Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump weighs in on Carrier relocation to Mexico
RTV6.COM ^ | 13 FEBRUARY 2016 | RTV6.COM

Posted on 02/13/2016 1:21:48 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist

INDIANAPOLIS -- Donald Trump is weighing in on the news that Carrier is moving from Indianapolis to Mexico.

1,400 workers at the heating, cooling, air conditioning, and refrigeration company got word Wednesday that the plant was being relocated to Monterrey.

(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana; US: New York; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 2016election; carrier; election2016; elections; hecanwinparty; indiana; indianapolis; manufacturing; newyork; somuch4thewall; somuch4trump; southcarolina; trade; trump; trumpwasright; voteberniewhywait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281 next last
To: central_va

“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.


221 posted on 02/13/2016 4:50:31 PM PST by Bubba Gump Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The colonies could not protect fledgling industries by putting tariffs on British imports.

Which fledgling industries still need protection in 2015? Nano-tech?

222 posted on 02/13/2016 4:51:24 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

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.


223 posted on 02/13/2016 4:52:00 PM PST by enduserindy (Republican’s have sold the path, not lost it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

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.


224 posted on 02/13/2016 4:53:03 PM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Carrier is not a "fledgling" industry . . . making Milton Friedman's words ring ever so truly:

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.

link


225 posted on 02/13/2016 4:53:11 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
I am the only one who can fix this. Very sad. Will not happen under my watch!

And he will prevent it how?

226 posted on 02/13/2016 4:53:32 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

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.


227 posted on 02/13/2016 4:54:33 PM PST by enduserindy (Republican’s have sold the path, not lost it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy
I want to send them back,

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.

228 posted on 02/13/2016 4:55:28 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Tariffs promote domestic manufacturing....

Except mine. But I was "self-interested" to point it out.

229 posted on 02/13/2016 4:55:50 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Which fledgling industries still need protection in 2015? Nano-tech?

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.

230 posted on 02/13/2016 4:57:41 PM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy
I’m saying if we didn’t subsidize a communist country or illegal immigrants the guy at McDonald’s would make a living wage.

Raising tariffs on Chinese crap will give the guy at McDonald's a living wage? Or will it just make his iPhone more expensive?

231 posted on 02/13/2016 4:58:03 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Raising the tariff to a level no one will pay. A polite way of not trading with China.


232 posted on 02/13/2016 4:59:46 PM PST by enduserindy (Republican’s have sold the path, not lost it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
We manufacture more than ever.

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.

233 posted on 02/13/2016 4:59:48 PM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Fledgling or not industry in the first world has to be protected form the gloBULL corporatist cabal. Even more so then fledgling ones.


234 posted on 02/13/2016 5:01:19 PM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: central_va
A first world country with a highly evolved industrial base needs just as much protection as a fledgling one.

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.

235 posted on 02/13/2016 5:01:28 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy
Raising the tariff to a level no one will pay.

Except for American consumers of competing products.

236 posted on 02/13/2016 5:02:24 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Didn’t we just discover that UTC only paid 23% taxes? Just 3% above nirvana todd level.


237 posted on 02/13/2016 5:03:23 PM PST by central_va
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: central_va

It appears that your plan to protect us from the “corporatist cabal” is to protect the “corporatist cabal.”


238 posted on 02/13/2016 5:04:17 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Think were we would be without the last 30 years of insane off shoring.

Think where we'd be if Reagan had cut corporate taxes to 15% in 1988. Foreign manufacturers would be flocking here instead.

239 posted on 02/13/2016 5:04:30 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I want to tax anyone pumping manufactured goods subsidized by the Chinese government into oblivion. Same for anyone employing illegals.


240 posted on 02/13/2016 5:04:42 PM PST by enduserindy (Republican’s have sold the path, not lost it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson