Trump Cites Progress In Keeping Carrier Air Conditioning Plant In Indiana

Which leads me to question how Trumps import tariffs are going to deal with the Chinese low prices on what are probably copies of the real thing

http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Copeland_Compressor.html

 

there will always be knock offs on everything. Buyer beware and make sure you use reputable Service companies who buy from established supply houses. I would be most of those knockoffs are sold in places like S America or on EBay. No US manufacturer or supply house will sell you anything except the real deal because of the warranties involved

 

wait so now you've circled around to defeating your own argument earlier about wages being a motivation because I clearly squashed that, and now you're telling me these generic responses "its the total package" but when you dive into specifics and I dismantle them you escape to this generic header of its the whole thing, and not the one thing you were arguing to attempt to defeat my statement earlier...

so what is it... you're going to argue specifics that I dismantle and demonstrate how your own economic strategy is defeated by the very things you cite are critical reasons, or are you going to run back to the "safe space" and give me generic "its the complete package not the one thing" once I destroy that one thing you cited... you can't keep telling me I'm wrong, and then retreating after I dismantle the thing you cited as proof you're right...

so once again, I know why toyota did what they did, I gave a very lengthy and correct assessment, according to not just what history showed us, but what their own corporate documents showed us, because thats what good investors do, they review the documents that explain the leadership of those companies, that show the mindset and quality of the leader behind the board that is directing and making billion dollar decisions daily... you seem to just keep clinging to rhetoric... you can't keep telling me I'm wrong when your own statements dismantle your own argument...

maybe YOU don't personally recall a "boycott" that worked... but maybe thats not because your memory is the issue, perhaps its because you've willfully decided in order to be correct, you must disavow any "boycott" in order to be right... there have been many "boycotts" that have been effective over the past few years, and past few decades, in not just this country but others, so perhaps your memory problem is motivated by your own political motivations to have your rhetoric win out over logic and facts... don't be that guy, nobody likes that guy...

I mean if "boycotts" (which one again is your redefining of what I said and not my word) didn't work, why are democrats and liberals so entrenched in them every single month of the year against someone else? are you attempting to tell me that democrats and liberals are so narrow minded they don't understand that "boycotts" don't work and all these efforts and claims they are making they are being victorious are false? I don't know, you tell me, which way do you want this to go... democrats and liberals are idiots who don't understand economics, or all your rhetoric is right... but it can't be both, because one side of your argument defeats the other end of your political spectrum and the actions it takes routinely...

P.S and did you even read your own link and "proof" taxes are not an issue? it has two chapters on taxes... which you dismissed as a big deal...

in fact YOUR proof, cites everything I just got done saying about corporate taxes... wow amazing hey, you rejected what I said as having importance, and here your proof cites it as VERY important to the big picture... perhaps thats the difference between us, my first degree was in economics, I suspect yours clearly was not... I mean why else would you cite proof that you just got done dismissing when I stated the same thing...

next time read your proof before you reject the comments of others... it might change your economically challenged mindset to whats really needed...

lets quote some passages in YOUR proof since you seem to dismiss tax code as being a huge issue... I mean this is YOUR proof after all...

HELL I COULD JUST QUOTE THE ENTIRE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING ARTICLE BECAUSE ITS CLEAR YOU DIDN'T READ ANYTHING TO DO WITH TAXES...

and on... and on... and on... and on...

THERE IS THAT DAMN IRELAND THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT AGAIN, DARN IRISH GETTING IN YOUR WAY OF BEING RIGHT...

YOUR OWN PROOF... talking about offshoring costs and why they should bring it back to america...

seriously do you read your own proof before citing it, because it just got done saying everything I have been saying... which you said was wrong or not impacting enough to be worthy of your time and efforts... everything you just got done foofoo'ing me over, is inside your proof saying I'm right...

so it would seem with me quoting just a LITTLE if YOUR proof... that taxes have a TREMENDOUS impact on manufacturing and american goods...

P.S.S. here is my favorite one below now...

AND TO THINK i WAS JUST QUOTING THE FEDERAL PORTIONS, I DIDN'T EVEN DIVE INTO THE STATE TAX POLICY REFORMS NEEDED...

 

my "simplistic" notions are quite complex and detailed in responses to folks... why don't you see how I just dismantled someone else shoving "proof" in my face about whats right from a liberal perspective... his own proof cites everything I have said as being a driving and important source... all you did was say "you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm not going to cite anything to demonstrate why I'm right"... thats all you did, was tell me I'm wrong and I have to accept that you're right and your way is the only way... and once again, stop linking me to Trump to defend, I never cited his strategy or particulars, I cited my own, which deviate quite a bit from him in many instances... but review this message and see how the other liberal who attempted to tell me I was wrong, or Trump was wrong, just got lambasted by his own proof that he never read before citing...

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=485921&page=13&p=1066866995#post1066866995

thats the problem with liberals, they're long on rhetoric, and when they cite proof, it often supports the very position they said was wrong... amazing...

 

You didn't address the reasons Toyota chooses to make cars here and why Ford chooses to make vehicles in Mexico.

Your change in taxes in SC may well take business from other parts of America, but you have not shown that it would take manufacturing back to America.

What you aren't grasping is that taxes are not the only issue.

When is the right wing going to be able to see beyond their simplistic view that tax reduction solves all problems?

 

I think you missed my points.

I've never said that there are no cases where tax change isn't part of any successful proposal. (And, I don't agree that the elements of the document I posted are of equal value.)

I posted the line to show confirmation that there is a wider range of what is necessary - that one piece is NOT enough. And, that means that tax changes aren't going to have the affect that many are claiming.

Again, the reason that Toyota builds cars here is NOT that we have higher taxes - surely you can agree with that. Although Japan has lower taxes, Toyota makes their cars HERE. Your purely tax direction does not address why that is the case. Surely you might like to know why they make cars here, because those same reasons have to do with why US corporations choose to build stuff in other countries.

Also, I pointed to China taking over alternative energy technology. They aren't winning because of lower taxes. And, we aren't going to win that segment by lowering taxes, either. And, by extension we aren't going to win other segments by lowering taxes.

We're actually going to have to do the work to become experts in those areas.

Again, I'm not saying taxes is irrelevant. I'm saying that it is not sufficient. We aren't going to win the future by moving to no taxes. And, any benefit we get from that today is going to be incremental - it is NOT going to "bring back" yesterday.

 

lol at you... "the proof I cited wasn't meant to prove your point, it was meant to show there are other things, so disregard where it proves what you said was correct"... is that basically what you want me to believe? I never said other things were an impact, but you said we need more high skilled people because low skill jobs aren't something we can compete in, your own documents suggests thats wrong, and you STILL have not answered to my challenge of your labor costs for high tech jobs doesn't put us in any different boat than we already are with low skill wages having a gap between foreign competition and american competition... so you still haven't dazzled me and shown why a high tech industry is somehow immune to the very thing you said was an issue, labor costs and the differences in nations... so you still have not backed up and supported any "facts" you've claimed... you're just back to general statements, and running back to the center now that you got obliterated dancing out in left field...

so please, stop saving your chest pounding and thumping about somehow I am wrong... everything I said was right, you attacked ME originally and said I was narrow minded and didn't understand it, now you keep defeating your own arguments with your proof that demonstrates the tax code has a tremendous impact and is of greater concern than any other factor you cited, was demonstrated wrong, and then ran back to the middle with... so please, stop trying to convince me I am wrong, when you keep proving me right with your documents attempting to smear me...

you also clearly didn't read what I said about toyota... I said they were thinking long-term, they saw the writing on the wall and backlash against foreign made goods, so they made a tough and hard choice to invest in america, to demonstrate THEY were willing to make things in america, in order to retain and grow future sales once other companies were leaving... they demonstrated great leadership in making that call and decision decades ago, and it has paid off handsomely for them as they are now a leading car company in america and are no longer tarnished as cheap asian crap...

I never said this was a pure tax ploy, YOU keep insisting that is my position, YOU are the one who steered it toward taxes because you are brainwashed and think anyone who disagrees with you, must support Trump, and therefor must believe everything he says and does... and clearly many things I say and do on this website are in an immense contrast with him and republicans, so please STOP trying to paint me in this corner that you want to put me in because its your only way to defend being so wrong on so many things already about this topic... I only tackled taxes because YOU kept throwing it in my face as some sort of defense to your other blunders and misstatements, don't blame me for your mistakes...

china is winning alternative energy because their government subsidized the HELL out of that industry in order to put american companies out of business since they couldn't compete with the chinese government making their products immensely cheaper than american products... so everyone stopped buying american made ones and slowly company after company folded up to now where we have a fraction of that industry left... so please don't try to lecture me about the economics of the alternative energy industry, you're going to get schooled once again on facts... the only way we can compete with china in the alternative energy industry is if we start clamping down on trade deals and the manipulation of industry by china... hence why once again, we're back to the tariffs being proposed on unfair business practices being the SOLUTION... so once again you're proving Trump is right by tackling the interference of governments within business to put american companies out of business...

you know this isn't anything new or some new style of thinking... the oil industry has been doing this for decades, in fact they ramped up supply in hopes american oil companies would go out of business quickly and efficiently so they could buy them all up again like they did decades ago... problem is we discovered so much oil they weren't able to buy them all up at cheap rates and stop the flow of oil, instead we're still pumping and still have a ton of oil yet to tap into so the oil cartels have been fundamentally screwed with this strategy... so now those governments depending on oil are for the first time in my lifetime, facing the issues of changing their entire economic models because they won't be sustained much longer if they depend on oil... everyone thought this would happen once renewables stole their business, turns out finding too much oil is ruining their business...

stop lecturing me on the economics of things, I clearly tapped a nerve by exposing just how wrong you were about the importance of the tax code... so please stop trying to assert the thoughts of others on me and continue my destruction of your continued attempts to smear me...

P.S. in the proof you cited, EVERY single "other thing" was linked to the tax code in some way... R&D, linked to tax breaks, higher education, linked to tax breaks, etc etc etc... pick anything on your list of "other things" you claim are more important than the tax code, and cite ONE not linked to the tax code in YOUR proof... see my point (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), everything circles back to the tax code as being THEE critical point and center of all the pie pieces...

P.S.S. maybe next time read your own proof, so you aren't this embarrassed again... or maybe next time quote an article written by a journalist who is not an economist so I can't possible dispute his wild claims of proof and warped interpretation of reality... you know, the usual smug liberal articles... (this is the problem with people like you who live in like-minded bubbles, you lack enough real world experience to make the claims you do)

 

No. There are many things that we could do that would make some detectable amount of difference.

The question is, what will solve our problem?

We can't be looking for a tiny piece of the solution.

And, touting solutions that don't solve the problem is no more than a disinformation campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

False. I pointed out Toyota and Chinese leadership in energy technology, about which you have said nothing.

 

Every policy the nation makes is linked to the cost of doing that policy. We can recognize costs, but you can't use the fact that every policy costs taxes as a reason for doing nothing. (Roads cost taxes - yet we consider roads.)


Let's not wander off into the land of ad hom.

 

I notice you left out a massive amount of information quoted... I see you're changing tactics to single line strategy, because you failed at the full context picture and defending your outrageous accusations... so are we going to do this single line style now? I already cited what would solve our problem, clearly you didn't bother reading anything I said, do you need me to repeat it all, or should you just go re-read whats already been said...

and please don't attempt to say I am citing solutions that don't solve a problem, I clearly solved the problem of corporations leaving american and how we can retain and promote companies COMING to america for the tax advantages they don't have in their own countries, you know, the reasons YOUR PROOF cited as reasons why companies were leaving america... seriously, once again, read your own proof that supports what I said...

 

so now you say I am wandering off, when YOU brought the argument to taxes, and YOUR PROOF cited everything I said was absolutely correct, and you're so bitter about that you're attempting to trivialize that fact by dismissing the importance of me being correct and you being incorrect... don't be upset with me because you made false claims, then tried to spin out of them, then tried to throw Trump on me as if his words are mine... you got caught with your foot in your mouth, next time just don't stick your foot in your mouth... the tax code is THEE single biggest factor... its tied to ALL of them... and once again, you're proving that... don't be upset with me for once again showing how you proved yourself wrong and me right...

 

Look, you're writing whole books into your posts and I'm just finding that outside the physical limits of threads and posts.

So, I'm trying to back off and be as constrained as possible on individual points, including ignoring stuff don't see as central.

 

No, I think you just aren't understanding my argument. And, I'm pretty sure you see me as not understanding yours.

With Toyota, they are building stuff here REGARDLESS of our taxes and REGARDLESS of being able to find cheaper labor.

The same goes for US corporations. Our companies build SOME stuff in other countries REGARDLESS of their taxes and REGARDLESS of whether they can find cheaper labor somewhere else.

There are factors other than labor cost and taxes that do have a major impact, as the Toyota example demonstrates.

Also, China pumping money into their industry is just one challenge - it's not an excuse for us to fail to compete. WE have ways to invest in industry, too, such as colleges and universities (the starting point for many high tech companies and commercial ideas), national R&D investment, tax breaks for start ups, promotional initiatives for industry segments, immigration policy, protecting ideas through patent and copyright enforcement (making return on investment more reliable), through trade deals that have restrictions on bad behavior (like dumping, fiscal policy, etc.), etc.

And, we can push against what we see as cheating by China by making sure we are important trading partners with them - not by tariffs or exclusions. That's why Nixon went to China. We can't fix China by building trade walls.

 

Uh... why can't Americans make the best products at the lowest price? We used to be able to, that's how we got where we are.

I'll go along with anything that helps us make better stuff at a lower price, but the idea that I should accept lower quality and higher prices so Joe Sixpack can DRINK a sixpack on the job is not something I agree with

Besides, the idea that some of us should live at the expense of others is not only unsustainable, it's the reason conservatives give for wanting to throw even their own sick and old out to live under bridges, now it suddenly works?

 

Darkbane just got through with showing the reality of the situation. I'll simplify it even more: The US is not the leading country anymore, and according to Obama we're in a "global" economy. So, what does that mean? Well, what it means is that just as the US could have cheap imports inside the country, US companies can also expand and host operations overseas to enjoy much stronger markets(financially.)

The Liberal response has been to punish these companies, which is just as reactive as Trump's tariffs. Here's what will happen, with higher tax rates(or punishing them by not accepting their imports.) Those companies will then become entirely foreign. If the US is not a conductive place to do business, then sorry, citizenship aside I as a businessman wouldn't have much incentive to continue doing business there.

The worst case scenario is if such a force is so compelling that instead of a few businesses, it becomes many that decide to go overseas since the US is draconian.(You probably don't even realize that class warfare is a draconian policy). The end result of that draconian policy is that there will be a few businesses remaining(whose production will not meet demand.) In short, our economic production declining to even further levels than we're already experiencing would devastate us.

Like Darkbane, I also studied collegiately in business.(Bachelor's in Business Administration, INTL business.) I can assure you from the lessons I learned, that class warfare will never bring about a new US prosperity. It is however a way to keep us broke. So instead of a class warfare, let's talk about a true New Contract with America.

Let's talk about one of the key and unfair disparities in America: A CEO makes up to 300 times the average American worker. Is that fair? No. Is that an equitable economic inequality?(as inequalities are rationalized to maintain an economic system.) No, it is not. The recent surge of the business-political undertaking is that we KNOW it's not fair. We also know the reason it's happening.

There's two terms of economics we need to understand, before proceeding: Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Simplifying, Microeconomics is the inner economic circle. IE: The economy of the United States, excluding any trade would be microeconomic. Your daily paycheck, income, etc are all microeconomic factors. Macroeconomics is the more "dynamic" approach in which multiple players play a part in the economy.(IE: Trade, government tax policies) but also we could quantify loans as a macroeconomic factor.

There's an open economy(which we have now, more or less) in which we're both microeconomic and yet also macroeconomic. That is to say, we expand outside of our markets and yet at the same time have markets inside. Then there's the closed economy(The US prior to, I'd say after WW2 is when we became Liberal in this area.). That is an economy of "trade barriers" and tariffs, meant to protect the industrial economy. But at the same time it restricts access to the macroeconomic/global market.

However, there's also a third term. A term I coined, and a new economic model that I proposed during my studies: A Mixed-Economy. A Mixed Economy is just as it implies: We would concentrate trade where we are most profitable, drop out of unprofitable deals.(IE: Trump is correct on this, and the US trade deficit will go down majorly as a result of a President Trump.). The end result of this, would be the market returning to the US since we're no longer throwing good money after bad.

One of the major economic mistakes, was the presumption that a country was not a person. Macroeconomics has much of the same rules, it's just more dynamic. But with a mixed economy, we're not totally closing our markets. We're just opening them up to the best possible partners for business. And then obviously, with these limited protections(but more than before), our industrial economy can start to recover from a 30 year hemorrhage for no other purpose than the global economy. We really committed an era of suicide economically.

No, our deficit isn't the exaggerated 500+ billion of Trump's claim. It's actually more 40 billion. But that's 40 billion dollars we're losing. But for some reason, this huge sum of lost monies goes often unspoken in politics. If we can reduce that in half, that's 20 billion in goods returning to America.

Think we'll have a resurgent economy then? Yeah, I think so. But there are also other areas where we're losing money.

20 trillion dollars. That's how much our Federal Government costs. We've been running a debt-GDP of 100% since 2012 and is projected to peak at 105%. To put this in perspective, we're quickly moving towards Japan's inflated economy. But I'm sure the gas prices(which haven't been too terrible, but not near their 90's low either.) and food prices, etc puts it all in perspective.

The reason we'd been able to increase spending and yet maintain a positive ratio, was that government spending had not yet overtaken the private market. With wages deflated, and with less money in the economy we have now effectively overtaken the private market. This is not conductive to the future of the US economy. This is because the government is mostly spending on itself: Social Security, etc. And very little money has been devoted to the private sector.

Go to your city council and go look at the debts incurred at the city/State level. It's even more exaggerated than the Federal Government. The same is true for every State in the Union. Pensions for example, are some of our highest rising costs. If you really want to move towards the European-Left economically, we cannot be Europe Left's defense shield.

The EU formed, in large part because of the security ensured by the US being allied with most of them and with the security pacts, which in turn depend upon our US defense military spending. We cannot "hedge off Russia" and expand the economy. We must choose what we want to be, an allied force of Europe or a pro-American country.

Ironically, because of the costs to maintaining the EU. The Syndicalist movement in Europe(see: The UKIP and Ms. Le Pen's National Front), the European nations are facing a very similar dilemma. A world economy is simply not feasible as long as goods are limited in some respect to the inner economies.

And no, "looser" trades isn't going to fix that. Any looser, would probably be free. And in which case, the country(likely ours) who does decide to embark on that insanity ends up like Venezuela. What is going to fix that, what I would like to see is the productive growth of every nation on the planet.

Wars, historically have been through scarcity. But by promoting growth in each country, each country will depend less on trade. Trade then becomes fairer for everybody and the "global" economy grows as a whole. To simplify, I would rather an interconnected world, than a global world.

Individual-Unitarianism. Through our individual efforts, a more united front will actually appear. Free choice and free will are the emphasis of a human's potential.

 

Keeping Carrier's business here in the US using tax incentives and such schemes also to be applied with other companies,
do we have to reduce our national budget ceilings?.
But how about the shale oil that we have now, can we still be dependent on imported oils or are we self sufficient?

 

My initial reaction is to point out that your idea of casting this as "class warfare" or your other labels including your assumptions about me is a really good way to (*)(*)(*)(*) me off while also ensuring you are less understandable.

If those are your objectives - good on you!

 

I don't believe "self sufficient" is of any interest in this discussion.

Corporations own our fossil fuels. They sell it such that they maximize profit. Outside of that, they don't care who buys it.

 

Okay, for me it's an alternative to somehow tip the trade imbalance and not creating jobs abroad.
Yup, corporations to whom we will grant tax incentives?

 

There are a lot of sides to this coin. One thing I have noticed from the local Ford new car lot is that the service after the sale is incredibly poor. They advert that they have over 2,000 Fords on the lot. My Sister in Law took her car there and asked for a loaner while warranty work was being done on her Escape. They not only wouldn't give her a Ford Escape to drive for 2 days while they were ordering the park and installing the part; they gave her a voucher of something like $40 for a rental car from Enterprise. The $40 wouldn't cover the total cost of a rental for a compact vehicle.

Back when I drove my last new car, it was a foreign model; the dealership often gave me something off the lot to drive while I was getting service perfomed.

 

I don't believe our objective is "not creating jobs abroad". That doesn't do anything for us. In economics, we would like those people to be making money hand over fist so they can buy our products.

If they are out of work, they aren't going to be buying a Boeing 777 or an Apple phone or a Microsoft Surface or whatever else we decide to make.

 

Yep,
you've got a point there, the only thing missing is control of that market their are airbuses, and cheap Lenovo's from China .
and our President elect now is in a gesture of doing his own controlling, I suppose.

I think he is gunning against currency manipulation,
but I don't know if the $180B now in Fort Knox is enough,
I think we have to devaluate to bring home the bacon this time?

 

The way we work on currency manipulation is to create trade partnerships, etc.

That gives us leverage.

If we blow off our trade partnerships and organizations, we're on our own. And, we aren't enough of China's exports to force them to do much at all.

That's why Nixon went to China!

 

There's not much Trump can actually do to make staying here more profitable to an American company. We the public have already proven that we will buy products regardless of where they are made. And it will always be cheaper to make those products in foreign countries with little to no labor laws because Americans would never accept the drastic cuts to wages and living standards that would be necessary to equal the profit incentive here that exists in those foreign countries because of that lack of worker protections.

 

so you just said labor costs are not an issue for toyota since they are making vehicles here, yet in previous postings you said labor costs were a significant impact to why manufacturing is not being done in america... see how you keep contradicting things you said earlier with what you say now... you've done this numerous times now, I've remained consistent with what I said, you keep jumping back and forth over the fence, do you begin to understand why everything you say has zero credibility, because you keep conflicting with what you say, by your OWN words, not mine...

I never said there were not multiple factors in business decisions, I clearly cited NUMEROUS things with the toyota example, and you continue to project upon me things I never said or am clinging to, you are essentially making things up and putting them into my mouth as if I had said them, I did not, so stop putting YOUR thoughts into my mouth, they are your utterances not mine... just like you kept accusing me of Trump this or Trump that, when I never defended what he's said or done, or supported things until you wouldn't drop the tax issue, I said fine lets dive into taxes... and now here we are, with your proof, supporting my arguments, and now once again you contradict your own basis for labor costs being an issue...

and now you're basically spinning into taxes again, under the cloak of R&D and other things, which I JUST got done screaming at you about them, and you foofoo'd my message, you likely didn't even read it all did you, because I notice you complained about the length of my detailed response in the other message where you attempted to tackle a single line out of a hundred lines which gave the full context and story, but instead you wanted to play, lets find a single word or sentence you can twist to mean something it does not when you remove it from the whole context... see this is why I don't listen to anything people like you say, you don't even know what you're saying, and you defeat your own arguments...

you say we can't fix things with tariffs or trade walls, what do you think all those international trade agreements are? they are tariffs and trade walls for people who do NOT follow them... the problem with america has been our unwillingness to enforce the agreements we signed and to stop the manipulation from countries like china to destroy our markets by using unfair government tactics such as currency manipulation and subsidizing industries to put ours out of business and competition in the future, you know, just like I highlighted about the oil cartels doing but it backfired this time... you seriously don't read anything I type because you're not truly interested in learning about economics, you just want to push ideology...

if all you want to do is push ideology, why are you still responding, you defeated your own ideology numerous times in this discussion... if you want to push solutions, perhaps you should go re-read my entire toyota story and the full context of the discussion in why and how they did it at great cost to succeed later on down the road because leadership and not politics is what solves the issues... you can cling to all your "we must do this, that, or the other" and then contradict yourself in later messages, but I'm providing solutions which brings corporations to america by changing the unfavorable tax code, as cited by YOUR proof, as being the correct measure to perform in order to get the ball rolling so all those other things matter...

I'm sorry that you don't understand economics, maybe next time don't tell someone with an economics degree how much smarter you are...

P.S. if you didn't bother reading this entire message, don't bother responding, its clear you didn't read all my other messages fully...