Posted on 12/03/2016 3:23:37 AM PST by JediJones
[Palin didn’t get a role she wanted in the Trump admin?]
Maybe a little scorned woman thing going on there? It’s possible.
this is Indiana’s business.
It lacks any and all feck.
Governor Palin argues for capitalism and freedom but also notes that the free market only thrives on a level playing field:
But this time-tested truth assumes we're operating on a level playing field.
That is directed just as much at foreign governments, and US trade policies, as towards State rules and Federal regulations on the US market.
She congratulates the workers on the Carrier plant, because she understands how much it means to them and their families, but Sarah also dares to play the slave on the triumph chariot (the Auriga who whispers "Respice post te, hominem memento te") , and sends a warning - not so much to the Trump team I think, as to all conservative pundits and voters - that you don't want to have an industrial policy à la Sweden or Norway instead of the free market of the USA.
One can always discuss or question the timing, but I think it is refreshing, and it is certainly in her Maverick mode, that she writes this piece at the same time as she may be considered for some kind of post in the new administration.
Sometimes Palin should just keep her mouth shut. She’s not helping herself. She needs to run a local radio station in Alaska.
“Do you really, really believe that Sarah Palin believes that NAFTA creates a level playing field?”
I am using her words:
1. Trump arranged for Carrier to stay in the United States.
2. Palin launches forth a denunciation of crony capitalism, which she declares is what Trump engaged in, while admitting she does not know the full details.
3. She says businesses should be able to locate where ever they choose.
4. Therefore, Carrier going to Mexico, for her, is evidence of a level playing field.
5. Therefore, NAFTA, to her, is part and parcel of a level playing field.
You do realize, that NAFTA, a federal government creation only, establishes financial incentives for companies to move to Mexico? And it creates financial penalties for companies to remain in the U.S.?
It does that because labor is much cheaper in Mexico, and does not have the regulations imposed on businesses in the United States, and other costly items, and allows those products to enter the United States duty free.
In return, the United States allows ignorant and unskilled Mexicans into our country to compete for whatever jobs are left.
See my post #44.
Can a president or governor give tax cuts to one company?
Where did she say that?
It's not a long article. Perhaps you could put up a quote.
I am no fan of Palin, I used to really DISlike her but she is right on this issue. We all remember Obama’s interference with Solyndra? There must be an even playing field which Trump has been saying all along. No special deals for anyone; that is the American way and the fair way. I don’t know what Carrier was offered and haven’t really been following it but I hope it was on the up and up. Joe Schmoe down the street and his little business is just as important as any other business person. This is the American way.
In Arlington, TX, tax breaks were given to the huge General Motors plant years ago to keep them here. This is not something new - it works. And so do thousands of people in the DFW area thankfully.
I totally get what your saying but don't want to have to stand outside and hand crank that Schmoe air conditioner in my window.
Maybe if I could get a Mexican to do it? Hmmm.
Pretty sure we are talking about companies that are moving out of the country. Not all companies.
A company staying here deserves the same benefits a company leaving gets. Fairness is the American way - no special favors and Trump is on record as advocating that. What’s good for one is good for all; that’s something Democrats don’t get but Conservatives should most certainly get that.
International markets are not free markets. That’s why so-called free trade agreements have hurt us. That is why canceling these deals and finding ways to offset their impact on American companies is crucial.
We’re told a Mexican worker will work for $2.50 an hour. Do they really at that rate mirror the lives of American workers making 25.50 an hour? Do we make 10 times more and live the same lives, in the same homes, driving the same cars, and having the same schools, hospitals, infrastructure?
I would say not. Places I’ve seen were impoverished in terms of the working class...Panama, Vietnam, Bahrain, Poland.
The idea is that Americans are to be brought to those serf levels. When our pay matches their 2.50 then our companies will stay in America. That’s the message I’m reading in the tea leaves.
And they have sold this with supposed prosperity coming from free trade.
There is no free trade. Don’t believe that lie. In the meantime American merchandise confronts massive obstacles in other countries proving the lie of free trade. More significantly, flooding our markets are products made at slave wages underselling our middle class wages and WE buy them, cutting our own throats and killing our own workers’ jobs who are producing those same products in America.
Does anyone ever look at a shirt and ask how that can cost only a few bucks and still have a profit margin that makes shipping it from asia, producing the material to make it, and paying decent wages to a worker profitable? It can only be done via complicity of leaders undercutting our own businesses.
It raises the question of prosperity versus accumulation. If I have 3 drills that last 2 years versus one drill that lasts a lifetime which is prosperity? If I have 10 cheap shirts intead of 5 quality shirts, which is prosperity?
The objective is to build prosperity, quality, and longevity. To participate in such a market, I would charge others a premium.
After all, they are already putting covert obstructions on us and underselling us with a serf people who have had the ability to aspire driven from them by their overlords.
You are kidding, aren’t you.
Why would she write the piece on crony capitalism and tie it in with what Trump did for Carrier?
I think she stated twice that she did not know the full details.
Let's see now...."...since the 60's...".
I seem to recall a period from 1787 until "..the 60's.." when such was NOT done. It's bribery...calling it an investment doesn't make it not a bribe.
It puts the states in competition with one another in exactly the same way that interstate tariffs would, and is precisely the reason for the "...commerce clause..." of the US Constitution.
I think we're done here.
Why did she not mention NAFTA, and Trump’s often repeated assertion that it creates the opposite of a level playing field.
Trump was going after NAFTA, not pursuing crony capitalism.
See reply #56 to see why it is not.
Yeah, I understand. Competition is also American. Two companies can sell the same product, one bad, the other great. They both want to move to Mexico. The city/state would offer the great company an incentive to stay and let the other one go. NO PROBLEM THERE; as long as tax dollars from other states don’t have to pay.
It all boils down to all Americans should not have to pay for the benefit of an individual city or state (acts of God excluded). I just woke up and am groggy but I think I clearly stated what I mean.
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.