Posted on 02/13/2016 1:21:48 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
“UTC made $1.1B in profit last year. I think they weren’t having a problem with “too costly”.”
Perhaps though, those numbers could have been exponentially higher without the interference of regulations and EPA demands. I have n idea what their assets or balance sheets look like, but if they made a 1.1b in profit, off of say a 50b operating cost, that’s pretty crappy.
Companies are not in business to provide jobs, contrary to what Bernie Sanders thinks, they are in business to generate profit, as much as possible.
If you make it profitable to create and maintain jobs here in the US, the jobs will return and stay.
Make it so your investment is trivial, or below market returns, and those companies will leave or fold.
It’s pretty simple.
I don’t blame the companies that leave the US for leaving the US, I blame the US for the tax rates and regulations that make it more profitable for them to leave.
Beat your wife and she will leave you, but don’t blame her because she got sick of getting beaten. Blame yourself, in this case, blame our government and it’s insatiable demand for taxes (revenue) and our elected officials desire to over-regulate that which they know little about.
Which fledgling industries still need protection in 2015? Nano-tech?
I want to send them back, stop using free trade to subsidize the third world, stop using free trade to destroy our manufacturing jobs and factories, and see our country turn this corner before we empoverish enough here to usher in socialism. But as you pointed out I am just a very simple man.
Without tariffs the USA would have been left out if the industrial revolution. As it was we cut it pretty close. If the colonies went into the 19th century under British mercantilism the colonies would not have been industrialized. The industrial revolution would have been a solely European phenomenon with Japan thrown in for good measure. Hitler would rule the world.
In all the voluminous literature of the past several centuries on free trade and protectionism, only three arguments have ever been advanced in favor of tariffs that even in principle may have some validity.[]
The second is the "infant industry" argument advanced, for example, by Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures. There is, it is said, a potential industry that, if once established and assisted during its growing pains, could compete on equal terms in the world market. A temporary tariff is said to be justified in order to shelter the potential industry in its infancy and enable it to grow to maturity, when it can stand on its own feet. Even if the industry could compete successfully once established, that does not of itself justify an initial tariff. It is worthwhile for consumers to subsidize the industry initially--which is what they in effect do by levying a tariff--only if they will subsequently get back at least that subsidy in some other way, through prices lower than the world price or through some other advantages of having the industry. But in that case is a subsidy needed? Will it then not pay the original entrants into the industry to suffer initial losses in the expectation of being able to recoup them later? After all, most firms experience losses in their early years, when they are getting established. That is true if they enter a new industry or if they enter an existing one. Perhaps there may be some special reason why the original entrants cannot recoup their initial losses even though it may be worthwhile for the community at large to make the initial investment. But surely the presumption is the other way.
The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up. Once imposed, tariffs are seldom eliminated. Moreover, the argument is seldom used on behalf of true unborn infants that might conceivably be born and survive if given temporary protection; they have no spokesmen. It is used to justify tariffs for rather aged infants that can mount political pressure.
And he will prevent it how?
I’m saying if we didn’t subsidize a communist country or illegal immigrants the guy at McDonald’s would make a living wage. But again I’m just a small town pizza lawyer that’s so stupid I’d vote for trump.
Sounds good.
stop using free trade to subsidize the third world
I want to use it to benefit Americans. Both US consumers and US exporters.
stop using free trade to destroy our manufacturing jobs and factories
We manufacture more than ever.
and see our country turn this corner before we empoverish enough here to usher in socialism.
Giving the government more revenue and punishing American consumers isn't my first choice to turn the country around.
Except mine. But I was "self-interested" to point it out.
A first world country with a highly evolved industrial base needs just as much protection as a fledgling one. Unless you just don't give damn about your country. They are not mutually exclusive. If you want a wealthy country you have to make things, otherwise you became a consumer service economy, slowly going broke.
Raising tariffs on Chinese crap will give the guy at McDonald's a living wage? Or will it just make his iPhone more expensive?
Raising the tariff to a level no one will pay. A polite way of not trading with China.
Think were we would be without the last 30 years of insane off shoring. We'd have thriving economy with no debt and no trade deficits. But your little mind can't see that.
Fledgling or not industry in the first world has to be protected form the gloBULL corporatist cabal. Even more so then fledgling ones.
We need a tariff on the Chinese stuff WalMart sells, to protect Boeing, IBM and Google?
Unless you just don't give damn about your country.
I do. We need to cut the taxes on these vital American companies. 20% would be good. 15% would be better.
Cut regs by 50%. Boot the illegals to raise wages for Americans.
Except for American consumers of competing products.
Didn’t we just discover that UTC only paid 23% taxes? Just 3% above nirvana todd level.
It appears that your plan to protect us from the “corporatist cabal” is to protect the “corporatist cabal.”
Think where we'd be if Reagan had cut corporate taxes to 15% in 1988. Foreign manufacturers would be flocking here instead.
I want to tax anyone pumping manufactured goods subsidized by the Chinese government into oblivion. Same for anyone employing illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.