Good Morning Brine, and thank you for sharing that article. I haven't verified the accuracy of the 800 number or the 1100 number, but I'll take your article as being truthful.
I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this, and obviously I hold much different views than Sissy-Pus does. The new Trump Administration's contacting of Carrier in an effort to keep them here in the United States is a paradigm and barometer of the focus on our National economy and getting America back on track once again. It was time for the proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation culturally, economically; mind-set wise; and time to sweep the negative Anti-American Sissy-Pus horse hockey out on the street right behind them on their: "Marxist March to Utopia"....You will see the tenor and rhetoric coming out of S-P's mug, along with his heroes like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the entire Hollywood elite begin to diminish; and it's long overdue! On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Brian Bednarek <bri...@gmail.com> wrote: > I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up: > > http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many- > carrier-jobs-as-he-claimed/ > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I don't get your numbers Brine. First, there's over 1100 jobs that will >> remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where Carrier >> has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and improvements. >> >> The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal >> government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the >> Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the >> depression that our Nation is in currently. (There's 96 million Americans >> no longer in the work force Brine!) >> >> As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of >> United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the >> promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have >> absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator! >> >> Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the >> 1960s/1970s! >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist <gtheist...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country >>> Brian something has to be done one way or another the test will be net gain >>> or loss of tax base in these local economies. >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek" <bri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> 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. > -- -- 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.
