From Laurie:
Here is a topic slightly related to the concept of freeloaders if one thinks of corporate take breaks as freeloading. Here are 2 articles which seem like opposing views about the carrier deal. I haven't actually read them yet but they sounded interesting. Maybe somebody here can read them and tell me what to think about this. My first inclination is to go with the first viewpoint.
Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism
but this second one sounds interesting, as who loves corporations, and maybe they should be forced to show more consideration for their workers.
Donald Trump’s Carrier deal could make American capitalism better
I am going to read them later as it is happy hour time. So what do people think of the Carrier deal?
Here is a topic slightly related to the concept of freeloaders if one thinks of corporate take breaks as freeloading. Here are 2 articles which seem like opposing views about the carrier deal. I haven't actually read them yet but they sounded interesting. Maybe somebody here can read them and tell me what to think about this. My first inclination is to go with the first viewpoint.
Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism
but this second one sounds interesting, as who loves corporations, and maybe they should be forced to show more consideration for their workers.
Donald Trump’s Carrier deal could make American capitalism better
I am going to read them later as it is happy hour time. So what do people think of the Carrier deal?
28 comments:
I don't know if I have enough details to have an opinion, but I do find it amusing that Laurie may be in the Sarah Palin camp on something.
I think the reality is that Trump wanted the photo op as a President who kept his promise, and that it gained him a lot of points with a lot of people.
As I usually say... I don't think it is a good idea to reward bad behavior. In this case giving tax breaks to a company that is leaving. However I think we should remember that if they had not taken the immediate action, even more tax dollars would have been lost.
Hopefully they will followup with some business tax reductions and regulatory reductions so that emergency actions like this will not be necessary in the future. And so more companies believe that America is a cost effective place to build things.
For me, the interesting thing about the Carrier deal is that Republicans are for it and Democrats never had the nerve to propose it. Why aren't we the ones holding guns to the head of capitalists? Why have we ceded that position to Trump?
Vice president elect Pence has suggested that the free market model has failed, something even a wild eyed liberal such as myself would probably not go as far to suggest. Have we elected Bernie Sanders with a bank account?
--Hiram
so readers here are off the hook for telling me what to think, as K drum has come through again:
Donald Trump Can't Fix Offshoring, But He's Got Bigger Problems Anyway
I almost always agree with what he writes for some reason, probably because he has shaped my views for many years.
I do get occasional insights here as well. In a church group I have met with for many years we broke our rule and talked about politics and the election the other night. I talked about how this blog is my ownly view out of my liberal bubble into the conservative viewpoint, where I actually exchange ideas rather than just read a conservative view in the newspaper. It made me wonder how long I have been reading this blog and I came up with a guess of 5 years, which I am not at all sure about.
Did you start as Nokomis way back then. Or am I confused as is often the case.
Drum fails to impress again. Per his usual Liberal views, he tries to blame the businesses for responding to what their American customers were telling them in no uncertain terms back in the 70's and 80's.
"If you keep building in America, we will no longer buy your products. They are too unreliable, out dated and expensive...""
"When the postwar boom came to an end, businesses changed. We learned that what we thought had been a permanent new norm, was no such thing. It was just a temporary, three-decade blip. Starting in the 80s, as economic growth leveled off, the business community returned to operating the same way businesses had operated ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution."
Then instead of addressing today's problem as the President-elect is trying to do... He switches off to some future issue.
Do they really pay this guy for this stuff?
Nokomis was me. I picked that as my anonymous name when I use to comment on daily kos as I like the poem, native american spirituality and wisdom,, and mpls lakes. I have gone back to a bit of lurking at dkos but rarely comment there now.
As for drum, the future he sees coming is not so far off as you seem to think. I am not going to make other arguments right now to defend his views, as I am off to celebrate birthdays, both mine and my son's who turns 20 this week.
I think you just like to disagree with Drum any way you can because he is liberal. I think he is right that automation will have a much bigger impact on the job market than any thing Trump does. Here is a writer that thinks we need not worry about robots putting most of us out of work.
Robots won’t kill the workforce. They’ll save the global economy.
Why Trump gets more hype out of 1,000 jobs than Obama does out of 16 million
What Obama deserves the most credit for are his actions in saving the auto industry.
Laurie,
Obama took over at a very low point in the business cycle. It would have come back with or without him. Though I must say it may have been a slow recovery, but it has been long lasting so far.
As for automation... No one disagrees that it will cause big challenges in the future. My point was that let's fight today's battle today.
What changes can the US government make today to encourage American Consumers to buy American? And to encourage companies to build or keep jobs here?
The Liberals have for decades have waged a regulatory and tax war on American businesses. No wonder they had to leave to stay solvent.
While rewarding citizens who have made poor decisions, by giving them money from citizens who made good decisions.
It will be interesting to see what Trump Etals new approach will be.
Now if you want to prepare the US citizens to deal with our automated future.
Let's re-institute No Child Left Behind and take it seriously this time. This will require some serious tough love. The Parents, School system and Social Services need to be held accountable...
"What Obama deserves the most credit for are his actions in saving the auto industry." -- Laurie
Verily you jest. Obama STOLE the auto industry from its owners the bondholders, forced it to his will (making unwanted electric cars), and then turned over ownership to the unions who caused the problem in the first place. In a normal bankruptcy, some assets would have been sold and the rest of the company saved. A group led by Penske would have purchased the Pontiac division, kept the jobs here and kept GM solvent. Obama forced the "restructuring" instead. And a normal bankruptcy would have forced a rewrite of the union contracts that caused the problem, saving both the jobs and the company. Obama gets credit for the "high-handed" tactics Trump is now being (incorrectly) accused of.
I think the liberals, other than a virulent counter-reaction to everything Trump does or will do in their fevered imaginations, miss the essential point: In a free market, corporations and individuals make their economic decisions intelligently. Tax a corporation more than some other country taxes you, and that company moves to the other country. Just that simple. Regulations play a part, too, but the cost of labor matters a lot less than most people think. Laurie, I thought your article on robots was fascinating but I think it's a matter of timing and I'm still worried. So is Stephen Hawking.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/stephen-hawking-most-dangerous-time-for-our-planet-because-we-arent-listening-to-our-betters/
From Laurie
Trump warns of ‘retribution’ for companies that offshore jobs, threatening 35 percent tariff
sounds like a bad plan to me that would start a trade war and wreck havoc on the economy.
As long as that applies, as Trump says, to only those companies that deliberately offshore to cut American jobs, I think he is on the right track. It is reasonable to cut the corporate tax rate drastically, ease some regulations, and make staying here the sensible choice. It does NOT punish those companies that build overseas to serve overseas markets, nor does it (at least in this statement) start a trade war with goods made by foreign companies in foreign countries and exported to us.
I think we've again been made victims by the biased media trying to make Trump sound bonkers when what he is saying is rather simple common sense.
slightly related and interesting ( to me)
Under Trump, red states are finally going to be able to turn themselves into poor, unhealthy paradises.
unrelated to the carrier topic but somewhat related to my previous link:
States’ Rights for the Left
Laurie, the WaPo is always good for a laugh, especially when they try to understand folks outside the beltway. The basic premise of the article is that if the federal government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done. It even assumes that these things are those that government OUGHT to be doing, such as punishing businesses and investment with high taxes and giving the resulting golden goose eggs to the poor.
Laurie, your second link to the New York fishwrap is also very interesting. It will be interesting to see if the new "states rights" to their own laws hold up against the federal right to deny them any federal funding. I see a number of conservative blogs almost daring California to go ahead and secede. And hopefully they hurry it up before the 2020 election. Without California, Trump would have easily WON the 2016 national popular vote!
ROBERT B. REICH was not impressed by the Trump deal either. As usual I find his views easy to understand and persuasive.
Trump’s Trickle-Down Populism
The paradigms here are fascinating... Everyone is focused on the American businesses as if they are in control of anything...
Let's say that the USA traps US firms into staying here and absorbing higher costs of R&D, Production, etc. Whereas companies like Samsung are allowed to develop and build in lower cost countries, and sell here.
Given our American Consumer's obsession with low cost, great features and high quality, how long do you think the US company will stay in business?
As for Reich's silly view that unions, tax payer funded continuing education, etc are the solution. How exactly is that supposed to work again if consumers want the lowest cost etc products?
Please remember that the US was in charge of world production from 1950 -1970 because most of the rest of the world was busy rebuilding after WWII. Then by the late 1970's they had recovered, they had improved, shipping costs had plummeted and the American consumers were tired of being gouged by the US companies and their Unions.
Now raising the import fees seem like a good idea if we can do it without killing our exports.
That will force people who want to buy that foreign car to pay more. Laurie's Prius price may increase by $10,000 until Toyota fires up a factory in the US to avoid the fee. But then it may cost more because we pay people more.
Just imagine if the price of everything foreign made at Target, Walmart, Car Dealerships, etc jumped by 30%... How will the lower income folks make do?
The reality is that this is apparently what Liberals want. (ie higher wages) Now the question is are they willing to pay for it?
By the way, my latest car purchase was a 2010 Subaru Forester. (ie 3rd daughter nearly 16...)
I mean buying foreign works so well for so many Liberals, maybe it is worth a try?
"The Liberals have for decades have waged a regulatory and tax war on American businesses. No wonder they had to leave to stay solvent."
Carrier's division of United Technologies ran a profit of $2.9B last year, and that division's margins have been increasing, not decreasing over recent years. Their solvency was never in question. Which is why it's kind of absurd that instead of applying the kind of pressure and shaming that Trump said he was going to apply, he just got the state of Indiana to whip out the checkbook.
One story, and then a proposed solution.
Years ago, my company proposed to move its metal stamping operation to the Philippines, where we were going to pay 5 cents/hour (a high wage). We began with a small order, to test the capacity of the operation and discovered that, using the hand tools available, they could produce 1 stamping in about 5 minutes. A quick comparison showed that, using our 100-ton press and a multi-head die, our $20/hour press operator could produce 1200/minute. The resulting cost then was 0.33 cents/piece for the US part and 0.42 cents/piece for the Philippine-made part, NOT counting transportation to and from. US capital had made high-priced US labor more competitive and produced products at a LOWER cost.
The obvious solution is to remove the government's heavy taxation of capital investment and profit (which can be turned into investment), and let the US compete. The other thing we can do to kill most of these birds with the one stone is the FAIR tax. It taxes imports by 23% and reduces our price for exported goods by 23%, while making every investment tax free and cutting corporate taxes to zero. One can only imagine the boom in jobs and the economy, while we are still all buying from the "low cost producer."
Sean, how much profit should United Technologies be allowed to make? Should that number be limited by government?
In your last comment seems like typical liberal canard, if you will excuse the nomenclature. That is that it implies that all money belongs to the government and anything they let you keep is an "expenditure." Conservatives, however, believe that the best way to keep government from spending money foolishly is to never give it to them in the first place.
Post a Comment