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

Threedee said:
And this is going to be your fallback every time Douchebag Donald engages in some leftist economic initiative. You will make this sort of argument, even though it's not one that actual conservatives and Republicans would have ever made prior to now. Such begins the Trumptard defense of everything Douchebag Donald.
Click to expand...

Tax breaks are a very conservative idea. Bill Bennett commented that Trump's was very Reaganesque in its boldness. He did it right- everyone involved wins, everyone involved understands the cost an benefits.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Oh boo hoo. Here's a tip. Make your case the first time instead of just throwing out random and unsupported assertions. We won't need to go back in the thread to try to figure out wtf your point was.
Click to expand...
I support my assertions,
I do not go back and read what others wrote about a current post. I try to recall and address such,
but i'm not going back to search.

Why isn't it valid? Support your assertions!
Click to expand...
you had mentioned "buggy whips" ( which were a lapsed product) and Carrier in the same manner- I told you they aren't comparable.
It's obvious why they are not. ( and I'm not going back and find my posts either).

I was not making a comparison. I was arguing that UI is better than subsidizing a non-competitive/productive field. Progress requires transition and UI effectively softens the negative effects. Protectionism simply halts/stifles progress.
Click to expand...
tax incentives are not "protectionism" -Tariffs are protectionism. Again you bring up this idea of a "non competitive product" which is not germaine here.
If you are arguing paying UI benefits to Carrier workers is superior to providing tax incentives to Carrier..I can't help you.
Providing tax incentives is in no way inhibiting "progress ( innovation) here.

Subsidies will allow companies to turn to rent-seeking and make it unnecessary for them to produce wealth. Their taxes were cut.
Click to expand...
Companies always try to max out their markets/profits. You are assuming once a company has "enough money" ( my words) they are fiscally satiated, and can simply coast on tax savings to increase/retain wealth. That is absurd.
But again tax incentives are a band-aid approach to stop the bleeding of jobs. Long term requires market reforms of US policy.

It will not stop the bleeding. Carrier/UTI is still be moving jobs to Mexico. Even companies who stay here will continue to reduce their demand for labor.
Click to expand...
it's an emergency measure -but luring jobs from state to state has been the norm.
They do it with tax incentives, or infrastructure improvements.
It's but one arrow in the quiver -just beacuse it's not a universal solution,doesn't make it invalid here. It works for this case.
 
cawacko said:
There's nothing conservative about this. Conservative is allowing the market to dictate winners and losers, not the gov't
Click to expand...

Simply asserting 'there's nothing conservative about this' doesn't make it so.

Allowing individuals or corporations to keep their money is a conservative principle.

A fundamental one at that.
 
anatta said:
I support my assertions,I do not go back and read what others wrote about a current post. I try to recall and address such,
but i'm not going back to search.

you had mentioned "buggy whips" ( which were a lapsed product) and Carrier inthe same manner- I told you they aren't comparable. It's obvious why not. ( and I'm not going baclk and find my posts either).

tax incentives are not "protectionism" -Tariffs are protectionism. Again you bring up this idea of a "non competitive product" which is not germaine here.
If you are arguing paying UI benefits to Carrier workers is superior to providing tax incentives to Carrier..I can't help you.
Providing tax incentives is in no way inhibiting "progress ( innovation) here.

Companies always try to max out their markets/profits. You are assuming once a company has "enough money" ( my words) they are fiscally satiated, and can simply coast on tax savings to increase/retain wealth. That is absurd.
But again tax incentives are a band-aid approach to stop the bleeding of jobs. Long term requires market reforms of US policy.

it's an emergency measure -but luring jobs from state to state has been the norm.
They do it with tax incentives, or infrastructure improvements.
It's but one arrow in the quiver -just beacuse it's not a universal solution,doesn't make it invalid here. It works for this case.
Click to expand...

You don't. Again, you would not feel any need to review the thread if you had because your argument would be quoted in my response.

No, I did not compare the buggy whip makers to Carrier in that post. Carrier was not mentioned at all. I was making an argument for why UI is preferable to protectionist subsidies.

Why is it obvious? Nevermind, you will forget the "obvious" and your point because you failed to support your assertion.

Protectionism is anything that attempts to protect domestic businesses from foreign competition.

No, I never said anything to suggest that companies will become satiated by "enough money." LOL. That does not fit with my views at all. Where do you get this shit? Oops, nevermind again, it's just another unsupported assertion that you will have to abandon.

I said...

Subsidies will allow companies to turn to rent-seeking and make it unnecessary for them to produce wealth.
Click to expand...

They can stay in business without producing wealth. Will they want more? I am sure. Will they take the risk needed to pursue more? Maybe, but not nearly as much.

There's no emergency that this solves. Indiana is still losing Carrier/UTI/manufacturing jobs.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will ALWAYS works for Peter. But, it's not a good in a single case for the same reason it's not generally a good idea.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
For those inclined to read Ben Shipiro nails the crony capitalism here and conservatives who have spoken out against it in the past. And the federal gov'ts involvement here. Shipiro nails it.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11277...m_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro
Click to expand...

There is zero proof of Trump threatening anything about defense contracts. I agree that we don't want this to be a precedence, and until we see it being such, calling it fascist or cronyism is faux hysteria. The incentives to stay are conservative. This is a mature and profitable company. Trump keeping his promise to this company is also good juju. :-)
 
J Craft said:
There is zero proof of Trump threatening anything about defense contracts. I agree that we don't want this to be a precedence, and until we see it being such, calling it fascist or cronyism is faux hysteria. The incentives to stay are conservative. This is a mature and profitable company. Trump keeping his promise to this company is also good juju. :-)
Click to expand...
There have been multiple reports of the threat of losing defense contracts which is the main reason carrier is doing this
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You don't. Again, you would not feel any need to review the thread if you had because your argument would be quoted in my response.

No, I did not compare the buggy whip makers to Carrier in that post. Carrier was not mentioned at all. I was making an argument for why UI is preferable to protectionist subsidies.

Why is it obvious? Nevermind, you will forget the "obvious" and your point because you failed to support your assertion.

Protectionism is anything that attempts to protect domestic businesses from foreign competition.

No, I never said anything to suggest that companies will become satiated by "enough money." LOL. That does not fit with my views at all. Where do you get this shit? Oops, nevermind again, it's just another unsupported assertion that you will have to abandon.

I said...



They can stay in business without producing wealth. Will they want more? I am sure. Will they take the risk needed to pursue more? Maybe, but not nearly as much.

There's no emergency that this solves. Indiana is still losing Carrier/UTI/manufacturing jobs.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will certainly work ALWAYS works for Peter. But, it's not a good in a single case for the same reason it's not generally a good idea.
Click to expand...
If you really feel paying UI is superior to granting tax incentives -there isn't any real need to continue this.Thankfully hardcore libertarians are not in Office.
You would sit back and let jobs bleed, while paying UI ( as well as welfare/food stamps in many cases)
because of some vague principle of non-interference in the markets by government
Protectionism is anything that attempts to protect domestic businesses from foreign competition.
Click to expand...
Protectionism is generally considered to be tarrifs, import restrictions/taxes of foreign goods.
Internal tax policy is not protectionism from foreign poaching of jobs due to globalization.
If you really want to s t r e t ch the meaning - go for it, but tax incentives do not interfere with trade like tarrifs do.

I am not going to argue libertine terms with you however; it's a useless exercise unless one is wedded to a philosophy and wants to
debate the terms of that philosophy. I have no interest.

I have an interest in saving jobs,creating more good paying jobs, and growing GDP. Providing UI and benefits does not do this.
I am not going to get into further discussions of "who said what -when" with you. It's picayune and argumentative without purpose.

Sitting around and doing nothing about outsourcing ( and continuing that path because of libertarianism ) is not a productive endeavor.
It's manifestly not working- again the Rust Belt has lost 1/2 of it's manufacturing base in <20 years.
 
cawacko said:
There have been multiple reports of the threat of losing defense contracts which is the main reason carrier is doing this
Click to expand...

Again, zero proof. The article also claimed that the 7 million had "already" been offered. I read that "other" tax beak incentives had, but not this particular package.
 
anatta said:
If you really feel paying UI is superior to granting tax incentives -there isn't any real need to continue this.Thankfully hardcore libertarians are not in Office.
You would sit back and let jobs bleed, while paying UI ( as well as welfare/food stamps in many cases)
because of some vague principle of non-interference in the markets by government

Protectionism is generally considered to be tarrifs, import restrictions/taxes of foreign goods.
Internal tax policy is not protectionism from foreign poaching of jobs due to globalization.
If you really want to s t r e t ch the meaning - go for it, but tax incentives do not interfere with trade like tarrifs do.

I am not going to argue libertine terms with you; it's a useless exercise unless one is wedded to a philosophy and wants to
debate the terms of that philosophy. I have no interest.

I have an interest in saving jobs,creating more good paying jobs, and growing GDP. Providing UI and benefits does not do this.
I am not going to get into further discussions of "who said what -when" with you. It's picayune and argumentative without purpose.

Sitting around and doing nothing about outsourcing ( and continuing that path because of libertarianism ) is not a productive endeavor.
It's manifestly not working- again the Rust Belt has lost 1/2 of it's manufacturing base in <20 years.
Click to expand...

A tax incentive would be available to all. This is a one time special favor or handout that's, apparently, only available to Carrier. It does include subsidies other than the special tax considerations.

I would sit back and let the job creators grow the economy, instead of stifling them by forcing them to subsidize Carrier/UTI.

It's protectionism. I am not stretching the definition.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp

Protectionism refers to government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are tariffs and quotas on imports and subsidies or tax cuts granted to local businesses. The primary objective of protectionism is to make local businesses or industries more competitive by increasing the price or restricting the quantity of imports entering the country.

Do you even know what libertine means? Trump is one.

There is nothing unusual about the definition I am using. If you want to call it something else you go ahead and do that. When I say protectionism this is included. There's no need to debate it.

The rust belt's loss of manufacturing jobs is no more due to trade than when it lost agricultural jobs. It's not going to stop losing those jobs without stopping progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top