I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ... let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against > Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products > and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States > by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of > product. > > That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the > manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade > agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets > and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel > to cheaper labor markets. Meanwhile, the service related jobs created > within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to, > or advertised to replace. > > Because of the advance of technology(ies) some of this is obviously going > to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will tell > you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national economy. > > It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples > are a good start. > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: > >> >> 02 December 2016 >> >> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan >> McMaken >> >> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing >> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries. >> >> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to Mexico, >> the Drudge headline read: >> >> >> >> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ... >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html>" >> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford >> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the production >> of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico >> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-says-ford-plant-didnt-plan-move-will-/>. >> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to >> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a 35 >> percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico. >> <http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/11/15/ford-ceo-fields-35-tariff-would-impact-us-economy/93674032/> >> >> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate >> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free >> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer. >> >> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating it >> as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning production >> within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win." >> >> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the >> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was >> essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and >> possibly the federal government as well. >> >> As Tho Bishop has pointed out, >> <https://mises.org/blog/defense-trump%E2%80%99s-deal-carrier> however, >> what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized >> by tax breaks which cannot accurately be called subsidies. And, if tax >> breaks are truly behind the deal, there's no reason to criticize the deal >> because of *that.* >> >> What is troubling, however, is the continued insistence by pundits and >> politicians that it's a great victory to not have a factory move to a >> neighboring political jurisdiction. >> >> This is then reinforced by a focus on only what Frédéric Bastiat called >> "the seen." <https://mises.org/library/which-seen-and-which-not-seen> >> That is, there's a focus on only the people who will keep their jobs (for >> now) with the move to Mexico not taking place. This makes for good TV, such >> as in this case >> <http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/30/carrier-employee-issues-heartfelt-thank-you-to-trump-for-helping-1000-american-workers-keep-their-jobs-video/>when >> FoxNews featured a Carrier employee thanking Trump for supposedly keeping >> the jobs in the United States. >> >> But what about those "unseen" groups and individuals who would have >> benefited from a Carrier move to Mexico? >> >> After all, Carrier had originally stated that the purpose of the move was to >> save $65 million in labor costs >> <http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/29/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/> for >> the company. This would have translated to lower prices for Carrier's >> customers, and that would have, in turn, helped Carrier maintain market >> share and profitability. >> >> It is entirely possible that the deal worked out with the Trump >> administration and the State of Indiana renders the move unnecessary and >> will allow Carrier to reduce costs anyway. The fact is we know precious few >> details in the matter. >> >> Let's suppose, however, that Carrier elected not to move in order to >> avoid possible future tariffs threatened by Trump, or that the alleged >> tax-cut deal does not totally compensate for the $65 million that would >> have been saved had the company moved. Perhaps the deal was only enough to >> make the move "not worth it," politically. >> >> So, let's say now that Carrier saved only $40 million due to the Trump >> deal. (Again, we don't know the details.) >> >> If this is the case, then all consumer of Carrier products except those >> few who actually work for Carrier *lose *from Carrier staying in the >> United States. >> >> All of those small business owners, household owners, and others who >> purchase Carrier air conditioners and similar products, will now be paying >> *more. >> *Even those who use air conditioners from other producers will >> ultimately lose as Carrier will now be less competitive and drive fewer >> price reductions in its competitors. Moreover, with more expensive air >> conditioners, fewer will be purchased which means fewer jobs for those who >> repair air conditioners or make parts for them. >> >> These are the great unseen beneficiaries of free trade and freely moving >> capital that is so often ignored by the press and the politicians. >> >> >> *What About the Employers Who Rely on Inexpensive Climate Control? *After >> all, air conditioning is not merely some luxury enjoyed by a few rich >> people. Air conditioning has a myriad of applications in production, >> meaning that any move by a government official to keep Carrier from >> lowering the cost of air conditioning will lead to greater costs for many >> other producers. >> >> Movie theaters, factories, warehouses, server farms, and countless other >> producers and consumers devote a non-negligible percentage of their >> operating costs to climate control. Every time that these costs are >> increased or not allowed to fall through government intervention, it >> puts pressure on those other employers who may be forced to engage in >> layoffs in order to remain profitable or competitive. >> >> But, you won't hear anything on FoxNews if a small business goes out of >> business or must refrain from hiring new employees because its climate >> control costs are too high. You won't hear about it when some medium-sized >> pharmaceutical factory delays an expansion because its profitability has >> been negatively impacted by expensive air conditioners. >> >> We will only hear about the tiny number of people (out of a country of >> 320 million) who will keep their jobs at the expense of unknown multitudes >> of other employees and producers who would have benefited from cost cutting >> at the company in question. >> >> Naturally, this same argument applies to any product that is used by >> producers and consumers. Which is to say, it applies to all products. >> Producers buy automobiles from Ford Motor Company, meaning business owners >> and employers are able to hire more people when they can purchase >> less-expensive cars produced in Mexico. Producers can hire more people when >> they can purchase less-expensive uniforms for their staff members from >> Vietnam. And so on. >> >> Public policy that increases the cost of clothing and automobiles only >> increases the cost of living and makes it more difficult for businesses to >> expand and hire people. But, since it's easier to just put an unemployed >> auto worker on TV, we ignore the realities of how free trade makes it >> easier for entrepreneurs and other producers to grow their businesses and >> hire people. >> >> Now, if producers like Carrier elect to not move because costs have been >> reduced domestically, that's all to the good. If companies refrain from >> moving to avoid the taxes still threatened by Donald Trump, then that's >> just a net loss for countless consumers, employees, and producers >> nationwide. >> >> It's certainly easy to sympathize with Trump when he announces that he'll >> cut some domestic taxes and regulations on businesses. However, these >> announcements are often followed in the next breath with disturbingly >> anti-market statements such as Mike Pence's comment yesterday >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/business/economy/trump-carrier-pence-jobs.html?smid=tw-share> >> that "the free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing." >> Pence's position that "the free market" means Americans are "losing" >> betrays a disturbing disregard of basic economics. >> >> Will every bromide about lowering government regulation be accompanied by >> threats against private companies and trashing of free markets and free >> trade? This may be what we should prepare ourselves to expect over the next >> four years. >> >> >> https://mises.org/blog/countless-ordinary-americans-benefit- >> when-companies-move-mexico >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
