Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

[phill4paul]

legitimate barriers to entry would be things like skilled happy workers, technological prowess, expensive tools and the like

when we allow government to erect barriers to entry we enter the realm of fascism; where corporations; brands are chosen by state decree rather than consumer preference in the market.

so we have a single market participant here; carrier... they already have huge barriers to entry in government contracts; regulatory capture

now we're talking about also giving them tax breaks. Individual tax breaks for themselves... and not for their prospective competitors.

Anyone attempting to break into the HVAC industry would still have to pay taxes, while complying with regulations probably written by carrier, and without carrier's state contracts.

Is this a free market?
Does giving carrier the tax break make it more or less free?

If you were thinking about starting an HVAC plant in Indiana, and you think you can out compete Carrier on new manufacturing technology... and you just found out that Carrier's plant will get a tax break you won't be eligible for... might this make you reconsider opening your plant?


Every day its possible a new competitor will enter the HVAC industry in Indiana... however as it stands they've chosen an alternate path because its just not profitable given The Regulatory Environment's slant towards Carrier's monopoly.

Giving an additional tax break to an enterprise enjoying a monopoly status will only increase the slope which incoming competitors must climb to overcome the State's entitled child.

No. It is not a free market. Obviously. Arguing that it should be a free market and therefore everything else is pablum is pissing in the wind. In the meantime the state of Indiana has worked out a deal that is less expensive to it's taxpayers, keeps 1000 families heads above waters and requires the company to reinvest in it's plant.
Is it better to tell the company to go pound sand? Put those workers on unemployment? Obtain a net loss in taxes and therefore raise taxes on citizens of the state to cover the loss?

[Dr.No.]

I have no idea what nanontechnology is, but after listening to the union rep from Carrier talk, I am confident that laid off hourly employees are not going to be making great strides in that field.

We will never know, I guess. What I do know is that the jobs those people can certainly do (since they have been doing them) are not long for this world.

We don't live in a centrally planned economy. Government does a horrible job forecasting the future and does a horrible job with the education system. We don't have talent in engineering because k-12 does a poor job educating in math and science. That isn't something that a government training course will correct.

California, New York, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, and Illinois are producing engineers, doctors, and scientists at a very good rate. Government-controlled education in India, China, and the nations of Europe is producing a large amount of engineers. Korea, Finland, Singapore, Germany, etc. have fantastic educational systems with heavy government influence.

The college system is also the finest post-secondary system in the world, if a bit expensive.

Part of your problem is that you use the word "government" as a monolith. Governments are varied and different, and one should judge their ideas and results accordingly.

I would go to the opposite extreme and not subsidize higher education and would eliminate public schools and have a voucher system for private education.

While I like the voucher-idea for K-12 education, I definitely am against not subsidizing higher education. Certain states in this country have subsidized education to great, great effect. So have other countries. Having a competent, modern workforce is going to be necessary for the US to compete in the economy.

As far as the need for coders, I don't if there is a demand. People figure out where the demand for work is for their own survival.

I say there is a need for coders judging from the comments from people in the tech sector: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-te...workers-2013-5

And the need for more skilled jobs in manufacturing: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...118501194.html

People aren't that smart, as we've discussed . If people would figure out the demand for work is for their own survival, why would we ever have long-term unemployment? Heck, part of the reason why Trump won was his promise to bring jobs *back* to America. People want those old jobs back.

Eliminating disincentives to work like unemployment benefits will encourage people to find work. Government doesn't tell you how to feed yourself or go to the bathroom. People figure it out because they have to.

Hmm, there are numerous long-term unemployed people not collection unemployment or any state benefits. If they are collecting things like food stamps or medicaid, they are getting a paltry sum. Yet people still haven't "figured it out"?

I suspect that this is due to human nature. They are holding out for a similar job, what they know, instead of taking the risk of going into a new field. They wait for a job that they are skilled to handle, or settle for one that they can do, instead of investing the time in getting the skills for a better job. This is somewhat understandable given the risks of going into a new field. They have to spend thousands on job training, and while doing it, are essentially forgoing searching for another job.

[presence]

Is it better to tell the company to go pound sand?

Better would be to remove regulations on the US manufacturing industry which make us less competitive with Mexican manufacturing industry.
Instead we're removing regulations on Carrier at the expense of every other potential US market participant that has to play by the rules.

[tod evans]

Better would be to remove regulations on the US manufacturing industry which make us less competitive with Mexican manufacturing industry.
Instead we're removing regulations on Carrier at the expense of every other potential US market participant that has to play by the rules.

Are you calling taxation regulation?

Or were regulations changed too?

[ghengis86]

http://www.iedc.in.gov/indiana-advantages

Indiana has a balanced state budget and has been in the black for a few years.

Excessive budget surises are given back to taxpayers via tax credit.

Indiana is lowering corporate business tax rate for all business, incrementally, through 2021.

Indiana uses its strong fiscal position to attract and keep businesses in the state.

Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana.

[ghengis86]

Better would be to remove regulations on the US manufacturing industry which make us less competitive with Mexican manufacturing industry.
Instead we're removing regulations on Carrier at the expense of every other potential US market participant that has to play by the rules.

Lol. You've never done business in Mexico. It's not the lack of regulations, they have plenty. Some envjroental ones more stringent than the U.S.! It's by far and away the labor cost arbitrage for going to Mexico.

[presence]

Are you calling taxation regulation?

Or were regulations changed too?

yes, I was referring to the taxes as "regulation" in as much as they're far from a flat tax

[presence]

Lol. You've never done business in Mexico. It's not the lack of regulations, they have plenty. Some envjroental ones more stringent than the U.S.! It's by far and away the labor cost arbitrage for going to Mexico.

Why is US labor cost so much higher if not regulation?

U.S. federal government regulations cost


an estimated $2.028 trillion in 2012 (in 2014dollars), an amount equal to 12 percent of GDP. Regulatory costs are distributed across majorbusiness types and among firms of different sizes; the findings of this report indicate thatcompliance costs fall disproportionately on small businesses. Table 1 summarizes the incidenceof costs by firm size based on aggregate data for all sectors of the U.S. economy.Considering all federal regulations, all sectors of the U.S. economy and all firm sizes,federal regulations cost just less than

$10,000 per employee per year


in 2012 (in 2014 dollars).Small firms with fewer than 50 employees incur regulatory costs ($11,724 per employee peryear) that are 17 percent greater than the average firm. The cost per employee is $10,664 formedium-sized firms and $9,083 for large firms. These estimates are consistent with prior studiescompleted during the past 25 years,1 which have shown that the cost of regulatory compliancedisproportionately affects small firms.

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/...Full-Study.pdf

Then you tack on "universal healthcare"; another one of uncle's regulations.

[phill4paul]

Better would be to remove regulations on the US manufacturing industry which make us less competitive with Mexican manufacturing industry.
Instead we're removing regulations on Carrier at the expense of every other potential US market participant that has to play by the rules.

No. Trump said he would remove regulations across the board.

Everyone keeps equating the state of Indiana WRT Carrier deal to Trump. Trump hasn't removed any regulations on Carrier. He's not in office yet.

In this thread, I, meaning me, am talking about the deal between the state of Indiana and Carrier. This deal between the state of Indiana and Carrier is a net positive.

I really wish everyone would quit conflating the two.

[Occam's Banana]

YES. I would have a constitutional provision for flat tax if there is to be any tax. No state should have the power to pick economic winners and losers. To do so is the heart of state socialism/communism/fascism. At the very least there should be flat tax across individual industries so that no individual participant is favored by the state; but subdividing the economy by tax bracket will invariably lead to the spiral of regulation we see.

We should all play by the same rules or there should be no respect for the "rule of law" at all.

Let me see if I'm understanding your position on this........

I'm reading that you rather have fed-gov set state tax rates and possibly regulations too...

One Tax Code to rule them all, One Tax Code to find them,
One Tax Code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of D.C. where the shadows lie.

Missourians have to pay state income taxes.

Floridians do not have to pay state income taxes.

This is grossly unjust!

Floridians are being "subsidized" because they are allowed to keep more of their incomes than Missourians are!

Winners and losers are being picked! No state should be allowed to do that!

We shouldn't have state income taxes - but since Missouri does, Florida should have them too!

After all, it's only "fair" ... (otherwise, it's socialism/communism/fascism! ...)

[ghengis86]

Why is US labor cost so much higher if not regulation?


http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/...Full-Study.pdf

Then you tack on "universal healthcare"; another one of uncle's regulations.

My bad; I misinterpreted you and the separation of labor costs from other regulations (environmental, zoning, ordinances, health and safety, etc).

[tod evans]

No. Trump said he would remove regulations across the board.

Everyone keeps equating the state of Indiana WRT Carrier deal to Trump. Trump hasn't removed any regulations on Carrier. He's not in office yet.

In this thread, I, meaning me, am talking about the deal between the state of Indiana and Carrier. This deal between the state of Indiana and Carrier is a net positive.

I really wish everyone would quit conflating the two.

I'm not any more confused than normal...

[phill4paul]

http://www.iedc.in.gov/indiana-advantages

Indiana has a balanced state budget and has been in the black for a few years.

Excessive budget surises are given back to taxpayers via tax credit.

Indiana is lowering corporate business tax rate for all business, incrementally, through 2021.

Indiana uses its strong fiscal position to attract and keep businesses in the state.

Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana.

That $#@! is un-libertarian. I can't believe you supported Ron Paul. /s

[phill4paul]

I'm not any more confused than normal...

It's not about Trump. It's about Indiana economics.

Here's the breakdown. Carrier leaves. 1000 individuals lose their jobs and go on assistance at $390 a week for 26 weeks (Indiana Unemplyment). That comes to roughly $10 million in unemployment wages. $10 million NET LOSS. Add in no income tax coming in from these individuals. So your looking at a $12 million loss.

Indiana offered $1 million in tax credits, another $5 million in conditional tax credits to retain 1,062 jobs that pay $30.91 per hour. And another $1 million for training grants.
A total of $7 million. Instead of a $12 million drain, and also realize that the economy ripples and that these workers wages are not supporting other businesses in their area.
In Indiana there is a 3.3% income tax. 3.3% of 1000 workers @ $70k per year comes to a tax gain of $2.3 million per year.This doesn't even include the 7% sales tax that would generate at least another $5 million per year. That is a $7 million dollar NET GAIN, offset by tax breaks, equals a wash.

Except that there is not a NET LOSS. There remains 1000 workers that spend $70k in their community supporting other small businesses. On top of that Carrier will invest $16 million into improvements that will, in some way, include local small business companies. And $1 million goes to training workers in todays competitive business environment.

[phill4paul]

One thing I left out. And just cannot seem to suss. Google search failure. How much does Carrier pay in corporate tax to Indiana? Not percentage but what was the last recorded amount?

[presence]

This deal between the state of Indiana and Carrier is a net positive.

Any privileged deal between the STATE and an INDIVIDUAL is an entitlement.
As the breadth and intricacy of state entitlements grows, individual liberty proportionally shrinks.
When the chips fall and the dust settles, any such an arrangement can never be "a net positive" to all.

[ghengis86]

One thing I left out. And just cannot seem to suss. Google search failure. How much does Carrier pay in corporate tax to Indiana? Not percentage but what was the last recorded amount?

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...829/filing.pdf

Might be in the UTX fillings somewhere, but I doubt you'd get Carrier and Indiana broken out

[phill4paul]

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...829/filing.pdf

Might be in the UTX fillings somewhere, but I doubt you'd get Carrier and Indiana broken out

Yeah, ran across that. Thought there should be something more easily available form state.

[phill4paul]

Any privileged deal between the STATE and an INDIVIDUAL is an entitlement.
As the breadth and intricacy of state entitlements grows, individual liberty proportionally shrinks.
When the chips fall and the dust settles, any such an arrangement can never be "a net positive" to all.

In a perfect world. Tell me when and how you propose to achieve that. In the interim less taxation on a corporation that provides +4x minimum wage to employees so tha t they will continue doing business does not seem like a bad proposal.

[phill4paul]

One Tax Code to rule them all, One Tax Code to find them,
One Tax Code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of D.C. where the shadows lie.

Missourians have to pay state income taxes.

Floridians do not have to pay state income taxes.

This is grossly unjust!

Floridians are being "subsidized" because they are allowed to keep more of their incomes than Missourians are!

Winners and losers are being picked! No state should be allowed to do that!

We shouldn't have state income taxes - but since Missouri does, Florida should have them too!

After all, it's only "fair" ... (otherwise, it's socialism/communism/fascism! ...)

Outsanding. +rep. As is usual.

One Tax Code to rule them all, One Tax Code to find them,
One Tax Code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of D.C. where the shadows lie.

Brilliant!

[presence]

I fold.

/unsubscribe

[Danke]

One Tax Code to rule them all, One Tax Code to find them,
One Tax Code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of D.C. where the shadows lie.

Missourians have to pay state income taxes.

Floridians do not have to pay state income taxes.

This is grossly unjust!

Floridians are being "subsidized" because they are allowed to keep more of their incomes than Missourians are!

Winners and losers are being picked! No state should be allowed to do that!

We shouldn't have state income taxes - but since Missouri does, Florida should have them too!

After all, it's only "fair" ... (otherwise, it's socialism/communism/fascism! ...)

State taxes decrease your federal taxes as they are deductible. So Floridian pay more, not less to the Feds.

[phill4paul]

State taxes decrease your federal taxes as they are deductible. So Floridian pay more, not less to the Feds.

And honestly, having lived there, unless you have beach front property, Florida sucks.

[fcreature]

Fact is Trump / Pence could have easily convinced them to stay by offering a fair, free-market solution that lowers costs for the company to stay in the state. But that's not what Carrier wanted. They wanted a competitive advantage. And thats not what Trump or Pence care about. Trump wanted the optics of "saving" the 1,000 jobs and he knows nothing about the free market anyway.

Meanwhile we're sitting here trying to explain basic Austrian economics to people who clearly do not care, do not have the capability of understanding, or both.

The idea that many of you think it's even appropriate for Trump to be getting involved personally with the way a company chooses to conduct its business is enough for me to know this is a lost cause.

I'm done with this thread.

[phill4paul]

I'm done with this thread.

Thank God. And I'll hold you to it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

At what point do we let the market do what markets do?

LOL. Funny stuff coming from an ardent Clinton supporter, liberal progressive, and somebody who endlessly stumped against Don on this forum.

[Danke]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NorthCarolinaLiberty again

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NorthCarolinaLiberty again

Much obliged.

And what the hell is going on with the Minnesota Vikings up in your area? I thought they had that Dallas game won.

Anyway, Cam Newton could sure use a lesson from Dak Prescott about sliding.

[Danke]

Much obliged.

And what the hell is going on with the Minnesota Vikings up in your area? I thought they had that Dallas game won.

Anyway, Cam Newton could sure use a lesson from Dak Prescott about sliding.

They showed promise in the beginning of the season, now, WTH!

[P3ter_Griffin]

Ah, yes, crowding out theory.

Ah, but it is not a theory. It is a simple truth. If private investors invest in government bonds they are not investing that money elsewhere.

If that were the case, why haven't interest rates gone up? Why is demand for government debt up? Why is there, as the graph shows, an inverse correlation between government deficits and private savings?

Trying to deduce this in some logical way does not work. Without knowing the implications of the central banks' policies around the world and without talking to the people who want to invest in government bonds I cannot say, other than that market participants (public and private) have made it so.

An interesting theory though, I think: the individuals at the top of the food chain are happy with their lifestyle. By investing in government bonds rather than expanding operations it provides two profit sources, the government bonds, and the goods or services they sell to the government (or its employees) which is financed by their investing in government bonds. And at the same time it limits risk. A safety circle jerk of sorts.

Let me pitch an example. Say the government ran no deficit in 2016: completely neutral budget. At the same time, the data came in, and the US private sector, as a whole, saved 200 billion in 2016 in net financial assets. How would this be possible? From where would the private sector "get" an extra 200 billion dollars in savings? Remember, not talking about appreciation of physical assets or anything, but simply an extra 200 billion in net financial assets.

The clear answer would be that it came from abroad. That the US ran a trade surplus, exporting 200 billion more than it imported, and as a result, there is an extra 200 billion in net financial assets in the private sector.

But, we know that in our current situation, that isn't the case. The US is running a trade deficit, importing about 500 billion more that it exports. So why aren't private-sector savings getting demolished year after year? Because the federal government runs a deficit, and adds private savings to the system.

I'm glad you bring this up because it highlights what I'm saying well. The way it currently works is when a country runs a trade deficit with another, the another country is left holding a surplus of the other country's currency. And so this money is returned by purchasing assets and financing investments in the debtor country. Generally an investor would be investing in a productive enterprise that would bring them a return on their money. And so more productive capacity and jobs would be created in the debtor country. Instead, with implications similar to my theory above, currently this money is returned to the country by purchasing US bonds funding the government deficit. This money is then spent on goods or services from the foreign country or paid to government employees who purchase the goods or services from the foreign country, and the circle jerk continues instead of progressing towards a productive equilibrium.

Which leads us back to where we began. The only way a government running deficits can help the economy is if they invest the funds in a more productive way than the private market participants who funded the government's ability to run those deficits. And that does not happen.