Donald Trump

Nice Little Company Ya Got There. Shame if Anything Happened to It.

Donald Trump puts the squeeze on companies looking to outsource.

|

On Tuesday, il Duce resorted again to Twitter, the medium best suited to the depth of his thought, to slam another U.S. company. This time it was General Motors.

"General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border," he tweeted. "Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!"

The response from GM was, unfortunately, printable: The company pointed out that it makes all of its Cruze sedans in Lordstown, Ohio, and makes a hatchback version for international markets in Mexico. Some of the latter are sold in the U.S.

For that heinous crime, Trump wants to make American car buyers pay more. That'll show 'em.

This is an odd stance for a man whose own businesses also sell products made in Mexico—not to mention China, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Honduras, Germany, the Netherlands, India, Turkey, and Slovenia. You'd think someone who does so much outsourcing would be more sympathetic to the practice.

Nope. Last month, Trump blasted bearings-maker Rexnord for a planned move to Mexico. Before that, he famously intervened in Carrier's plans, arranging for $7 million in state tax breaks to keep jobs at a company plant in Indiana. He has threatened to impose a 35 percent tariff on "companies wanting to sell their cars, A.C. units, etc. back across the border."

"Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences," Maximum Leader has warned. Indeed: Trump's tweets not only cause P.R. headaches, they also drive down stock prices—as Rexnord and GM quickly found out.

The browbeating seems to be working. Last week Ford announced that it would scrap plans for a new plant in Mexico. Instead, it will invest $700 million in Michigan and create 700 jobs. CEO Mark Fields said the move was not the result of any deal with Trump but rather a "vote of confidence" in the pro-business environment he is creating.

Sure it is. And the protection money a florist pays to the mafia is a vote of confidence in the security environment it creates, too.

If Trump had his way, then American companies would shut their overseas operations and bring production home—and that would be great for Americans, right? Wrong.

For starters, exports make up only a small share of the goods sold to foreigners: $1.63 trillion, as Daniel Griswold of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University recently noted. By contrast, U.S.-owned affiliates sell more than $4.4 trillion worth of goods abroad. "That means U.S. companies sell more than twice as much in global markets through their foreign affiliates as they do by exporting from the United States. … Forcing U.S. companies to retreat from global markets will cost them market share, reducing employment at home as well as abroad."

But it wouldn't end there.

Suppose other countries were to adopt Trumponomics. In that event, Toyota would shut down its Georgetown, Ky., plant and lay off more than 6,000 American workers. Another 6,000 workers would lose their jobs when Nissan closed its plant in Smyrna, Tenn. More than 4,000 Americans would be out of work after Honda shut its Lincoln, Ala., plant. And so on.

Some of those workers could apply for jobs at Ford's new plant in Michigan. But why should they have to, when they have perfectly good jobs with Toyota, Nissan and Honda?

If Trumponomics were correct and "bringing jobs home" made people better off, then the same would be true not only for nations but also for states and cities: Residents of Maine would be better off growing their own almonds instead of buying them from California. Minnesotans would be happier growing their own oranges, Floridians would be happier producing their own wool, and New Yorkers would enjoy much greater economic success building their own cars rather than buying them from Kentucky and Tennessee.

Indeed, if Trumpian economics is correct, then the surest route to prosperity would be for people to stop trading altogether. Think how much economic security America would enjoy if people made their own clothes, built their own homes, manufactured their own iPhones, and performed their own surgery.

Nobody would ever have to worry about losing a job to a competitor again, because there would be no competitors.

These are practical considerations, but there are ethical ones to consider as well. When Acme Widgets builds a plant in Mexico, the proper question to ask is not whether it should have built a plant in Oklahoma instead. The proper question to ask is what right anyone has to stop it.

And if Mrs. Gladys Pumpernickel of Walla Walla, Wash., wants to buy a peck of widgets that Acme made in Mexico, what right does anyone have to prohibit her from doing so? It's her money; she can spend it as she likes. She has no moral obligation to buy domestic widgets, or to pay a 35 percent markup on foreign ones. If domestic widget makers want her business then they should earn it.

"We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs," a famous American businessman once wrote. "But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance." While outsourcing costs jobs in the short run, "we have to look at the bigger picture… Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, co-authored a study that showed how global outsourcing actually creates more jobs and increases wages, at least for IT workers. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs."

That famous American businessman was, of course, Donald Trump.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: More on 'guilty until proven innocent'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump the Grump, enemy of productive endeavors everywhere!

    1. Prohibitions by Trump the Grump

      You may not built it with a wop,
      You may not built it without a cop.
      You may not built it with a chink,
      You may not built it in your sink.
      You may not built it with a gook,
      Unless watched by a CIA spook.
      You may not built it with a Hillary,
      Unless a Trump-buddy is your ancillary.
      You may not built it in Japan,
      You may not built it in Stanstanistan.
      You must not built it here, or there,
      You must not built it ANYWHERE!

      1. Build it here, or face the HAIR!

        1. Yes, always the exceptions, to the rule,
          Build it here, that’ll be quite cool,
          “Drill, baby, drill”, that oil well,
          Golly gee, that’s quite swell!
          The lands and seas, they’ll be explorable,
          But only if’n like Me, ye’r quite deplorable!

  2. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.

    Ghostwritten. There is no way Trump can string together that many large words.

    1. Punctuation is 4th grade level, so I’m guessing he wrote it.

      1. Other than the commas around “thereby”, which are unnecessary, the punctuation appears to be fine. And 4th grade is above the level of most of the writing in reason. So there is that.

        1. Commas are like salt, you just dash them in.

        2. John just burned all you H&R guys who post here. Man, I am glad he wasn’t referring to me, just you retards.

    2. For starters, exports make up only a small share of the goods sold to foreigners: $1.63 trillion… U.S.-owned affiliates sell more than $4.4 trillion worth of goods abroad. “

      So what you’re saying is that if those businesses moved back to the US, there would be $4.4 trillion worth of “new production” needed in America? Millions of new jobs?

      I sort of think that’s the point.

      None of that means they must “retreat from foreign markets”.

      I didn’t vote for Trump. I initially thought that he got into the race just for free publicity. I thought he was right on some topics – but overall, I didn’t take him seriously. But then I noticed how the lamestream media would misquote him, take him out of context, or put the worst possible interpretation on his very word and action. And I started to see that most of the time, Trump was right – though the way he expressed his thoughts often first seemed to be lunacy. We’ve had decades of companies shipping American jobs overseas and that’s been horrible for America. Will giving companies strong incentive to return and create jobs in America hurt America? It’s a complicated question. One thing is certain: Other presidents – and Reason – haven’t offered a better solution.

      1. Re: “if those businesses moved back to the US, there would be $4.4 trillion worth of “new production” needed in America? Millions of new jobs?”

        This assumes that demand for those goods and services stays the same.

        Let’s do a simple thought experiment. At $5/t-shirt, the US is willing to buy 100 million t-shirts per year from China = $500 million. But move the jobs back to the USA and t-shirt prices go up to, say, $15/t-shirt. Would US consumers buy 100 million t-shirts at $15 ea.? Most probably not. Price demand is elastic for t-shirts. And it is likely not linear. That is to say, they won’t buy exactly 1/3 as many t-shirts for total sales of $500 million. More likely, they will buy far fewer than 33.3 million t-shirts at $15 ea.

  3. Forcing U.S. companies to retreat from global markets will cost them market share, reducing employment at home as well as abroad.”

    Saying that US companies should make products for the US markets in the US, whatever you think of the idea, is not telling companies to stop making and selling products in foreign markets.

    There are good reasons to object to Trump bullying companies into making products in the US. This however is not one of them. In fact, this argument makes no sense.

    Trump is the luckiest man alive. His critics just cannot help themselves and forever make the stupid argument no matter how many good ones are available.

  4. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.

    That is just not true. Thanks to our tax code, that money never comes back to the economy. It stays overseas. If a company makes money overseas, it is only subject to US taxes on that money if it brings it back to the US. So, all the money US companies make in their foreign subsidiaries stays overseas and does not return to the US.

    Everyone knows that. It is kind of a big deal and Trump’s proposal to change that rule has generated a lot of comment including a bunch of pants wetting on reason by Veronica DeRugy. So why does this article act like that is not true and repeat such a ridiculous claim without comment?

    1. It certainly provides a disincentive to bring money back into the US. But that doesn’t mean that none of the money ever comes back to the US. Are you sure you really want to claim that companies making more money overseas makes absolutely no difference to the economy and job situation in the US?

      1. The estimates of the amount of capital that is staying overseas because of our tax laws is in the trillions of dollars.

        Remember, we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. So, it is almost always going to cost money to bring the money back to the US. Why would any company do that?

        http://www.reuters.com/article…..8U20151006

        Here is an estimate of $2.1 trillion.

  5. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.

    That is just not true. Thanks to our tax code, that money never comes back to the economy. It stays overseas. If a company makes money overseas, it is only subject to US taxes on that money if it brings it back to the US. So, all the money US companies make in their foreign subsidiaries stays overseas and does not return to the US.

    Everyone knows that. It is kind of a big deal and Trump’s proposal to change that rule has generated a lot of comment including a bunch of pants wetting on reason by Veronica DeRugy. So why does this article act like that is not true and repeat such a ridiculous claim without comment?

    1. Outsourcing, in regards to the IT companies that were the focus of the study the article is quoting, means hiring a third party overseas to take on some of the workload. It doesn’t generate any profits directly, so there are no profits to repatriate. It lowers costs, freeing up money to be used for other purposes, but that money was generated in America, so was always taxable. It may work differently in other sectors, but that is why they limited it to IT workers specifically.

      1. But we are talking about GM not IT. So I fail to see why that study means anything here.

        1. Just clarifying what was said in the article, John. The quote from Trump about outsourcing was in relation to IT companies.

  6. On Tuesday, il Duce resorted again to Twitter, the medium best suited to the depth of his thought, to slam another U.S. company. This time it was General Motors.

    Remember when the press celebrated how savvy Obama was with social networking?

    1. If Obama had used twitter like Trump does, it would have been further evidence of his genius.

      1. And hailed as bypassing the conservative media outlets and taking his transformative message directly to the people like a modern FDR.

          1. The new fireside chats.

      2. I’m sure Trump’s Twitter use is evidence of his genius to those who think he’s a genius.

  7. The browbeating seems to be working. Last week Ford announced that it would scrap plans for a new plant in Mexico. Instead, it will invest $700 million in Michigan and create 700 jobs. CEO Mark Fields said the move was not the result of any deal with Trump but rather a “vote of confidence” in the pro-business environment he is creating.

    When Obama’s NLRB put the screws to Boeing over their new factory in South Carolina, people like Mark Fields noticed. But don’t worry your little head about that.

  8. Dearest Trump: kindly STFU and cut the corporate tax rates, regulations. Yours, commodious

    xoxoxo

    1. I was gonna ask everyone to cut to the chase, but here you just did!

    2. No frenching on the first date.

  9. ‘Il Duce’?

    WAIT. Just wait a cotton pickin’ minute.

    I THOUGHT WE SETTLED ON HIM BEING BERLUSCONI?!

    So, to Reason, Trump = fascist? Dear me….wait to go ThinkProgress on us.

    1. He’s not a Nazi, but the comparison to Italian Fascism is a bit closer to the mark.

      I do still think Berlusconi is the best parallel, though.

      1. *briefly considers burlesque Trump, shudders*

        1. My son gave me a Chia Pet Trump for Christmas. It’s just starting to grow and his first question was: Why did you give him a mullet?

            1. Ba doom, tish!
              Seriously, the whole thing is orangish.

      2. So, is it pronounced il Douche? I’ve never been sure.

  10. You’d think someone who does so much outsourcing would be more sympathetic to the practice.

    Yes, but only if you ignored human realities like rationalization, hypocrisy and the corrupting nature of power.

    Trump gonna Trump, Mr. Hinkle. Your writing might be interesting if you begin by accepting this.

    1. You would think someone who drives on public roads would be more sympathetic to the government that provides them.

      You would think someone who accepts social security would be more sympathetic to the program.

      Libertarians never seem to like that fallacy when it is applied to them yet happily apply it here.

      1. Bullshit, John. It’s not a fallacy if it’s true. Trump wasn’t forced to attempt to grab some old lady’s house to build a limo parking lot. All he had to was 1) nothing or 2) figure out another place to put it. Try doing nothing next time you have to pay taxes for them roads.

        1. It is a fallacy in both cases. The fact that a person takes advantage of a particular legal regime in no way undercuts their credibility in objecting to that. The fact that Trump outsources but thinks that the government ought to stop people from doing so is no different than someone who drives on public roads but thinks the government shouldn’t be building them.

          1. Obama gets no credit for cooing sadly about putting drug users through the legal wringer while his attorney general is raiding pot dispensaries.

            1. That is true. But that is only because he was in a position to stop it and didn’t. Trump isn’t President yet.

              1. So John, you’re saying it will stop once Trump is president?

                1. I am saying Trump says he plans to stop it. Whether he does or not, we will find out.

          2. No one is saying that it undercuts his credibility to criticize the tax policies while still doing what makes sense given those tax policies.

            What people are saying is that he is a hypocrite for demanding that other companies do what he hasn’t done with his own.

            To make sure I’m absolutely clear here, I do think he wants to change the tax laws to encourage companies to move more capital back to the US. I just think that it’s unreasonable and a little hypocritical to demand that they do so while the rules that make offshoring advantageous to them are still in place.

      2. Except he’s trying to push companies to do what he wants them to do while the stupid tax and other policies that provide the incentives to do what they do are still in place. The fact that he is not applying the same standards to his own companies does reveal a bit of hypocrisy.
        If he had said to GM and Carrier “look I understand that in the current environment the best thing for your business is to manufacture some stuff in Mexico, but I’m going to change that and then I want you to move teh jobs back to the US”, then you’d have a better point.

        The analogy to public roads should be telling other libertarians they suck and should be punished because they use the roads while continuing to use the roads yourself.

        1. Except he’s trying to push companies to do what he wants them to do while the stupid tax and other policies that provide the incentives to do what they do are still in place.

          In fairness to Trump, he’s not yet in a position to do anything about the stupid tax and other policies, which he’s promised to address, but he is able to wield his clout to cajole/coerce/compel companies to stick around. It’s smart politics, even if he’s proposing dumb policies.

        2. Except he’s trying to push companies to do what he wants them to do while the stupid tax and other policies that provide the incentives to do what they do are still in place.

          Last I looked he was intent on changing those things. What evidence do you have that he doesn’t?

          http://fortune.com/2016/11/24/…..plan-jobs/

          This is like the 4th time you have done this Zeb. You say things about Trump that just are not true and do so without any evidence. I get it that you don’t like Trump. But the fact that you don’t like him doesn’t mean he is wrong about everything. You always assume he does.

          1. Last I looked he was intent on changing those things. What evidence do you have that he doesn’t?

            Where did I say that he doesn’t mean to change those things?

            You say things about Trump that just are not true and do so without any evidence.

            That’s not what I did here at all. And I don’t believe I’ve done it in the past. No, I don’t like Trump much, but I’m not one of those people who assumes that he’s wrong about everything. Tax policy (well, minus his ideas about tariffs) is one of the areas where I am optimistic that he might do some good.

            I’m pretty sure I said that he did want to change those policies. If not, let me clarify: I think that Trump does intend to change the tax policies that encourage companies to keep money and jobs abroad.

            My point was that the laws haven’t changed yet. So if he’s not doing with his own companies what he is demanding that other companies do right now, he’s being hypocritical.

        3. If he had said to GM and Carrier “look I understand that in the current environment the best thing for your business is to manufacture some stuff in Mexico, but I’m going to change that and then I want you to move teh jobs back to the US”, then you’d have a better point.

          Maybe he did say that to them. But changing the current business environment will take time and Congress, neither of which is on his side. Trump needs to show his supporters that he meant what he said about stopping the export of jobs despite the obstacles in the system.

          Hence the jawboning.

          1. Politically, sure, that’s what he needs to do. But politics is stupid and evil.

      3. I chalk it up to TDS more than anything else.

      4. Re: “You would think someone who drives on public roads would be more sympathetic to the government that provides them.”

        This is foolish to assume.

        I drove on pothole-ridden roadsurfaces so bad I had to sell my sports car with tight suspension because every pothole I hit sounded like I had just hit a tree stump at 30mph.

        This does not make me sympathetic at all towards the gov’t that happily takes my tax money, tells me it’s for “shovel ready” infrastructure jobs, then lines the pockets of contractors and cronies while letting the roadsurfaces remain pockmarked with potholes.

        If anything, it makes me hate the gov’t more.

  11. Good afternoon Trumplestiltskins, why are you defending Trump so much?

    /sarc

    1. I think it’s Trumplestilkensteins.

  12. Last week Ford announced that it would scrap plans for a new plant in Mexico. Instead, it will invest $700 million in Michigan and create 700 jobs.

    So, $1 million dollars per job. I wonder how much of that is the cost of regulatory compliance? Maybe instead of using the bully pulpit to browbeat companies into submission there’s some other things that can be done to make it cheaper for American companies to expand factories and keep jobs here that would be a lot more effective than some idiotic “border tax.” Nah… that’s crazy talk!

  13. A question for the anti-free traders. If my business buys finished goods for, say, $10,000 from China or somewhere other than U.S., what does China do with the $10,000? Is it gone forever (e.g. the Chinese producer buries it in his backyard) or does the $10,000 ultimately get spent in the U.S. for goods or assets that foreigners want? Does it help the U.S. economy even more if we can actually send $10,000 overseas that never becomes a claim on our goods or services? And don’t we frequently confuse “outsourcing” (U.S. companies buying stuff from foreigners instead of making it themselves) with the operation of foreign subsidiaries where, say, Dow has a plant in Korea to make chemicals for the Asian market?.

    1. or does the $10,000 ultimately get spent in the U.S. for goods or assets that foreigners want?

      It ultimately gets spent by however the Chinese choose to spend it. Here is my question for you, do you think money spent in foreign economies is the same thing and has hte same effect on American well being as money spent in the American economy? If not, then what is the point of your question?

      The Chinese getting rich doesn’t necessarily make anyone else rich.

      1. What matters is do the parties to the transactions believe they are better off? (Doesn’t necessarily have to mean financially.) For example, I might spend an extra $2 for an ice scraper made in my cousin’s factory in the next county rather than get one at MonsterMart made in China. Or I might do something really crazy and buy the Chinese ice scraper because he has an Eagles emblem on it when my cousin only makes ones with Dallas stars.

    2. Try the question on a different scale:

      A business is going to open a big new plant in either your town or a town on the other side of the country. The plant will create new jobs, a boost to the housing market, knock-on effects like more restaurants, shops, car sales, etc.

      Do you care if the plant is built in your town, or across the country?

      1. That depends on lots of factors: increase in traffic, what it will do to tax base, am I an employer who doesn’t want to lose employees to new competition, am I an unemployed person looking for a new good job, is Meryl Streep the CEO, etc. etc? But I’m not going to do anything that involves armed agents seeking to change the potential new plant builders mind.

      2. This is a great example.

        And sadly, it happens in real life. We know that pork-barrel politics happens all the time at all levels of gov’t, from US Senators trying to keep companies in their home states or even specific cities by carving out tax breaks or subsidies for them (always claiming it’s to protect jobs) down to city council members doing the same.

        Regarding the economy at the global scale, Kevin Williamson of Nat’l Review has a great article explaining how trade deficits aren’t actually bad–definitely worth reading:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/…..erstanding

    3. some of the 10k gets spent in the US, as a large chunk, 25%+ gets eaten by Chinese tariffs on incoming US goods. We do not have anything approaching free trade with China; we allow them to put tariffs on all our goods making our products uncompetitive while we let their goods with what, a 2% tax.

      1. So? Chinese tariffs hurt the Chinese consumer more than they hurt us. All tariffs are passed on to the consumer in profitable businesses or to the taxpayer, if unprofitable companies are bailed out, and that includes China’s state-run enterprises.

        Take a look at the extreme example of North Korea. Here is a country that essentially has an infinite tariff on foreign goods (outright ban = infinite tariff). And the North Korean consumer is so harmed by this that there are no cars on the road and they are measurably shorter than genetically-similar South Koreans due to malnutrition.

        China is not that extreme, but the average Chinese person is quite poor and will likely remain so for the rest of their lives. The parts of the Chinese economy that get to participate in foreign trade end up flourishing, but they could flourish even more without the regulatory and tax and bribery burdens put on them by the Communists.

  14. It’s just a digital bully pulpit. TR would be proud.

    I don’t get why GM has to listen to Trump. (or Ford, or anyone) I mean, he has a phone and a pen, but even he can’t pull new taxes out of his ass. He needs Congress to help enact a lot of his posturing.

    1. After Trump flip-flops a few times, corporations are going to stop listening to him and get back to careful analysis of the numbers and economic trends.

      GM and Ford will gain far more by focusing on replacing human workers with automation than by cooperating with Trump’s threats to avoid taxes or get tax breaks. A huge portion of costly regulations and taxes is solely related to the employment of humans.

      My bet is that these repatriating manufacturers are using Trump’s threats as cover to return to the US because they plan to eventually fully-automate their factories and need access to highly-skilled high-tech automation experts in the US. Of course, there will be fairly few of these experts–one robot repair person could probably service a fleet of a thousand robots. One robot designer can design a million robots.

      And the average American is so non-technical they cannot be trained up into high-tech anyway, so the promise of millions of US jobs rings hollow so long as technology continues advancing.

  15. Hmmmm…if only there were some sort of precedent set before Trump came along

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/…..ax-dodging

  16. My last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha? I do…? .? .? .? .?>>>http://www.joinpay40.com

  17. Sadly, the thing that makes the most sense here is the online work scam.
    Trump can not do anything before he takes the oath.
    He cannot raise or lower taxes afterward; he needs the rubber stamp of congress.
    How many members of congress, or senators who run in 2018 are going to vote for a 35% tax on anything after the last election? (well, OK, the progressives would vote for any tax on anything they do not use themselves)
    Am I the only person who recognizes an opening position when I see one? Negotiation folks, negotiation.

  18. RE: Nice Little Company Ya Got There. Shame if Anything Happened to It.
    Donald Trump puts the squeeze on companies looking to outsource.

    What’s the difference between the mafia and big government?
    The mafia doesn’t make up the rules as they go along.

  19. What you fail to mention is that there are no plans to tax vehicles that will be sold IN Mexico, only those imported to the US. The analogy to Japanese car plants in the US closing because that would be “Trumponomics” is ludicrous. Those cars aren’t going to Japan, they’re going to be sold HERE, because it makes more sense to the Japanese to build cars here to sell here than to make them all in Japan and export them to the US. If you want a specific, unique Chevy Cruse, you’ll just have to pay more for it.

  20. I really am trying to keep up, but last I knew, Trump was going to reduce the corporate regulations.

    I guess things change really fast these days.

  21. “We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs,” a famous American businessman once wrote. “But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance.” While outsourcing costs jobs in the short run, “we have to look at the bigger picture… Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, co-authored a study that showed how global outsourcing actually creates more jobs and increases wages, at least for IT workers. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.”

    That couldn’t have been written by Trump. It is too articulate and makes too much sense. In Trump’s world of ‘kill or be killed’, trade is a one way street. If other countries become wealthy, that means less wealth for Americans. Trump is the perfect embodiment of the ‘Ugly American’.

  22. All Trump’s threats will produce is accelerated factory automation in this country. It will be the only sure way for manufacturers to lower costs.

  23. Well,
    We had a choice between Trump and Hillary. Trump said he would do this stuff, he is better than John Wayne Gacey and Hillary is a thousand times worse. I wanted Ted Cruz, but, he had zero chance of winning. With 20/20
    hindsight, Trump was the only one of 17 that had a chance of winning. The dirty Dems would do even worse to the other 16 than they did to Romney, nothing was too low. Only Trump had the gut instinct to truly fight back at the Dem level. And, the trade idiocy is what put him over the top.

    Now, one thing he is right about, even though free trade is good for the US even if it is not quite free going the other way, this fact does not mean you should negotiate dumb deals, a good negotiator can get much truer free trade than the preceding administrations did.

    Also, if you look who he appoints to his team, they are actually free traders. He will give them cover while they negotiate freer deals and do things like getting countries with VAT to not charge VAT on 100% of the price or something imported from the US, while there own manufacturers work out at around 35% of the price as they take deductions.

    Losing to Obama or Hillary is much, much worse for libertarianism than Trump, libertarianism is both theoretical and very day to day practical. Feeling unsullied in your soul because you did not compromise in any way and it is not your fault we have commie Obama, this is childish. Libertarianism has be worked toward one step at a time.

  24. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  25. Another thing the anti-global-trade people aren’t considering is that the US is essentially buying all these foreign goods on unsecured credit, both at the personal level (credit card debt) and the public level (endless money-printing by the Fed).

    This debt will not be paid back. We have borrowed so much from the future that we can never repay it. Thus, at some point, the US will have to renege on the debt, and the end result will be that China and other foreign producers will be left with nothing but worthless IOUs and the US consumer will be left with the actual, physical good in their hands.

    In other words, we’ll have the cheap big-screen TVs, iPhones, etc., and they will have no way of collecting the money we owe them for it.

    I’m not saying this is moral, but the US is actually gaining more relative to others participating in this massive spending of future money that the entire civilized world is participating in.

    1. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail?

      ??? http://www.JobMax6.com

  26. Ella . although Margaret `s article is super, on friday I got a new McLaren F1 after having earned $4887 this-past/four weeks and just over ten grand last-month . this is actually my favourite-work Ive had . I actually started six months/ago and right away began to earn minimum $82 p/h
    . Read more on this site…..

    ================= http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.