Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

[fcreature]

I'd let states do whatever the hell they want, but as a president I wouldn't advocate for and use the bully pulpit to encourage states to wreck their local economies for my political gain, but hey as you say this is what politicians have been doing for ages.

This.

And I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me that as long as it's a State government (not Federal) infringing on our rights, it's okay.

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

Moot point but I'll answer nonetheless.

__________ <--- insert name of any entrepreneur here

__________ <--- insert name of any other company in the state of Indiana who now has to suffer from additional miss-allocated resources in their marketplace.

[tod evans]

Please I edited my typo, my message was clear?

My query remains unanswered, are you able to answer it?

How do you think wages are determined?

By what the market will bear. (And this is the only deviation from discussing the state of Indiana and her actions regarding Carrier manufacturing that I'll answer in this thread)

[Swordsmyth]

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

How about any that might want to move there, or other industries that compete for the labor pool in that state?
How about all the other taxpayers who are not TOO BIG TO FAIL?

[nikcers]

My query remains unanswered, are you able to answer it?



By what the market will bear. (And this is the only deviation from discussing the state of Indiana and her actions regarding Carrier manufacturing that I'll answer in this thread)

Wages are determined by the individuals choice. Everything else is government intervention that creates bubbles and mal investment. This is why our country wastes so much money on bull $#@!.

[TheCount]

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

Every other company which employs people in Indiana, as well as all of the companies which might have employed those workers, purchased the factories, etc. if Carrier did leave the state.

[tod evans]

This.

And I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me that as long as it's a State government (not Federal) infringing on our rights, it's okay.

"Our rights"?

Really........I'll assume you live and pay taxes in Indiana and can point to how this somehow negatively affects you physically, spiritually or financially.....

Go ahead and spell it out I'm pretty dense so specific claims will help me understand..

Moot point but I'll answer nonetheless.

__________ <--- insert name of any entrepreneur here

__________ <--- insert name of any other company in the state of Indiana who now has to suffer from additional miss-allocated resources in their marketplace.

First off I didn't raise the 'point' you try to disregard so cavalierly I merely asked the other poster to clarify his position.

Anyway if I am to take this as your answer then I must assume you're unable at this time to actually point to any person or business who has been shortchanged. (Even though I asked specifically about businesses)

[tod evans]

How about any that might want to move there, or other industries that compete for the labor pool in that state?
How about all the other taxpayers who are not TOO BIG TO FAIL?

Wages are determined by the individuals choice. Everything else is government intervention that creates bubbles and mal investment. This is why our country wastes so much money on bull $#@!.

Every other company which employs people in Indiana, as well as all of the companies which might have employed those workers, purchased the factories, etc. if Carrier did leave the state.

These all read like variations of the same theme;

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses because it's not fair to the other states who won't or can't offer the same incentives...

Leading back to my earlier query;

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...

Is that correct?

Would you apply this scenario to just businesses or to all laws and legislation?

Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?

[phill4paul]

Great! Now that we have that out in the open...



What businesses (note the plural) has the government attracted by favoring Carrier over other businesses?

Might they have, instead, destroyed the ability of other companies that wanted to open, expand, or compete in Indiana to operate?

HMMM. Something about unintended consequences?

Or MIGHT they have just created a new environment where the STATE government realizes that giving incentives is a pretty damn good deal? Might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might.

In the meantime, in the here and now real world, 1100 jobs were saved and the welfare system didn't become a bigger burden.

[presence]

1) The more you trade the less likely you are to fight.


2) Free trade enhances the outcome for all who participate.


3) People ought to have the right to spend their money any way they want.


4) Nobody should prohibit you from buying anything from overseas.


5) It has been engrained that government is there to protect special interests and people have become indoctrinated to this.


6) The consumer ought to be king.


7) No special benefits to anybody.


8) The governemt's role is to protect individual liberty


9) Tarriffs tax the consumer.


10) Protecting one industry and not another is economic mischief.


11) If there is a benefit to Tariffs it will be short lived in light of trade war.


12) The net result of intervention is to make everything worse for everyone.


CARRIER; beginning 10:00


1) The idea of reducing taxes for one company and not for another is problematic.


2) UTX is a part of the deep state; MIC.


3) Trump's leverage was DOD billion dollar contracts.


4) This is not free markets.


5) We do hope for less regulation and lower taxes.


6) Big companies get incredible subsidies


7) Gov't contracts are distributed for political reasons.


8) In real terms wages are falling.


9) No matter how well intentioned and how much you tinker you cannot solve these issues from the state level.


10) All we have to do is complain a little and threaten to send business overseas, and then we get entitlements.


11) I have a hard time believing that the carrier deal has to do with free markets.


12) What I really care about is being competitive by minimizing regulations.


13) I believe what we're doing with Carrier is tokenism.


14) I believe in lower taxes and less regulations.


15) Is the role of the president to strike deals with companies? The government should not be central economic planners or regulators in the economy.


16) If we want reform why not look at article 1 section 8. The president does not have the authority to do this. These agreements should be banned and cancelled.


17) Our president is way too powerful


18) We are living beyond our means as a nation.


19) Be cautious and know what you're endorsing.


20) The proper role of governemnt is to defend liberty.


21) We need to go back to constitutional government that limits the power of the President.

[TheCount]

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses

Is that what happened? The people decided to offer incentives to businesses?

because it's not fair to the other states who won't or can't offer the same incentives...

Leading back to my earlier query;

Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?

I think that you are simply pretending to be incredibly obtuse in order to avoid the actual points we're trying to make. You're set on a particular viewpoint, and you've pre-decided what our objections are, despite the fact that absolutely no one in this thread has mentioned or proposed the strawman arguments that you listed.

[Swordsmyth]

These all read like variations of the same theme;

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses because it's not fair to the other states who won't or can't offer the same incentives...

Leading back to my earlier query;







Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?

No one has called for FedGov to do anything, and they didn't offer incentives to "businesses" they gave it to one "special friend", and we are criticizing Trump/Pence for doing something wrong.

[nikcers]

tod evans These all read like variations of the same theme;

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses-

Let me stop you right there. You have this theme of reframing arguments when you lose them. All we are saying is that the role of government is to defend liberty. You should watch more Ron Paul, he won the thread with his video lol. Look if you want to argue without watching the video atleast watch this part. Come on you got 5 mins to watch a Ron Paul video, you have argued for longer than that on a Ron Paul website.

https://youtu.be/7Gj37cq8vO0?t=25m13s

[presence]

to·ken·ismˈtōkəˌnizəm/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important]

• the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.

..

[specsaregood]

Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?

I guess all these Libertarians just want to make sure they "pay their fair share of taxes". lol, Libertarians.

[phill4paul]

What if Washington mutual is gone though, who is going to employ all of those people? Oh you mean Chase was happy to fill the void? What about when New York was attacked by 9/11, how are people going to make phone calls with downed phone lines, how is the phone company going to operate? Oh we have to subsidize the installation of new copper lines!

We'll give it to the business so they invest it, oh they invested into their wireless voice network that makes it easier to record telephone calls? This is now a government asset, and an investment. We gotta keep paying these people otherwise they will never be able to eat. What about my sons trip to harry potter world, the government has to make sure people can work at harry potter world.

And your still making talking points I corrected you on through many posts. Because you cannot make your point unless you regurgitate that which has been refuted. Let me try this again for you. INDIANA.

You required of me to answer a question. Now you answer tod evans, howabout?

[fcreature]

Or MIGHT they have just created a new environment where the STATE government realizes that giving incentives is a pretty damn good deal? Might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might.

In the meantime, in the here and now real world, 1100 jobs were saved and the welfare system didn't become a bigger burden.

Or maybe they created a new environment where other businesses in Indiana realize that all they need to do is threaten to leave, and then the'll get special government favors too. Might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might.

...

Again, this is basic economics. It's the moral hazard.

Let's say Carrier did leave this plant and 1000 jobs were "lost". Maybe an aspiring entrepreneur would have purchased said plant and re-purposed it to launch their new business. Maybe said business grew to be a multi billion dollar company employing tens of thousands of people.

I can just as easily say that "saving" these 1,000 jobs destroyed ten thousand others. When you extrapolate this kind of action tens of thousands of times over the course of a given year you start to see real economic destruction.

[phill4paul]

tod evans These all read like variations of the same theme;

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses-
Let me stop you right there. You have this theme of reframing arguments when you lose them. All we are saying is that the role of government is to defend liberty. You should watch more Ron Paul, he won the thread with his video lol. Look if you want to argue without watching the video atleast watch this part. Come on you got 5 mins to watch a Ron Paul video, you have argued for longer than that on a Ron Paul website.

https://youtu.be/7Gj37cq8vO0?t=25m13s

Tell me what he says at the 11:35 mark.

[presence]

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...

Is that correct?

Would you apply this scenario to just businesses or to all laws and legislation?

An inherent element of "the rule of law" is generality.

No law should be considered just which entitles one man to freedom from taxes and regulations which his fellow men are to labor under.

[Swordsmyth]

I guess all these Libertarians just want to make sure they "pay their fair share of taxes". lol, Libertarians.

If you have taxes, then everyone should pay their fair share.
I will not debate taxes with anarchists, but assume for a moment we live in a strange alternate reality where we have taxes, do you want someone to go around treating their "special friends" different than everyone else?

[phill4paul]

Or maybe they created a new environment where other businesses in Indiana realize that all they need to do is threaten to leave, and then the'll get special government favors too. Might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might.

...

Again, this is basic economics. It's the moral hazard.

Let's say Carrier did leave this plant and 1000 jobs were "lost". Maybe an aspiring entrepreneur would have purchased said plant and re-purposed it to launch their new business. Maybe said business grew to be a multi billion dollar company employing tens of thousands of people.

I can just as easily say that "saving" these 1,000 jobs destroyed ten thousand others. When you extrapolate this kind of action tens of thousands of times over the course of a given year you start to see real economic destruction.

You run on the assumption of a lot of "mights" and "maybes." I don't. I've provided facts. You've provided....conjecture. Thanks for playing.

[presence]

I'm for state governments creating a competitive environment to attract businesses that employ their citizens. If you consider this choosing winners than YES.

If you want state to attract "businesses" why are you in favor of giving SOMEDUDE entitlement to disregard the law that other businesses don't get?

It seems that you're not in favor of attracting "businesses" but rather favor the entrenched activities of SOMEDUDE.

[nikcers]

And your still making talking points I corrected you on through many posts. Because you cannot make your point unless you regurgitate that which has been refuted. Let me try this again for you. INDIANA.

You required of me to answer a question. Now you answer tod evans, howabout?

Tod Evans was factually wrong when he argued that Carrier doesn't compete with other businesses in Indiana. Its a fallacious argument.

[fcreature]

You run on the assumption of a lot of "mights" and "maybes." I don't. I've provided facts. You've provided....conjecture. Thanks for playing.

LOL

Let me introduce you to economics.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Malinvestment
https://mises.org/library/employment...conomic-growth
https://mises.org/library/how-market...m-full-edition
https://mises.org/library/destroying-economy-save-it
https://mises.org/library/economics-...pler-you-think

[Swordsmyth]

You run on the assumption of a lot of "mights" and "maybes." I don't. I've provided facts. You've provided....conjecture. Thanks for playing.

They created a new environment where other businesses in Indiana realize that all they need to do is threaten to leave, and then they'll get special government favors too.
Is that positive enough for you?

[fcreature]

You run on the assumption of a lot of "mights" and "maybes." I don't. I've provided facts. You've provided....conjecture. Thanks for playing.

Following this logic it's okay to bomb anyone on the planet as long as we're killing the "terrorists". Because the unintended consequences (aka blowback) is all just "mights", "maybes", and "conjecture".

...you know you are on RonPaulForums, right? This isn't /r/The_Donald where Trumpkins circlejerk any action taken by a Republican without actually taking the time to understand and study the subject at hand.

[nikcers]

LOL

Let me introduce you to economics.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Malinvestment
https://mises.org/library/employment...conomic-growth
https://mises.org/library/how-market...m-full-edition
https://mises.org/library/destroying-economy-save-it
https://mises.org/library/economics-...pler-you-think

But I can show you this graph where the fed has injected more debt then in the history of man kind that proves you wrong on a very short term.

[phill4paul]

1) The more you trade the less likely you are to fight.


2) Free trade enhances the outcome for all who participate.


3) People ought to have the right to spend their money any way they want.


4) Nobody should prohibit you from buying anything from overseas.


5) It has been engrained that government is there to protect special interests and people have become indoctrinated to this.


6) The consumer ought to be king.


7) No special benefits to anybody.


8) The governemt's role is to protect individual liberty


9) Tarriffs tax the consumer.


10) Protecting one industry and not another is economic mischief.


11) If there is a benefit to Tariffs it will be short lived in light of trade war.


12) The net result of intervention is to make everything worse for everyone.


CARRIER; beginning 10:00


1) The idea of reducing taxes for one company and not for another is problematic.


2) UTX is a part of the deep state; MIC.


3) Trump's leverage was DOD billion dollar contracts.


4) This is not free markets.


5) We do hope for less regulation and lower taxes.


6) Big companies get incredible subsidies


7) Gov't contracts are distributed for political reasons.


8) In real terms wages are falling.


9) No matter how well intentioned and how much you tinker you cannot solve these issues from the state level.


10) All we have to do is complain a little and threaten to send business overseas, and then we get entitlements.


11) I have a hard time believing that the carrier deal has to do with free markets.


12) What I really care about is being competitive by minimizing regulations.


13) I believe what we're doing with Carrier is tokenism.


14) I believe in lower taxes and less regulations.


15) Is the role of the president to strike deals with companies? The government should not be central economic planners or regulators in the economy.


16) If we want reform why not look at article 1 section 8. The president does not have the authority to do this. These agreements should be banned and cancelled.


17) Our president is way too powerful


18) We are living beyond our means as a nation.


19) Be cautious and know what you're endorsing.


20) The proper role of governemnt is to defend liberty.


21) We need to go back to constitutional government that limits the power of the President.

11:35.

"My policy over the years is to support anything that looks like a tax abatement or a tax credit. Even if I didn't like the condition, well, your giving it to one why not the other, why don't you give it to everybody else. I never voted to raise taxes. If you don't support the abatement or credit then you are voting to raise taxes."

[nikcers]

Following this logic it's okay to bomb anyone on the planet as long as we're killing the "terrorists". Because the unintended consequences (aka blowback) is all just "mights", "maybes", and "conjecture".

...you know you are on RonPaulForums, right? This isn't /r/The_Donald where Trumpkins circlejerk any action taken by a Republican without actually taking the time to understand and study the subject at hand.

No his logic is that there is no competition between different industries, which means that carrier can just lower their wages to cover their deficits right?

[phill4paul]

Following this logic it's okay to bomb anyone on the planet as long as we're killing the "terrorists". Because the unintended consequences (aka blowback) is all just "mights", "maybes", and "conjecture".

...you know you are on RonPaulForums, right? This isn't /r/The_Donald where Trumpkins circlejerk any action taken by a Republican without actually taking the time to understand and study the subject at hand.

Yes, and if you had paid any attention then you no that I do not support Trump. Ask any of the Trump supporters here. Go ahead.

This isn't about Trump and your strawman are no better in this post then any of your others.

[Swordsmyth]

11:35.

"My policy over the years is to support anything that looks like a tax abatement or a tax credit. Even if I didn't like the condition, well, your giving it to one why not the other, why don't you give it to everybody else. I never voted to raise taxes. If you don't support the abatement or credit then you are voting to raise taxes."

He is talking about abatements or credits for everybody, not one "special Friend"