the first publicly reported call between a US President or President-elect and the leader of Taiwan since Washington established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The telephone call is certain to incense China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province. It is the first major sign of the unpredictability that Trump has vowed to bring to long-held US relations with the rest of the world.

 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,172
6,731
253
Mountainous Northern California
We have one grand thread on the campaign and another on Trump's personnel. I feel like we need a separate space devoted to his policy decisions, since he's already making some.

WSJ slams Trump's Carrier negotiation
I'm slightly surprised yet delighted that you have faith in the free market. I'm sure you'll apply that thought to every part of the economy.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,076
1,000
178
I'm slightly surprised yet delighted that you have faith in the free market. I'm sure you'll apply that thought to every part of the economy.
I realize you're being a bit snarky, but be sure to read the subsequent post and don't misinterpret a link to the WSJ as me advocating laissez-faire.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Wear UA Masks!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.