The Trump Presidency

Seems to me anyone with half a brain would have recognized the year and a half's worth of red flags that preceded Fridays phone call.
But hey that tough talk is mesmerizing, we giggled when he said Pussy in public and after all, the #emails
...............................................................................................

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-risk-behind-trumps-taiwan-call

When news broke of Trump’s phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, foreign-policy experts were, unsurprisingly, appalled. Since his election, Trump has conducted a series of phone calls with foreign leaders, without seeking expertise from those at the State Department and the National Security Council who monitor the details of those relationships. On Wednesday, he told Pakistan’s President that he would do whatever he could to help him—despite America’s strong interest in preventing Pakistan from doing many things it would like to do in India and Afghanistan. To use an analogy that Trump would recognize, it’s akin to arriving for a negotiation without first asking the value of the assets, the cost of the transaction, or the previous terms of engagement.
 
Digest this sentence:

" In the hours that followed, it became clear that Trump may have been manipulated into doing something he doesn’t understand. "
 
Hawk said:
Sorry I didn't see this earlier for some reason.

I'm not mixing my definitions. I defined 'compel' in my original post with respect to businesses being forced to act out of their own self-interest (or the interest of their share/stake-holders) to compete and grow.

In my subsequent post I used 'compelling' to describe the obvious incentives behind outsourcing labor.

Yeah, Carrier would survive. But when you run a company in a capitalist country your goal isn't survival. It's to make as much money as possible.

Ford raised wages because he was losing money on skilled worker turnover. He also built Fordlandia to save a buck. He was a brilliant businessman, but not a patron saint.
Click to expand...

But at some level, isn't that the problem? There's making money simply to make money and I think some of us think there is a better way to make slow incremental growth that pays workers fairly, keeps the basic business infrastructure solid, and ensures the future of the industry and, by extension, the country. We've become a country obsessed with stock prices over long term stability. As for this deal, I've watched for years and years in my work businesses coming to either the state legislature or a municipal government begging (and it is begging) for tax breaks, relaxation in zoning requirements, etc., and it really doesn't work over the long term. One of my smart-*ss observations is "Everyone's a capitalist when they are climbing the ladder, but they turn into a socialist when they get on the roof."
 
sturg33 said:
Don't like Trump meddling with the market... he doesn't seem to understand basic economics.

And what's to stop more companies threatening to leave in order to get a better tax deal?

Just make policy that is business friendly and the rest will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How is this not "picking winners and losers," just like Republicans rightly blasted the current administration for doing? How is this not crony capitalism? Maybe I'm a small government loon, but I don't think cutting deals with individual companies is within the scope of govt. Like you say, what's to stop the company from down the street going to Trump to get its own deal? Not to mention, Trump and Co are trying to sell a free lunch. "We saved 1,000 jobs!" Yeah, and what's the cost? If you gave them tax breaks, who makes up the shortfall? Routine case of the seen vs the unseen.
 
57Brave said:
ya think ?
Click to expand...

You can stomp your feet in a tantrum all you want to.....

You can cry all you want to.......

Hold your breath till you turn blue.........

But the hag or any other Democrat is not going to be president. I am 100% in for Pence (Instead of Dumpster Fire which he is) to be president with Ryan as his vice.
 
acesfull86 said:
Exactly. How is this not "picking winners and losers," just like Republicans rightly blasted the current administration for doing? How is this not crony capitalism? Maybe I'm a small government loon, but I don't think cutting deals with individual companies is within the scope of govt. Like you say, what's to stop the company from down the street going to Trump to get its own deal? Not to mention, Trump and Co are trying to sell a free lunch. "We saved 1,000 jobs!" Yeah, and what's the cost? If you gave them tax breaks, who makes up the shortfall? Routine case of the seen vs the unseen.
Click to expand...

I'm admittedly a fan of having some sort of industrial policy--which puts me at odds with a number of libertarian/free market thinkers--but to have an effective industrial policy, it has to be well thought out and I don't see this here. This is simply a Wheel of Fortune approach based on individual companies and not entire industrial sectors. Look for more threats and companies going to Congress and having riders put onto bills en masse to protect their company. Terrible precedent out of the gate.

To the highlighted language, like I said above, this is the same crap pulled by businesses at the legislative and municipal level all of the time and we'll see if this Administration and Congress will show the discipline necessary to curb this crap. The taxpayers end up footing the bill and it's a very cost-inefficient way to promote economic development.
 
50PoundHead said:
I'm admittedly a fan of having some sort of industrial policy--which puts me at odds with a number of libertarian/free market thinkers--but to have an effective industrial policy, it has to be well thought out and I don't see this here. This is simply a Wheel of Fortune approach based on individual companies and not entire industrial sectors. Look for more threats and companies going to Congress and having riders put onto bills en masse to protect their company. Terrible precedent out of the gate.

To the highlighted language, like I said above, this is the same crap pulled by businesses at the legislative and municipal level all of the time and we'll see if this Administration and Congress will show the discipline necessary to curb this crap. The taxpayers end up footing the bill and it's a very cost-inefficient way to promote economic development.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely Wheel of Fortune...Trump making ad hoc policy decisions with individual firms is a recipe for disaster.
 
50PoundHead said:
But at some level, isn't that the problem? There's making money simply to make money and I think some of us think there is a better way to make slow incremental growth that pays workers fairly, keeps the basic business infrastructure solid, and ensures the future of the industry and, by extension, the country. We've become a country obsessed with stock prices over long term stability. As for this deal, I've watched for years and years in my work businesses coming to either the state legislature or a municipal government begging (and it is begging) for tax breaks, relaxation in zoning requirements, etc., and it really doesn't work over the long term. One of my smart-*ss observations is "Everyone's a capitalist when they are climbing the ladder, but they turn into a socialist when they get on the roof."
Click to expand...

It is absolutely the problem, but I'm not sure that checking profit is the balm to soothe that malaise. And I'm not sure that uniformity in the wage structure is the way to go, either.

There's a beauty in the free market - it's when government steps in (*cough* telecom *cough*) that things tend to become murky.

By the same token, I'm not entirely opposed to massaging the 'free' market by imposing taxes on companies who don't properly support their workers or don't toe an economically patriotic line (interpret that as you will.) But any regulation beyond that does make me uncomfortable, despite seeing the clear humanistic logic behind it.

I think you have to look to Japan as a cautionary example of how over-regulation can cripple an economy. Obviously, there's a huge cultural difference to take into account, but it's an interesting comp.
 
Hawk said:
It is absolutely the problem, but I'm not sure that checking profit is the balm to soothe that malaise. And I'm not sure that uniformity in the wage structure is the way to go, either.

There's a beauty in the free market - it's when government steps in (*cough* telecom *cough*) that things tend to become murky.

By the same token, I'm not entirely opposed to massaging the 'free' market by imposing taxes on companies who don't properly support their workers or don't toe an economically patriotic line (interpret that as you will.) But any regulation beyond that does make me uncomfortable, despite seeing the clear humanistic logic behind it.

I think you have to look to Japan as a cautionary example of how over-regulation can cripple an economy. Obviously, there's a huge cultural difference to take into account, but it's an interesting comp.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating checking profit per se. What I would like to see is business itself move away from the quarterly performance/stock price hamster wheel and think about long-term growth of companies. Markets are the most effective method of gathering information and setting the price structure, but they offer no assurance of anything else and in and of themselves of being rational. I think we are coming to a point where the country is going to need to look inward across a lot of fronts and the expectations of what a decent economic system will provide. I agree there is no amount of regulation that can deliver that. It is going to take some measure of cultural change.
 
acesfull86 said:
Exactly. How is this not "picking winners and losers," just like Republicans rightly blasted the current administration for doing? How is this not crony capitalism? Maybe I'm a small government loon, but I don't think cutting deals with individual companies is within the scope of govt. Like you say, what's to stop the company from down the street going to Trump to get its own deal? Not to mention, Trump and Co are trying to sell a free lunch. "We saved 1,000 jobs!" Yeah, and what's the cost? If you gave them tax breaks, who makes up the shortfall? Routine case of the seen vs the unseen.
Click to expand...

I think what gets lost in the shuffle here is that this decision was largely negotiated at the state level. And the tactic is not any different than we've seen for years with local governments vying for businesses to set up in their state. South Carolina tossed over a billion dollars (in 'incentives' and direct payments) Boeing's way to get them to set up a Dreamliner manufacturing plant in North Charleston. The exchange? 4K jobs and a $10 billion investment. Likewise with Carrier. Indiana gives them $7 million in incentives but receives a guarantee that Carrier will invest $16 million into its facilities (which ostensibly leads to more jobs and cements the company's operations in the state.)
 
goldfly said:
why though?

i honestly don't get it

what he has said and then surrounded himself around with obviously shows he has no desire to actually do any good or "drain the swamp"
Click to expand...

Because I believe in most of the principles he espouses and am willing to give him the opportunity to make good on his word. If he accomplishes even 30% of what he claimed he would do I think it puts this country in a better place headed forward.

If he doesn't, I'll be right with you in four years (or less - if he does something catastrophic) supporting an ungraceful oust.

I do disagree with you on his cabinet though. I like most of the picks ... with the exception of McConnell's wife and Treasury. I have no problem with Bannon and I especially like the Mattis play. Huntsman (or Romney even) at State would be a solid appointment, and, of course, the SCOTUS pick is huge.
 
50PoundHead said:
I'm not advocating checking profit per se. What I would like to see is business itself move away from the quarterly performance/stock price hamster wheel and think about long-term growth of companies. Markets are the most effective method of gathering information and setting the price structure, but they offer no assurance of anything else and in and of themselves of being rational. I think we are coming to a point where the country is going to need to look inward across a lot of fronts and the expectations of what a decent economic system will provide. I agree there is no amount of regulation that can deliver that. It is going to take some measure of cultural change.
Click to expand...

In my mind, this starts with a more thoughtful appropriation of taxed dollars back into the economy.
 
57Brave said:
Seems to me anyone with half a brain would have recognized the year and a half's worth of red flags that preceded Fridays phone call.
But hey that tough talk is mesmerizing, we giggled when he said Pussy in public and after all, the #emails
...............................................................................................

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-risk-behind-trumps-taiwan-call

When news broke of Trump’s phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, foreign-policy experts were, unsurprisingly, appalled. Since his election, Trump has conducted a series of phone calls with foreign leaders, without seeking expertise from those at the State Department and the National Security Council who monitor the details of those relationships. On Wednesday, he told Pakistan’s President that he would do whatever he could to help him—despite America’s strong interest in preventing Pakistan from doing many things it would like to do in India and Afghanistan. To use an analogy that Trump would recognize, it’s akin to arriving for a negotiation without first asking the value of the assets, the cost of the transaction, or the previous terms of engagement.
Click to expand...

If you want to take on China - as Trump said he would do - there is really no greater place to begin than Taiwan. China treats Taiwan like the ex-girlfriend that it just can't get over (so it stalks her with nuclear capable bombers).

A move like this is boldly neo-interventionist ... and it turned out pretty damned well when we engaged the same way with the South Koreans.
 
Hawk said:
In my mind, this starts with a more thoughtful appropriation of taxed dollars back into the economy.
Click to expand...

But that gets back to the bait-and-switch of "we'll give you a $100 tax break, but we'll reduce the quality of the services we provide you by $150." We're near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of taxes as a percentage of GDP and we trail most of those countries in providing services to our citizenry. Granted, we've been picking up the tab for defense of a lot of those countries and I support Trump's efforts to get some of those countries to contribute more, but our social safety net really sucks and we shouldn't be proud of that.
 
If you want to fix the economy end the war on drugs and retroactively pardon all drug offenders and wipe the convictions from their record. There are millions of Americans who cant get a decent job or a promotion at their job simply because of drug possession charge. There are millions of people who will have their lives severely disrupted in the future by the war on people. Kids without fathers. Innocent people started down a criminal path by heartless prosecutors who would otherwise would be peaceful and law abiding citizens. This **** is economic terrorism. Its not even debatable anymore. The war on people has had the same effect as alcohol prohibition. Its actually considered a human rights violation now by the UN to mass incarcerate people for drugs. By definition it is treason to levy war against the United States. Thats exactly what the war on people is. More Americans will be incarcerated from this war than Germany incarcerated in WW2. Eventually more people will die from the war on people than Germany killed in WW2. ISIS could never do the damage to this country that the war on people has done. We need to fight the real terrorist. The ones killing us from within.
 
50PoundHead said:
But that gets back to the bait-and-switch of "we'll give you a $100 tax break, but we'll reduce the quality of the services we provide you by $150." We're near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of taxes as a percentage of GDP and we trail most of those countries in providing services to our citizenry. Granted, we've been picking up the tab for defense of a lot of those countries and I support Trump's efforts to get some of those countries to contribute more, but our social safety net really sucks and we shouldn't be proud of that.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean by and through tax breaks - I meant into the (social) economy in general. To me, and I think we're in general agreement here, a $100 tax break is equitable to $100 spent on a social 'service' like a bridge or a new public library or other worthy social program. But the approach would have to be different than Obama's 2008 stimulus package, which was rushed and toothless and resulted in a hemorrhage of hundreds of millions in failed projects/misspent funds.

In a dream world, I'd like to see the lion's share of it go toward universal healthcare and a total revamping of social security, but I'm well aware that's a pipe dream.
 
The problem with the stimulus package is that after nearly 40 years since someone more liberal than Obama was in the White House, there was a lot of pent-up demand for some oddball pet projects that the Congressional Dems threw out there. Cash for Clunkers comes to mind. The direct money into state budgets was a fairly good idea as it kept state programs afloat that the states were in no position to fund given the recession (and also kept property taxes in line). But the only other part of the stimulus package should have been infrastructure. That universal access to broadband got such short shrift is really astonishing. Most important economic tool in the new economy that could have helped a lot of rural areas somehow got almost totally ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top