Carrier = Bad Precedent

I wanted Trump to win the US election. But I haven't agreed with every suggested policy, and this was my biggest problem.

Protectionist policies DO NOT work for nations that are net importers and rely on free market trade.

Carrier has made a deal with the Trump administration to maintain about 1000 jobs in Indiana, Mike Pence's home state. Whilst the terms of the deal have not been revealed, it is likely they will either receive some kind of incentive from Government. Possibly a subsidy, possibly a threat.

The problem is the precedence it sets. What stops other companies from making the same threats only to be backed away from the ledge with irregular deals and promises?

This is political marketing, it's some good grace in the bank for a rainy day. I want many of Trump's policies to work out, but I'm telling you now, this will not work long term as anticipated.

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/17/trump-just-took-credit-for-stopping-ford-from-moving-a-plant-to-mexico-but-it-was-planning-to/?utm_term=.789ee5a5fb1d
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Protectionism worked pretty good up until the Jews took over again. Of course it's predicated on domestic production.

Preferential treatment in exchange for keeping 1000 jobs is still most likely a better thing than losing 1000 jobs and getting no special treatment.

Define 'when the Jews took over'.

Not when you consider the effects to the greater economy and future economic policy.

>Define 'when the Jews took over'.
When they took over the country again via the Federal Reserve Bank.

>Protectionist policies DO NOT work for nations that are net importers and rely on free market trade.

what free market trade. Most large companies are monopolies are already receiving government subsidy. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about.

Im listening

Are you the britbong making all of these shill threads? Jesus fuck your stupid.

Your concern trolling is sad.

I agree the Federal Reserve should be ended but not because it stopped protectionist policies, more because it was supposed to stabilise the banks and yet almost every economic crisis came thereafter.

Secondary-wave affects go beyond just large corporations. Not every business in the United States is subsidised.

>your
I'm not concern trolling, I'm making a point. God forbid somebody has a different opinion once in a while you can't downvote.

Actual politics on Sup Forums? You're doing it wrong OP, you're supposed to blame jews for everything and worship Donald Trump.

Does anyone know some decent sites for political discussion? Reddit is full of liberal cucks, and Sup Forums is 99% troll threads

>Federal reserve supposed to stabilize banks

it's almost like humans are inherently greedy

Bank stabilization was the alleged impetus, but really it was a reiteration of earlier attempts for the Rothschilds to take over again as they had with our previous central banks and as they had before we declared independence and became a country of our own. Meanwhile, it was the money powers after Andrew Jackson that ran the very boom-bust cycles meant to terrorize people into accepting a new Rothschild central bank based on the idea that it would finally stop the boom-bust cycles (which it didn't anyway.)

The key thing here is that the government up until that time had done just fine funding itself on things like fees and tariffs with no income tax whatsoever. With the introduction of the income tax, the entire funding structure was changed (allegedly -- the income tax doesn't actually fund anything) in order to pave the way for what we today call "free trade" or "globalism."

The principle issue at hand here is to reverse this one world government nonsense in a way that is compatible with the modern world. That's a difficult challenge, but domestic production and protectionism have an obvious role to play in fundamentally taking the rug out from under the traitorous Jews.

Protectionism made America great.
Free market capitalistic nonsense, in just a few years, has nearly destroyed the white majority and tripled the cost of living with regards to the minimum wage. Now the country is nearly irrevocably fucked.

Have you guys took basic economics classes
in college?

Yeah. In 101 the prof told us it was OK to shoot smack during his explanation of supply and demand. It was pretty boring and easy, really.

Honestly some of the best sites for politics I've used end up being business forums, because everyone cares primarily about their investment over political preference, you'll have a more balanced system in terms of looking at flaws/successes without bias.

And it's failed which is why I support ending it.

Although incompetence and it's impracticality as a system is largely to blame also.

I'm fascinated with Andrew Jackson and will one day read some kind of biography on him, he seems like one of the better outlier Presidents in American history. Shame he's coming off your banknotes.

Income tax is plain evil, although I wish people wouldn't equate free trade with globalism as you have done. Controlled immigration with importation of goods and services is clearly of net benefit to nations, but if the legal structure has been neglected, it's just words on a piece of paper.

Free market trade is not the reason your white majority was destroyed, it was due to your horrific immigration policies (as with most Western nations, who couldn't identify quality of immigrants and took them as one size fits all).

When your country is a shitty little cloudy island with little resources to speak of, protectionism doesn't work.

When you are a country with a whole continent at your disposal than it does!

It works fine.
My city lured a major job maker with tax breaks and free land.
Ten years later, they are still here.

Give examples how they don't work.

>I wanted Trump to win the US election
>I want many of Trump's policies to work out
why are you lying

International trade has been a staple of economic prosperity since well before there were nations, so I don't think that's going to stop any time soon. We just need to arrange it so as to not get ripped off instead of having the US brought down to 3rd world status so that all countries are equal enough to merge into something more like the Jew World Order. Just look at how poorly the EU turned out in its lust for power despite being something of a good idea.

I think it's a little early to worry too much about precedents being set, although of course the first several deals are going to have a profound psychological impact initially on subsequent deals. I remain as usual in the "wait and see" camp, trusting that future deals have room to be improvements on past ones, and that Trump is going to leave office anyway in 4 or 8 years, and that new deals from future administrations will subsume past deals anyway.

As for Andrew Jackson, I tend toward Webster Tarpley's analysis on this one that the mistake was not so much routing the den of snakes and vipers that comprised the Second Bank of America but leaving in its absence a financial power vacuum that allowed its owners through their private banking interests to beat up the US until it submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank. A parallel is to be found here with Grexit -- it might seem good for Greece and the EU to part ways, but on the other hand if Greece no longer uses Euros then it is the small fish in the big sea and won't have the aggregate financial power of the EU to protect it from predators. This is why I am a fan of the idea of nationalizing the Federal Reserve Bank -- return this important power back to the central government, or at least have a good strong central government that will go toe to toe against it rather than letting it run roughshod over the country.

I love America, I'm not being hostile.

You don't have the resources to meet your demand by the way, many countries have a comparative advantage and you're a service based economy now. Hence you're a net importer.

Because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Relocation of jobs and tax relief takes away from somewhere else within your economy. It may not be you who suffers this time, but it could be the next.

Why would I lie about this?

Trump should cut corporate tax, build a Southern border wall, deport illegal immigrants, build an anti-establishment cabinet etc.

I just don't agree with this in particular.

>Protectionist policies DO NOT work for nations that are net importers
That is where they work the best
exporters are the ones that need to worry about retaliation

free trade is generally viewed as having a net positive effect
however, there are winners and there are losers

countries with cheap labor generally gain a lot, and countries with expensive labor generally lose some

we had relatively protectionist trade policies until after WWII when a lot of the industrial competition was destroyed in europe

we should have eased back out of free trade as competition ramped up across the world in various industries

and in the late 80s-90s, we were high on economic success so we shifted towards more free trade, which ended up causing the problems we're reacting against today

we keep shifting towards more free trade, but never shift back when we need to

>We just need to arrange it so as to not get ripped off
I don't think the USA is explicitly being 'ripped off', trade disparities will happen if you're a net importer. I think the USA however missed a trick in not being more aggressive in foreign markets after the conclusion of WW2. There's many instances where European infrastructure could have been recovered with direct cheap American imports, America didn't push hard enough.

The Eurozone is going to die a painful death eventually, what needs to happen is a collective agreed death amongst the several nation states, rather than individuals being picked off as they secede like you mention, especially the weaker ones. I think nationalising of the Federal Reserve as you mention would be a good start, it's practicality in reality may not be so simple, but you seem closer to American financial matters than I am, so I'll take your assurance that it could somehow work.

Counter-tariffs will leave your smaller exportation sector vulnerable. And you don't have the resources to back up that potential loss due to years of dependency.

Trump doesn't care about no precedent, he does what he wants. Tomorrow he might throw Carrier out of the US. You don't know what the deal was anyway. Fix your own flag Britbong.

>Trump doesn't care about no precedent, he does what he wants

Good economic plan, I can feel the markets stabilising as I type this.

It is a rip off when production is drained out of the country, we have to import everything, and we're left with a "service economy" and "financial innovation (aka illegal derivatives)" and now we're even exporting our higher education and forcing young people with not much of a future into being unable to even default on their loans. This is a clear and dangerous bubble. It's definitely a rip off when everybody goes to a wal*mart (aka Chinese outlet mall) because they can undercut domestic production and we wind up sending all our money to China in exchange for cheap Chinese Crap and funding their slave labor, police state, and pollution.

It's quite the mess (((Kissinger))) got us in to, despite maybe being a clever move at the time. But we have to improve on this situation, not double down on it.

As for the EU, what I was told some years back and what I continue to believe (as evidenced by how Grexit #3 was HOLY SHIT SKY IS FALLING one day and then literally nothing when it got too close to happening) is that the countries of the EU are being reduced all to the same social and financial destruction so that they can all, as you say, jump off the cliff together in a mutual death pact. As long as they continue to move in different directions and not all dance to the same tune, I suspect the overarching importance of the EU as a project will cause the underlying financial insolvency to continue to be swept under the rug.

Innovation.

Why don't Americans make better products.

>Protectionism is bad for the global economy
Stop this propaganda shit meme

Protectionism = Every country supports its own industry and creates the best conditions for the growth of businesses

Globalism = shitty migrants move to wealthy countries and tear them down while businesses moves to shitty countries so their ((((owners)))) get more rich and employs cheap miserable labor

Service economies aren't wholly bad, but you do lose an abundance of physical goods and the tools to make them, which have value. After all a nations wealth isn't just it's fiscal capital but the physical amount of goods present also. However that 'Chinese crap' is also an assistance, the USA could never produce such things at such a low cost, and those low cost goods either meet the consumer at affordable prices, or goes into American production i.e. Chinese plastics.

The idea that China's growth equates to a weak America is wrong, they are both beneficial to each other as their comparative advantages make sense for both parties.

The EU's days are numbered, and what you've said is exactly right, the skeleton for such a task is so impossible and impractical that it's just a case of the stars aligning at the right time for the whole thing to be dismantled. It may very well be next year for all I know, but it's an inevitability at this point, the Eurozone will crash. Even the most basic concept of a central bank setting the interest rates of economies like Germany and then for economies like Romania is just laughable. It's amazing to me people can't see this coming.

Protectionist policy worked for us in the past.

Protectionism is what protected the nascent industrial sector when Jackson was president, against the British industrial machine.

the issue is that we don't produce. We are a nation built upon a foundation of industrial work. Our entire structure since the 1800's has been based on industry. we build things and the people who build them are the middle class who buy those products, thus funneling money into the economy. Since the early 90's when nafta was signed, we started losing that foundation. We never realized it because the internet boom provided a convenient smokescreen. We didn't start to really feel it until the 00's, when the Iraq war sapped our economy and Bush didn't do anything about it because he was too busy in the middle east to bother with domestic policy other than token republican tax cuts. And people didn't care yet because they could buy cheap goods at walmart.

it's only now, after 8 years of "hope and change" that the population has truly woken up to the fact that we dont make anything anymore, which is why the 2 most popular candidates on either side preached about trade.

protectionism in our current state can work, as long as we also, in addition to punishing outsourcing, incentivize domestic production.

>carrier

I always though that was a Chinese company, but I might have been thinking about Haier.

Free trade does not automatically equal mass immigration. Blame your governments ridiculous immigration policies for those disasters, not markets.

Denmark, you don't have the resources to support yourself as you would like. Best you make the most of your scarce resources and find international trade partners with comparative advantage so you can continue enjoying that standard of living you now have.

Wow way to regurgitate what the MSM has said.

Trump will slap on and punish companies who move their jobs overseas. He didn't in this case because Mike Pence is from Indy.

trump really dropped the ball on this one. theres zero doubt that he bribed this company with tax breaks, subsidies or just plain cash in exchange for 1000 low paying jobs that probably arent worth half that. this negotiation may have worked with a massive corporation, but 1000 jobs is nothing. and op is right, it does set a precedent for the remaining 27 million corporations

but i guess thats what we get for electing a conman retard to the office of POTUS. i hope carson and giuliani feel good about themselves

>The problem is the precedence it sets. What stops other companies from making the same threats only to be backed away from the ledge with irregular deals and promises?

The federal government has a real distaste for doing things piecemeal, but sometimes that's what works best when there's a shit-ton of money involved. It's done *all the time* with defense contractors, for instance (and Carrier's owner is a very large defense contractor), as well as automobile manufacturers.

Let's be fair as well, we don't know the terms of the deal or what Trump's involvement even was. It may simply be that Trump gave Carrier and United Technologies advance notice of the specifics of certain nuts-and-bolts level government actions his administration will be taking. That is, showing them in black and white how the federal government was going to punish manufacturers who go overseas, and how that would negatively impact Carrier's and United Technologies' bottom lines. For instance, the specifics of how Trump is going to deal with Chinese steel dumping would be very important to Carrier's strategic planners given the amount of sheet metal they use.

It could also be that Trump worked as an intermediary to help Indiana and Carrier reach a deal whereby Indiana would subsidize certain aspects of maintaining a final assembly plant there.

So you have no example, just more pontification of your opinion.
Nice to know you have no facts to back up your claim, but can discuss it endlessly.

>it is likely they will either receive some kind of incentive from Government. Possibly a subsidy, possibly a threat.

It's a subsidy.

Ironic, since you guys are all about shaming people for receiving welfare.

No. He threatened to kill their defense contracts if they didn't throw him a bone. So they kept less than half.

AC units are a tiny part of their portfolio, and the defense stuff is much more lucrative.

>It's a subsidy.

We don't know this. Nor do we know who's giving it.

>Ironic, since you guys are all about shaming people for receiving welfare.
Not when they do work for it. I don't shame police officers even though it's my tax dollars subsidizing the existence of his job, because he provides a service. I see little difference where instead of hiring a few more police officers we give a temporary tax break for a few dozen unskilled laborers to build things we want.

trump hasn't even been sworn in and he's already decided he doesn't like 2 contentious cases of settled law
the hypocrisy and short sightedness is gonna be hilarious

source on the defense contract? not that it matters, even if they made AC units for every single tank and jeep in the military that doesnt mean they should have to be bribed with subsidies just so tump can smell his own farts and look like a genius deal maker for getting 1000 meaningless jobs.

this is obvious: protectionism only marginally work, and only for a short time when it does

well, I don't care as long as:
- liberal tears
- bantz president
- no WW3 against Russia

This is not a hard concept at all.

Crescent Corridor Expansion. Public-Private development. Good for certain distributors, however will effect the trucking industry, demand for new trucks, road services, local environment land value etc.

You can't have benefit without a cost.

>he's already decided he doesn't like 2 contentious cases of settled law
Which are?

We are net importers because Bill "ill" Clinton used his hustler economics 101 to crack retarded free trade deals that dealt a near fatal blow to American manufacturing. Considering the fact that the money made from exports of the industries that benefit (knowledge/information based) will not be able to make up for and do not make up for the deficit created by having to import everything, it is retarded to keep having reckless free trade deals that further rape our manufacturing. Bringing the manufacturing jobs back eases that issue and also gives middle class blue collar people a good income to use to spend, which as everyone knows helps the economy.

If Trump manages to stop the flow of manufacturing out of america, probably through business incentives such as low taxes for them, then everyone will benefit in the end. It will be very difficult but if it works it would be fantastic. If Trump goes too protectionist, meaning that he just cancels all free trade deals and gets into trade wars with everybody, then it will obviously be terrible.

>You can't have benefit without a cost.
Benefit: USA
Cost: Not USA

How are you having a hard time understanding this?

abortion and flag desecration

He's referring to United Technologies Corp., which owns Carrier. UTC is a very large defense contractor.

It's routine for government to request a company take a particular action with one of its divisions as a condition of awarding a contract, even where the division has no relation to the contract. That's how the business of government contracting works. It's also done all the time with automakers: Requiring, for instance, that a certain percentage of a vehicle be built in the United States for the vehicle not to be subject to heightened import duties or something similar.

>you'll be punished if you take jobs out of this country
literally what's the problem?

>Person A: Citizens United has subverted our democracy, we should do everything we can to get it overruled!
>Person B: I think we should imprison people for burning the flag.
>Person A: You can't do that. Texas v. Johnson says so!

You can't just refer to a matter of law about which reasonable people can disagree as decided once and for all, but then continue to criticize other decisions.

oh look another economist with an opinion. The only useful economist is one that can condense their statements down to the following format:

"[buy/sell] [X] on [date]"

and be right consistently.

but the they couldn't win in the courts so now they're gonna change the rules?

Hang in there, help is on the way. Your taxes will be lowered, like everyone else. Your regulations will be eased, like everyone else. Have some patience, bet on America.

yeah, that's a terrible message

>Define 'when the Jews took over'
20's-30's

The US never had tarrifs below 25% during whole 19th century, Britain was also extremely protectionist and so was France. Of course none of them went to the level Austria-Hungary went with 70%+ tarrifs in some years but overall 35% was a norm back in that century.

Increased cost to the American consumer is a cost.

If a company cannot cut costs of production, and an industry cannot cut the costs of production, nor engage in price wars, the costs will exist at a higher rate.

Secondly, you're ignoring the need for efficient allocation of scarce resources. If all your human capital is wasted on factory floors, it takes away from other areas of the economy that need it most. In many cases, this human capital can be put to better use.

Win what?

If by "change the rules" you mean legislate, that's how the American system of government works. The courts interpret and apply the law, and to some extent craft judge-made law to fill the gaps. The legislature is generally free to abrogate or modify the laws that the court interpreted to achieve a different result.

Welcome to legal positivism.

Fuck off faggot. If you want to sell shit to the people of the USA, then those people must have a stake in the production of said shit.

If you don't like it go fuck off to China and Europe and sell your shit there.

is "stable markets" some kind of kike codeword for a goy paying up to the chosen people?

reagan was 1 of the most protectionist presidents ever while he pushed investment protection agreements that he called free trade

nigger subhumans who hate whitey don't deserve whitey's money. it's really that simple

It's always the kikes huh.

they couldn't win the abortion issue in 40 years.
they don't care about the arguments or law

>Whilst

Oi! Bugger off and worry about your own country.

How you liking that Snooper's Charter, Mate?

They took over after WW1 and WW muh6Girillion 2.

no pablo. its meaningless kike drivel from psuedo economics who get off on the status quo and think anything else will result in societal collapse. see: trump with nuclear codes

and yeah, it is jews

AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

It's a very good message but many people buy it without thinking of the secondary consequences to their national economy, that is the entire point of my thread.

I'd want corporate tax cut, I'd want regulations eased, I'd want a return to nationalism. But protectionism, further irregular subsidisation of private enterprise and misallocation of resources is not a good thing.

>If a company cannot cut costs of production, and an industry cannot cut the costs of production, nor engage in price wars, the costs will exist at a higher rate.
Production/distribution cost only sets "minimal profitable price".

Do you seriously think that various shops making those deals in the US on black friday actually lose money selling those things for little to no money? Well, here's the deal - they are making tons of dosh, it's just that instead of selling 1 piece of X of which price 70% are just their profit margins, they sell 20 X's at 10% margin. On top of it they save on warehouse space so it's even more than you would think.

Above the "minimal price" EVERYTHING is dictated by supply and demand.

>Increased cost to the American consumer is a cost.
You don't get it. Cost of goods is only a part of a cost of a policy. If a policy benefits USA more than it costs the USA, the beneficiary of the policy is the USA and the cost is to the detriment of not-the-USA.

>If a company cannot cut costs of production, and an industry cannot cut the costs of production, nor engage in price wars, the costs will exist at a higher rate.
>
>Secondly, you're ignoring the need for efficient allocation of scarce resources. If all your human capital is wasted on factory floors, it takes away from other areas of the economy that need it most. In many cases, this human capital can be put to better use.

This is the problem with most economic theories: They only concern themselves with the end result on a macro scale. Globalism would absolutely create the most economic utility measured in terms of real GDP on a global scale. But instantaneous transition to a fully global economy is poor policy for a variety of reasons. For example, while it may create economic efficiencies to move the Carrier factory to Mexico, the workers are incapable of offering their labor at competitive rates (because the cost of living at their location exceeds that value), and are incapable of relocating such that they can find work and maintain a good per capita level of work.

Suffering, and the consequent social disorder, is a valid counterpoint to economic efficiency.

>concern trolling

"stable markets" is kike buzzword for don't rock the boat and disrupt the kikes at the top

Increased cost of goods is not a problem if there are abundant $20 hour jobs.

It will only hurt welfare niggers who won't be able to get their gibsmedats and iPhones. These lazy fucks can go to hell.

>further irregular subsidisation of private enterprise and misallocation of resources is not a good thing.

>they don't care about the arguments or law
What the hell does that even mean? What arguments? What law?

When legislators determine what the law is, how can you say they don't care about it?

the righteous want people they'll tell you they don't care about to have children no one wants

Protectionism will work for the United States. I stand by this opinion.

Don't let kikes like (((MILTON FRIEDMAN))) lie to you.

>he provides a service
problem is whether he provides proper or shit service, he still gets your moneyz
you have no say as to that
that's what bothers me, with statism
I'd much rather choose among private security corporations, and take my business elsewhere when I'm not happy, than pay cops whether they're efficient or not

End The Fed

In this case, Trump didn’t use his self-professed expertise in negotiations to reach a compromise with Carrier. Rather, he and the state of Indiana gave Carrier lots of money through state “incentives” and tax breaks in order to convince the company to stay.

That, in and of itself, isn’t especially controversial. Cities, counties, and states do this all the time to keep companies happy before they pick up and go somewhere else. But it’s not the basis for a sustainable, national manufacturing strategy: the Trump administration can’t run around throwing grants and tax breaks at every CEO who’s thinking about moving production jobs out of the country.

Indeed, there’s an Economics 101 problem: if companies are led to believe the government will give them money to stay in the United States, every employer, whether they have outsourcing plans or not, will have a strong incentive to call up the Trump White House and say, “Give us a sweet, taxpayer-financed deal or we’re out of here.”

>the righteous want people they'll tell you they don't care about to have children no one wants

Citizens Jewnited

>t. haven't taken the freshmen's intro to economics final yet but I really like the class and I have a B so I think I'll be ok

Here comes the country that killed its production industry and only has a bank economy. Point at it and laugh

>Carrier has made a deal with the Trump administration
no

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/17/trump-just-took-credit-for-stopping-ford-from-moving-a-plant-to-mexico-but-it-was-planning-to/?utm_term=.789ee5a5fb1d

>you're a service based economy

We possess the second largest manufacturing base in the world next to China. That will change under Trump (we will be first again). We manufacture a ton of shit like software, cars, etc. To imply that we're nothing more than a service based economy is laughable. The UK is a service based economy since you guys don't manufacture shit besides beer and jet engines.

do you really believe the righteous want blacks and mexicans to have kids?

...

>you have no say as to that
Of course you do. Vote him out at the expiration of his term.
>I'd much rather choose among private security corporations, and take my business elsewhere when I'm not happy, than pay cops whether they're efficient or not
Except you'd have a service contract. Unless your law forbids contracts.

Also there's that whole problem with roads.

>what if everyone makes a deal with trump and we save a ton of jobs?!?!?!
can anyone else spot the jew?

This is a one-off for PR purposes. Trump had specifically promised to keep Carrier in the country during the primary, his credibility was attached to this specific factory, and the media would've turned it into a fiasco if he "failed" to keep them here.

China exports cheap plastic garbage and imports food. In a tariff war, the hungry underclassmen (70% of China) would dismantle the CCP.

Lia is so cute. I want to feel her wet tight pussy.

Explain those filthy nips. They used protectionism and now they dominate the auto and computer industries. We CANNOT COMPETE

This. Thomas J. Christensen writes about this extensively in his book, The China Challenge. The big problem with a tariff war, or even an actual war, between the U.S. and China, is that the Chinese per capita income is low enough that the marginal decrease, however minor, caused by such action stands a real risk of causing civil unrest.

And if you look at PRC public policy, an enormous amount of it is focused on preventing and stamping out unrest before it can spread. Trade war means the risk of unrest goes up, so government spending on fighting unrest goes up as well, requiring an increase in taxes, which in turn would likely cause a decrease in per capita income.

We're the most protectionist nation in the world already. A few more policies won't help or hurt us too much either way.

Wow, so if we dropped everything we would basically become a third world nation in an instant unable to compete with anybody.

Not really.

>they dominate the auto and computer industries

So Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Nvidia, etc are Chinese firms now?

Make no mistake, the rest of the world is collectively shitting bricks. Every job we keep in the US is 10 the rest of the world won't get.