Consider another air conditioner manufacturer located in Indiana operating under the same taxes and regulations as Carrier. Now, Carrier receives preferential treatment from the government which gives them a competitive advantage over the other company. The other company loses business, perhaps goes out of business all because the government picked winners and losers. Nothing right about this at all. What should be done is extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter.
I’m sorry. That is certainly one way of looking at it but I think that the right way of looking at it was that the local economy was at risk and Indiana made an offer which Trump sweetened by pointing out that the business environment was changing and it would be in their interest to stay. The changes Trump is planning will be in the interest of all the other American companies as well. He is sweetening the pot to get the businesses to bring their off shore capital to America as well, which will do a lot to reduce our debt & deficit.
To succeed in turning America’s business environment around Trump is going to need to work on many things simultaneously, the macro-environment for all companies and the micro-environment for certain industries and particularly important companies. It is not as you suggest a one size fits all situation.
Trump is my guy because his aims are the same as mine, to make America great again and restore the American dream to all Americans, and because he is a pragmatist who will do what it takes to get there and knows what is necessary. In America’s interest just as he did in the Carrier deal.
Your solution sounds good “extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter” but it would result in the status quo which is converting America to a third class country. The premise that the singularly important aspect is to avoid favoritism is naive, unworkable and doesn’t address specific issues only “fairness”.
It reminds me of Obamacare which is very fair, everyone gets the same healthcare which is super expensive because it mandates coverage of items that people don’t want while the high deductibles insure that people are screwed.
I’m sorry. That is certainly one way of looking at it but I think that the right way of looking at it was that the local economy was at risk and Indiana made an offer which Trump sweetened by pointing out that the business environment was changing and it would be in their interest to stay. The changes Trump is planning will be in the interest of all the other American companies as well. He is sweetening the pot to get the businesses to bring their off shore capital to America as well, which will do a lot to reduce our debt & deficit.
To succeed in turning America’s business environment around Trump is going to need to work on many things simultaneously, the macro-environment for all companies and the micro-environment for certain industries and particularly important companies. It is not as you suggest a one size fits all situation.
Trump is my guy because his aims are the same as mine, to make America great again and restore the American dream to all Americans, and because he is a pragmatist who will do what it takes to get there and knows what is necessary. In America’s interest just as he did in the Carrier deal.
Your solution sounds good “extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter” but it would result in the status quo which is converting America to a third class country. The premise that the singularly important aspect is to avoid favoritism is naive, unworkable and doesn’t address specific issues only “fairness”.
It reminds me of Obamacare which is very fair, everyone gets the same healthcare which is super expensive because it mandates coverage of items that people don’t want while the high deductibles insure that people are screwed.
Good post, upsdriver. Mr. Trump would be wise to consider Sarah’s viewpoint. He did a great job of saving jobs— proud for him and the folks at Carrier. But your comments bring up the bigger picture, and, therefore, make clearer Sarah’s valid concerns.
“Consider another air conditioner manufacturer located in Indiana operating under the same taxes and regulations as Carrier. Now, Carrier receives preferential treatment from the government which gives them a competitive advantage over the other company. The other company loses business, perhaps goes out of business all because the government picked winners and losers. Nothing right about this at all. What should be done is extend the same ‘breaks’ to both companies and all others for that matter.”
I along with Sarah Palin am disappointed in this 'deal'...When Sarah was running for V.P. she spoke often of bringing jobs back from China and Mexico...Long before Trump came along...And like Trump, she spoke of tariffs as a leverage point...
We don't know much about this deal but what we do know is that almost half of those employees will lose their jobs...For good...Those lost jobs will never come back...It's a done deal...And any future expansion of Carrier will likely be in Mexico...
Had Trump made good on his promise to impose tariffs on companies like Carrier, all of the jobs would have stayed in America, abeit with other American companies who will pick up the slack that will be created when Carrier leaves...
I hope this will not become the trend where the rest of our companies are allowed to leave without repercussions as long as they leave a remnant of their workforce here in the U.S...