Posted on 12/01/2016 1:04:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind
There's no doubt Team Trump is delighted by Carrier's decision to keep in Indiana roughly half of the 2,100 jobs that the maker of heating and air conditioning equipment had planned to shift to Mexico. As Steven Mnuchin, Trump's pick for treasury secretary, told CNBC yesterday, "This is a great first win without us even having to take the job."
Actually, it's their second win. Trump also lobbied/nudged/cajoled Ford into changing its mind about shifting a sport utility vehicle production line to Mexico from Kentucky, not that doing so actually would have cost American jobs. But Carrier, especially, had become a potent symbol of Trump's economic nationalism after video of Carrier's initial offshoring decision went viral. And in response to Carrier's reversal, Trump took a victory lap on Twitter: "Big day on Thursday for Indiana and the great workers of that wonderful state. We will keep our companies and jobs in the U.S. Thanks Carrier."
But how many Trump "wins" can the American economy afford? By themselves, the moves by Ford and Carrier are inconsequential — maybe even to Carrier's workers over the longer term. It's hardly an uncommon practice at the state level to offer incentives to lure corporate relocations or to keep firms from leaving. But the practice has mixed results. For instance, Dell closed a North Carolina plant in 2009 just five years after receiving millions in state tax incentives to open it. Production then moved to Mexico.
But more broadly, this is all terrible for a nation's economic vitality if businesses make decisions to please politicians rather than customers and shareholders. Yet America's private sector has just been sent a strong signal that playing ball with Trump might be part of what it now means to run an American company. Imagine business after business, year after year, making decisions based partly on pleasing the Trump White House. In addition, Trump's hectoring on trade and offshoring distracts from the economic reality that automation poses the critical challenge for the American workforce going forward.
To be fair, exactly why Carrier reversed course is still something of a mystery. Carrier says state "incentives" were an "important consideration," along with Trump's commitment to creating a more pro-business climate in the country. Those would be the carrots. Then there are potential sticks, which may have been far more critical than tax incentives or other potential subsidies. Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, is a large federal government contractor and perhaps views the potential costs of keeping those factory jobs — a small fraction of the company's 200,000 employee workforce — in America as the price of doing business with Trump's "America First" administration. Indeed, one Indiana official, Politico reports, thinks the deal was driven by concerns United Technologies "could lose a portion of its roughly $6.7 billion in federal contracts."
Of course it wasn't so long ago that Republicans were attacking the Obama White House for its "crony capitalism," including the auto bailouts and clean energy investments in firms like Solyndra. Republicans, on the other hand, were supposedly stalwarts for competitive capitalism and vehemently against government "picking winners and losers." Some even said they were "pro-market" rather than "pro-business."
Now, not so much. Which makes you wonder if either party is willing to strongly fight for free enterprise and market-driven economic policy anymore. In her 1998 book, The Future and Its Enemies, Virginia Postrel saw the major dividing line in American politics as less left vs. right than the "dynamists" vs. the "stasists." The former values change and experimentation, as messy as those things can be. Dynamists live in anticipation of the future because they just know it will be a great place. The stasists often are nostalgia-ridden and willing to use top-down control to keep things as they are or try to shape them into familiar forms. Today they fight globalization, tomorrow it might be robots and artificial intelligence in order to "save jobs."
This time, at least, score one for the stasists and the cronyists.
From one of my wife’s Brit mystery books.
GOODMAN had a full page ad in today’s Indianapolis Star
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Goodman+Manufacturing+Houston+TX&FORM=R5FD1
Absolutely, provided that the taxpayers agree to cut the services they get commensurate with the tax cut.
In this case, there aren't any cuts in services, just a transfer from the rest of the citizens to Carrier.
These big companies all get big contracts from our government. I wonder what would happen to the shareholders if they should lose a few of those big government contracts?
What would the shareholders do if Americans stopped buying their company's products? Consumers (government and private sector combined) are not purchasing slaves, we have choices. If a company moves all its manufacturing out of country why should they get to bid on government contracts?
Also why do we need this guy on TV in the first place? Can't we find an Indian with an MBA and PhD to come in and provide commentary? If you don't protect your borders and your jobs you will have neither country or a job after a while. It's meta level thinking which I am finding so few people engage in.
No what we do have is rabid Cruzite butt hurt when self styled “True Conservatives” come here to whine and bitch hysterically because a taxpayer, Carrier, is allowed to keep more of their own money rather then see it swallowed in the ravenous mouth’s of the Government spending class.
Fact do matter. Perhaps if you put aside your rabid Cruzite butt hurt you could see the fact that is is an utterly idiotic move it is for self styled “True Conservatives” to come here to whine and bitch hysterically because a taxpayer, Carrier, is allowed to keep more of their own money for the next 10 ygears rather then see it swallowed in the ravenous mouth’s of the Government spending class.
You do realize you ranting is complete idiocy devoid of even a remote contact with the facts here right?
Your attempt to equate the two is laughable and remarkably ignorant. Your Marxist economic notion that all economic output is the property of the State and any time the State does not consume as much of the output as possible equals a “taxpayer subsidies” is pure economic nonsense.
In our system, the consent of the governed allows the state certain revenues for the collective good. The property of the individuals (ie their tax money which in this case the shareholders of Carrier), is theirs until granted to that Government. It is their, not the States, money. It is no way a “subsidy” if the State, for the collective good, decides to collect less her in exchange for a public good. (i.e keeping 1100 well paying jobs). If voters are displeased with this decision. They will have the chance to voice their displeasure at the next election.
A “subsidy” is what was done under Obama. Taxpayer money, either by direct grants, or through “loan guarantees” was taken OUT of the Public Treasury and give to favored individual.
There is nothing wrong with what the Democrats did there.It was wholly in keeping with our political system. The consent of the Peoples Representatives was granted in giving these subsides and the voters were allowed to voice their views on those decisions in 2010, 2012, 2014 and now in 2016,
I think you fail to realize that “intellectualism” requires actual though, fact and an understanding of the subject, not just a rote recitation of economic and political dogmas you have read around the internet.
You been a very good parrot here. Your Professors must be so proud. Pity they didn't teach you reason instead of recitation.
Yes. In this case it's spelling.
When I'm charged less then everyone else yet I use the same services it's a subsidy.
The rest of your argument seems to be that both approaches are legitimate, and I don't disagree.
I sorry but your position here is based on ignorance and emotional defense of a ideological imprinted political dogma.
Try to respond to my points again. Only this time put some THOUGHT, not just more rote regimentation of your ridiculous Marxist economic theories, into your response.
Whatevs.
+100
Maybe he’ll have a different view when it is HIS job that his outsourced
Lowering taxes and eliminating the specific regulations that are hurting this company is statist?
You're missing the piont that the money given by the taxpayers to the state is in exchange for a set of services. It's a compact.
Once that deal is struck, if one party stops paying yet continues to use the services, that party is being subsidized by the other taxpayers.
This subsidy may well be for the public good and is certainly legitimate under our system of government, but to quibble over what it's called is silly.
If a public university chooses to charge one class of students - say FReepers - less for the same education as all other students would you object if that was called a subsidy?
No you foolish children. In our system, the State is granted revenues by the people as a collective good. It is their property granted TO the Government not vice versa. It is up to the voters in IN to render the judgment on their Representatives at the voting booth if this was a wise move or a foolish move for the collective to reduce tax burdens on Carrier in exchange for the collective good of keeping the 1100 jobs.
Your basing your argument on a fraudulent Marxist premise that the State is the owner, of all economic output and thus any reduction of taxes must be “made up” elsewhere. NO the people, via the avenue of their elected Representatives, can simply choose to give the state less of THEIR revenue at any time. Your fail point here is your are attempting to manufacture a false premise and then demanding everyone debate based on your false premise. Your assumptions are wrong so your whole argument is based on an intellectual fraud. You seem unable to grasp that point since it is a reasoned rational position that confounds your rote recitation of imprinted ideological dogmas. Like most dogmatists, you simply chat your dogmas louder rather then learn anything. That is an intellectually infantile response on your part.
I’m wondering how all this UTC stuff is going to shake out.
Congress just cut funding for F-35s [P&W/UTC company makes the engines for the F-35] and also cut were the Black Hawks [made by UTC/Sikorsky]
The Machinists union at UTC is about to vote on their new contract; rumblings of a strike.
Life is complicated.
Do you like the Carrier deal?
I’m thinking that Trump’s 15% tax should have tiers. 15% for those doing 90%+ of a product’s manufacturing in the USA. Tax will be different per a product’s location of manufacture.
20% for those doing 85 - 89%.
25% for those doing 80 - 84%
30% for 75 - 79%
35% for 70 - 74%
39% for those doing 69% or less of a proxuct’s manufacturing in the US.
You seem to have quite a hang-up on semantics.
I've never used the "paid for" terminology. I have said that if the state operates a balanced budget, which states are pretty much obliged to do, and grants Carrier a $7M tax break the other taxpayers will have to make that up, unless the state reduces apending by $7M.
That's trivially obvious and I don't know why it's giving you such heartburn.
Try again. You are still manufacturing a false premise and demanding everyone debate on the basis of your erroneous assumptions.
Sorry Snowflake but the real world outside your “safe space” doesn’t work that way. No one is under any obligation to treat your erronous assumptions with anything but scorn.
Your assumptions that “tax revenue must be made up elsewhere” are at odd with facts. Until you admit that error, you will continue to fail to see the irrationality in your argument.
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.