The Trump Effect? After Carrier pledge to keep jobs in US, more companies may follow

PostmodernProphet said:
and yet Obama finishes his eight years with almost as many people working as there were when he was inaugurated.........they brag about how many jobs he created but they just barely offset the jobs he destroyed.....
Click to expand...

you're completely changing the subject. The topic is intervention in the market to "save" jobs. That's what Obama did with the auto bailout that's what Trump is doing here.
 
cawacko said:
you're completely changing the subject. The topic is intervention in the market to "save" jobs. That's what Obama did with the auto bailout that's what Trump is doing here.
Click to expand...

but he didn't save any jobs.......as you say, he wanted to.....but that isn't the issue........we've gone ten trillion dollars deeper in debt and there are actually fewer people employed than there were eight years ago.....
 
cawacko said:
There are millions of jobs created and lost each month. Would you like to see the gov't step in and act like this every time a job is lost?

It's disconcerting to see right leaning people all of a sudden act like they don't understand how markets work
Click to expand...

I think everyone gets it. The problem is the market isn't really free no matter which way you turn. For example, when they say Carrier was 'subsidized' that's actually a euphemism for the state of Indiana promising to confiscate less of their money in return for sending less jobs to Mexico.

So one can argue Trump took 'the less socialistic course'. Free market economics exist mostly as ideal these days.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I think everyone gets it. The problem is the market isn't really free no matter which way you turn. For example, when they say Carrier was 'subsidized' that's actually a euphemism for the state of Indiana promising to confiscate less of their money in return for sending less jobs to Mexico.

So one can argue Trump took 'the less socialistic course'. Free market economics exist mostly as ideal these days.
Click to expand...

plus people cant just up and move to where the jobs are. If their area goes the way of flint or detroit then their house loses all value and they cant sell it anymore and they wouldnt have any money to go to another location. Not to mention theres no guarantee of a job as well. Which is why we try and preserve what is there even if some people find it distasteful.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but he didn't save any jobs.......as you say, he wanted to.....but that isn't the issue........we've gone ten trillion dollars deeper in debt and there are actually fewer people employed than there were eight years ago.....
Click to expand...

Obama did the same thing you are complimenting Trump for doing. Interfering in the market in an attempt to save jobs. It's as simple as that
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I think everyone gets it. The problem is the market isn't really free no matter which way you turn. For example, when they say Carrier was 'subsidized' that's actually a euphemism for the state of Indiana promising to confiscate less of their money in return for sending less jobs to Mexico.

So one can argue Trump took 'the less socialistic course'. Free market economics exist mostly as ideal these days.
Click to expand...

Well then the gov't should interfere anytime jobs are lost. The gov't should prevent technological progress that creates tomorrow's jobs by taking away today's jobs. For example driverless cars. How many jobs might that cost in the future? Should the gov't shut down all production on them to save jobs?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I think everyone gets it. The problem is the market isn't really free no matter which way you turn. For example, when they say Carrier was 'subsidized' that's actually a euphemism for the state of Indiana promising to confiscate less of their money in return for sending less jobs to Mexico.
Click to expand...

Or they are referring to the ACTUAL subsidies for job training, etc..

This is not a general tax cut as you want to pretend. A special favor on taxes has the same effect as a subsidy.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
So one can argue Trump took 'the less socialistic course'. Free market economics exist mostly as ideal these days.
Click to expand...

The least socialistic course would be to to stay out of it or to give all a tax cut.
 
Nice to have a president standing up for American interests rather than collective globalist interests.
 
cawacko said:
Obama did the same thing you are complimenting Trump for doing. Interfering in the market in an attempt to save jobs. It's as simple as that
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the auto bailout it's not an exact comparison because Chrysler and co secured loans from the fed.

That's a true bailout.

Carrier received tax credits for keeping jobs from going south of the border. Which again, amounts to the state confiscating less of Carrier's money. And allowing people or corporations to keep their money is very much a conservative proposition.
 
tsuke said:
plus people cant just up and move to where the jobs are. If their area goes the way of flint or detroit then their house loses all value and they cant sell it anymore and they wouldnt have any money to go to another location. Not to mention theres no guarantee of a job as well. Which is why we try and preserve what is there even if some people find it distasteful.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the midwest is filled with bunch of lazy sissies in comparison to the immigrants you hate? PiMPle should be your exhibit A, but I am not buying it.

The same sort of things happened when we shifted to manufacturing from agriculture. People like you were wrong about where that would end and you are just as wrong now.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
So you are saying that the midwest is filled with bunch of lazy sissies in comparison to the immigrants you hate? PiMPle should be your exhibit A, but I am not buying it.

The same sort of things happened when we shifted to manufacturing from agriculture. People like you were wrong about where that would end and you are just as wrong now.
Click to expand...

no im saying that these areas need help because they are not competetive enough to compete. Realistically we cant compete with the third world without the govt helping.
 
tsuke said:
cuz they would be more marketable in mexico? :P
Click to expand...

They seemed to think so.

Marketability is achieved when you produce things people want at a price they are willing to pay. Solyndra's products were marketable/profitable before silicon prices dropped.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
If you're talking about the auto bailout it's not an exact comparison because Chrysler and co secured loans from the fed.

That's a true bailout.

Carrier received tax credits for keeping jobs from going south of the border. Which again, amounts to the state confiscating less of Carrier's money. And allowing people or corporations to keep their money is very much a conservative proposition.
Click to expand...

There's nothing conservative about this. Conservative is allowing the market to dictate winners and losers, not the gov't
 
tsuke said:
no im saying that these areas need help because they are not competetive enough to compete. Realistically we cant compete with the third world without the govt helping.
Click to expand...

LOL, then you PiMPle and the rest of the alt-rightpc should move to the third world. It's a strange game where those in "first" can't compete with those in "third."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top