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

anatta said:
that assumes their product is no longer competative, and needs subsidizing to survive. It doesn't.
Carrier is competative/profitable.
The only reason they wanted to move was "long term placement" blah blah -meaning they could make yet more with Mexican labor.

But they STILL make money here without the subsidies - if they weren't so consumed with corporate greed they could have stayed here
and stayed profitable..the product is still profitable without the tax incentives -but not as much so.

How to we combat corporate greed?? that is a bigger question.
Click to expand...

post 257
 
cawacko said:
Then how does capitalism, with its creative destruction, create more jobs than any other economic system? Companies get started and fail all the time. The gov't can't save all jobs.
Click to expand...
We are fighting globalization -so this "free market" stuff is of limited value.
Countries subsidize corps, partner with corps (China) have less regs on corps,pay less wages to workers. etc.
Those are some of the global challenges the US corps have to compete with.

So we do what every other country does: find creative ways to help our corps survive here ( in your scenario of global competition)
They provide employment and taxes.
Do what you gotta do in the short term - improve our business enviornment in the long term..

Get creative. That's how the states have been doing it- some of those efforts weer successful -some were give away boondoggles.
They need to be carefully evaluated.

It's a brave new world where didactic answers aren't available anymore..it take short term remediation and long term planning;
China does central planning - that isn't working now ( their efforts to create a new Silk Road corridor is a failure)
T
 
they hurt the country with their decisions we punish them for it and REWARD another company for staying
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Then why subsidize them? Nothing I said assumes that Carrier/UTI needs a subsidy to survive.
Click to expand...
I'm not going back to see what you said. Clearly your "horse and buggy whip" comparison is not valid... but to your point:

"why subsidize them"
Click to expand...
- because the choice NOW is to have them leave, or stay and provide jobs/wealth/taxes. That's the stark choice of the moment

Giving them taxpayer money and special favors to increase their profits does not seem like a good solution to this "problem" imagined by leftists.
Click to expand...
agreed. it's not a long term solution -but it stops the bleeding now. The Rust Belt has lost 1/2 it's manufacturing base since 2000.

The long term solutions are what i've been saying..improved business climate ( by various means).
Also some re-negotiating of trade agreements..etc..
 
evince said:
stop fucking bribing them
Click to expand...

You just suggested bribing/blackmailing them with promises/threats on military contracts.

If your only leverage is a military contract then you can't let them lose that contract, even if they provide a subpar product at much inflated prices or you don't really want/need more military products. The only way to keep that going is through more wars.

You are an idiot. At least, Tsuke knows that he is pushing the fourth Reich.
 
don't give them to companies who off shore jobs


take their contracts because they have too many foreign interests
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You just suggested bribing/blackmailing them with promises/threats on military contracts.

If your only leverage is a military contract then you can't let them lose that contract, even if they provide a subpar product at much inflated prices or you don't really want/need more military products. The only way to keep that going is through more wars.

You are an idiot. At least, Tsuke knows that he is pushing the fourth Reich.
Click to expand...

where did I say the only bit


you said it not me
 
anatta said:
I'm not going back to see what you said.
Click to expand...

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.

anatta said:
Clearly your "horse and buggy whip" comparison is not valid... but to your point:
Click to expand...

Why isn't it valid? Support your assertions!

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.

anatta said:
- because the choice NOW is to have them leave, or stay and provide jobs/wealth/taxes. That's the stark choice of the moment
Click to expand...

Subsidies will allow companies to turn to rent-seeking and make it unnecessary for them to produce wealth. Their taxes were cut.

anatta said:
agreed. it's not a long term solution -but it stops the bleeding now. The Rust Belt has lost 1/2 it's manufacturing base since 2000.

The long term solutions are what i've been saying..improved business climate ( by various means).
Also some re-negotiating of trade agreements..etc..
Click to expand...

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.
 
they want a way back machine



Those towns will DIE unless the people who LIVE THERE reinvent their towns
 
I personally believe in a free market and am saddened by Trump (or any politician) getting involved in business at this level frankly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top